ExternE

8 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Questions can be asked, which are accessible to all project partners and the answers can be seen by all partners as well. Rather than a bilateral discussion, the ...
European Commission Directorate-General XII Science, Research and Development

ExternE Externalities of Energy

Vol XX : National Implementation

Prepared by CIEMAT, ES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the many people who have made possible this report. Firstly, we would like to thank the partners of the ExternE National Implementation project, who have provided the bulk of the information presented in this volume. Thanks to them also for the very helpful comments and discussions provided throughout the project. We would also like to thank the partners of the ExternE Core project, since without the improvement of methodological aspects carried out by this project, and their very helpful guidance, it would have been impossible to complete our task. The authors would like to thank the European Commission for their financial support for the project from the JOULE Programme, as well as the additional cofunders who have supported the work of the national teams.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS AUSTRIA Tomas Müller, VEO Johannes Riegler, DoKW Gerfried Jungmeier, Josef Spitzer, Joanneum Research Thomas Kostal, Gabriel Obermann, WU Wien Josef Klimbacher, KELAG Kurt Pree, Linzer Elektrizitäts-, Fernwärme- und Verkehrsbetriebe AG Otto Pirker, Verbundgesellschaft Bernhard Anwander, VKW BELGIUM Guido Wouters, Henk Vanderberghe, Leo de Nocker, Rudi Torfs, VITO DENMARK Lotte Schleisner, Per S. Nielsen, Poul E. Morthorst, Niels I. Meyer, RISØ FINLAND Pekka Pirilä, Kim Pingoud, Helena Malkki, VTT Tomas Ötterstrom, EKONO FRANCE Ari Rabl, Joe Spadaro, ARMINES GERMANY Wolfram Krewitt, Petra Mayerhofer, Rainer Friedrich, Alfred Trukenmuller, Thomas Heck, Alexander Greßmann, IER Fotis Raptis, Frank Kaspar, Jürgen Sachau, ISET Klaus Rennings, ZEW Jochen Diekmann, Barbara Praetorius, DIW GREECE D. Diakoulaki, S. Mirasgentis, E. Koukios, N. Diamantidis, C. Stamos, NTUA J. Kollas, NCSR Demokritos N. Beloyannis

IRELAND Sheenagh Rooney, Dara Connolly, UCD ITALY

Luca del Furia, Gianluca Crapanzano, Marcella Pavan, FEEM Sergio Ascari, Michele Fontana, Arturo Lorenzoni, IEFE Franco Maugliani, AEM THE NETHERLANDS C. Dorland, H.M.A. Jansen, R.S.J. Tol, D. Dodd, IVM NORWAY Stale Navrud, Jan Riise, ENCO PORTUGAL Manuel Fernandes, Valdemar Rodrigues, CEEETA SPAIN Mikel Aróstegui, Julián Leal, Pedro Linares, Rosa M. Sáez, Manuel Varela, CIEMAT Arturo Alarcón, TGI Julio Montes, Andrés Ramos, Lucía Muñoz, IIT Salvador Salat, Neus Sumarroca, ICAEN SWEDEN Monica Gullberg, Mans Nilsson, SEI UNITED KINGDOM Jacquie Berry, Mike Holland, Michael Cupit, ETSU

FOREWORD

CONTENTS 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... 1.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1.2 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 1.3 RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 1.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT........................................................................... 2.2 PUBLICATIONS FROM THE PROJECT.................................................................. 2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS VOLUME.......................................................................... METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... 3.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................... 3.2 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 3.3 THE ECOSENSE MODEL................................................................................... 3.4 THE EXTERNE INFO SYSTEM........................................................................... RESULTS FOR AUSTRIA........................................................................................ 4.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 4.2 GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................................. 4.3 HYDRO FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................ 4.4 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... RESULTS FOR BELGIUM....................................................................................... 5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 5.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 5.3 GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................................. 5.4 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE.................................................................................... 5.5 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 5.6 A POLICY CASE STUDY ON ELECTRICITY TAXATION....................................... 5.7 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR GERMANY..................................................................................... 6.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 6.2 THE FOSSIL FUEL CYCLES................................................................................ 6.3 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 6.4 THE PHOTOVOLTAIC FUEL CYCLE.................................................................... 6.5 THE WIND FUEL CYCLE................................................................................... 6.6 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 6.7 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 6.8 POLICY CASE STUDIES..................................................................................... 6.9 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR DENMARK..................................................................................... 7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 7.2 THE NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................... 7.3 THE BIOGAS FUEL CYCLE................................................................................ 7.4 THE WIND FUEL CYCLES, OFFSHORE AND ON LAND....................................... 7.5 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 7.6 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR SPAIN.............................................................................................. 8.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 8.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 8.3 NATURAL GAS FUEL

1 1 2 3 11 15 15 16 17 19 19 39 43 50 57 57 58 67 73 83 83 85 93 96 103 107 110 111 111 112 122 127 132 137 144 151 155 163 163 165 169 176 180 183 185 185 187 192

CYCLE............................................................................. BIOMASS/LIGNITES FUEL CYCLE...................................................................... 8.5 WIND FUEL CYCLE.......................................................................................... 8.6 WASTE INCINERATION..................................................................................... 8.7 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 8.8 POLICY CASE STUDY........................................................................................ 8.9 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR FINLAND....................................................................................... 9.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 9.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 9.3 PEAT FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 9.4 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 9.5 SUMMARY AND AGGREGATION........................................................................ RESULTS FOR FRANCE.......................................................................................... 10.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 10.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 10.3 NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 10.4 OIL FUEL CYCLE.............................................................................................. 10.5 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 10.6 WASTE INCINERATION..................................................................................... 10.7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS.................................................................................... 10.8 FRENCH ELECTRICITY SECTOR: AGGREGATE IMPACT...................................... 10.9 POLICY CASE STUDY- INCINERATORS AND CARS: A COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS AND DAMAGES............................................................................... 10.10 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR GREECE.......................................................................................... 11.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 11.2 LIGNITE FUEL CYCLE....................................................................................... 11.3 OIL FUEL CYCLE.............................................................................................. 11.4 NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 11.5 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 11.6 HYDRO FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................ 11.7 WIND FUEL CYCLE.......................................................................................... 11.8 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 11.9 POLICY CASE STUDY: SOCIAL COSTING AND THE COMPETITIVENESS OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES.................................................................................... 11.10 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR IRELAND........................................................................................ 12.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 12.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 12.3 PEAT FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 12.4 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 12.5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR ITALY.............................................................................................. 13.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 13.2 OIL FUEL CYCLE.............................................................................................. 13.3 GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................................. 8.4

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

197 203 206 212 216 219 221 221 225 235 243 251 255 255 255 260 263 266 270 276 279

284 286 289 289 291 296 301 305 312 316 320 325 333 337 337 340 347 355 360 363 363 365 370

13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

HYDROELECTRIC FUEL CYCLE......................................................................... WASTE INCINERATION..................................................................................... AGGREGATION................................................................................................. POLICY CASE STUDY........................................................................................ 13.8 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR THE NETHERLANDS................................................................... 14.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 14.2 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 14.3 THE COAL FUEL CYCLE................................................................................... 14.4 THE NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................... 14.5 THE BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE.............................................................................. 14.6 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 14.7 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 14.8 POLICY CASE STUDY........................................................................................ 14.9 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR NORWAY........................................................................................ 15.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 15.2 GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................................. 15.3 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 15.4 HYDRO FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................ 15.5 WIND FUEL CYCLE.......................................................................................... 15.6 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 15.7 POLICY CASE STUDIES..................................................................................... RESULTS FOR PORTUGAL.................................................................................... 16.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 16.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 16.3 NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 16.4 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 16.5 HYDRO FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................ 16.6 AGGREGATION................................................................................................. 16.7 POLICY CASE STUDY........................................................................................ 16.8 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR SWEDEN......................................................................................... 17.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 17.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE: VÄSTERÅS KVV.............................................................. 17.3 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE: HÄNDELÖVERKET....................................................... 17.4 HYDRO FUEL CYCLE: KLIPPENS KRAFTSTATION.............................................. 17.5 PRELIMINARY AGGREGATION.......................................................................... 17.6 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. RESULTS FOR UNITED KINGDOM...................................................................... 18.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 18.2 COAL FUEL CYCLE........................................................................................... 18.3 NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE............................................................................. 18.4 OIL FUEL CYCLE.............................................................................................. 18.5 ORIMULSION FUEL CYCLE...............................................................................

375 381 383 387 388 391 391 391 393 399 404 413 418 423 431 435 435 437 450 456 461 470 470 473 473 474 480 484 492 498 502 508 513 513 515 520 525 532 537 539 539 540 546 551 557

19.

18.6 BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE..................................................................................... 18.7 WIND FUEL CYCLE.......................................................................................... 18.8 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................... 19.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS................................................. 19.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS PER FUEL CYCLE........................................................ 19.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AGGREGATION..................................................... 19.4 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................

562 567 570 571 571 573 593 595

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction The use of energy causes damage to a wide range of receptors, including human health, natural ecosystems, and the built environment. Such damages are referred to as external costs, as they are not reflected in the market price of energy. These externalities have been traditionally ignored. However, there is a growing interest towards the internalisation of externalities to assist policy and decision making. Several European and international organisms have expressed their interest in this issue, as may be seen in the 5th Environmental Action Programme, in the White Paper on Growth, competitiveness and employment, or the White Paper on Energy, all from the European Commission. This interest has led to the development of internationally agreed tools for the evaluation of externalities, and to its application to different energy sources. Within the European Commission R&D Programme Joule II, the ExternE Project developed and demonstrated a unified methodology for the quantification of the externalities of different power generation technologies. Launched in 1991 as a collaborative project with the US-DOE, and continued afterwards by the EC as the ExternE project, it has involved more then 40 different European institutes from 9 countries, as well as scientists from the US. This resulted in the first comprehensive attempt to use a consistent 'bottom-up' methodology to evaluate the external costs associated with a wide range of different fuel cycles (or fuel cycles). The result was identified by both the European and American experts in this field as currently the most advanced project worldwide for the evaluation of external costs of power generation. Under Joule III, this project has been continued with three distinguished major tasks: ExternE Core for the further development and updating of the methodology, ExternE National Implementation to create an EU-wide data set and ExternE-Transport for the application of the ExternE methodology to energy related impacts from transport. The current report is the result of the ExternE National Implementation project. This study aims to disseminate and implement the ExternE Accounting framework of the EC for the assessment of the external costs of energy fuel cycles for power generation in the EU and Norway. To this purpose a network of scientific institutes in all these countries has been established.

1.2 Methodology The project has attempted to quantify the external costs and benefits of the major electricity generation technologies in Europe, and to aggregate these damages for national power systems, and to apply results to policy making issues. Therefore, representative technologies have been selected for the participant countries, based on the existing power systems, or on the expected development of these systems. The methodology used for the assessment of the externalities of the fuel cycles selected has been the one developed within the ExternE Project. This is a bottom-up methodology, which uses the “impact pathway” approach. Emissions and other types of burden such as risk of accident are quantified and followed through to impact assessment and valuation. The approach thus provides a logical way of quantifying externalities.

1

The ExternE National Implementation

The underlying principles on which the methodology has been developed are transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of the analysis. These characteristics should be present along the stages of the methodology, namely: site and technology characterisation, identification of burdens and impacts, prioritisation of impacts, quantification, and economic valuation. More details on the methodology in general, and on the specific methods for the valuation of each impact, may be found in the report issued by the ExternE Core Project (European Commission, 1998a), within which the methodology has been updated and further developed. The Core Project was also the one responsible for developing a methodology for the aggregation of results for the whole national power systems. Details on the specific implementation of the methodology to the different countries are found in the country sections of this report. For this aggregation exercise, as well as for the assessment of the damages of the fuel cycles studied, an essential tool has been the EcoSense model, developed by IER.

The EcoSense Model EcoSense was developed to support the assessment of priority impacts resulting from the exposure to airborne pollutants, namely impacts on health, crops, building materials, forests, and ecosystems. Although global warming is certainly among the priority impacts related to air pollution, this impact category is not covered by EcoSense because of the very different mechanism and global nature of impact. Priority impacts like occupational or public accidents are not included either because the quantification of impacts is based on the evaluation of statistics rather than on modelling. Version 2.0 of EcoSense covers 13 pollutants, including the ‘classical’ pollutants SO2, NOx, particulates and CO, as well as some of the most important heavy metals and hydrocarbons, but does not include impacts from radioactive nuclides. The data included in EcoSense are: a Reference Technology Database, a Reference Environment Database, Exposure-Response Functions, and Monetary Values. Two Air Transport Models are also included, to cover both the local and regional ranges. The impact assessment modules calculate the physical impacts and - as far as possible - the resulting damage costs by applying the exposure-response functions selected by the user to each individual gridcell, taking into account the information on receptor distribution and concentration levels of air pollutants from the reference environment database. Input data as well as intermediate results can be presented on several steps of the impact pathway analysis in either numerical or graphical format. Geographical information like population distribution or concentration of pollutants can be presented as maps. EcoSense generates a formatted report with a detailed documentation of the final results that can be imported into a spreadsheet programme.

1.3 Results The work carried out by all teams is presented here on a country by country basis. In addition, an overview of the results in summarized form is provided. 1.3.1 Summary of results for air pollutants Among the major impacts identified of electricity generation are those caused by air pollutants, such as particulates, SO2 and NOx. These pollutants have long range transboundary effects, and so they have become a major concern for most European countries. The Geneva Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollutants, sponsored by the UN, and in which the European Union participates, is the international body attempting at a reduction of these pollutants. The European Union, by itself, is also attempting to reduce the emissions of these pollutants, through different strategies such as emissions standards and economic instruments.

2

Executive Summary

In all cases, it is important to determine the benefits achieved by these reductions, to assess the efficiency of the policies implemented. In other words, it is required to determine the damages avoided with the reduction of the air emissions. This has also been carried out within the ExternE National Implementation Project. Given the European scale of the damages, there was an obvious need for a harmonised European-wide database supporting the assessment of environmental impacts from air pollutants.

Results All teams have used the EcoSense model for the assessment of the damages of air pollutants, and this has produced an extensive table of results. As damage figures are dominated by the human health effects, these figures are largely determined by the population affected. Given this site specificity, results vary considerably even within the same country, so no country-specific value should be expected. An important issue arises for countries placed at the edges of Europe. Since the receptors database only covers European countries, most of the damages caused by emissions produced in countries like Greece, or Finland, are produced in countries for which no data are available, and so damages are largely underestimated. However, there are some methods for upscaling adequately the damages, as has been demonstrated by the Greek team, by including population from Asia, North Africa and Eastern Europe. The Finnish team has also included part of Russian population, in order not to underestimate their results. For those sites near the sea, damages will also be smaller, as most of the pollutants will fall on the sea, these effects not being quantifiable yet. All these aspects may explain the large variation of results presented in Table 1.1. Results are presented following the YOLL approach for the valuation of mortality effects, as this has been the one recommended by the methodology. Table 1.1 Damages of air pollutants (in ECU per t of pollutant emitted) Country Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy The Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom

SO2 9,000 11,388-12,141 2,990-4,216 1,027-1,486 7,500-15,300 1,800-13,688 1,978-7,832 2,800-5,300 5,700-12,000 6,205-7,581 na 4,960-5,424 4,219-9,583 2,357-2,810 6,027-10,025

NOx 16,800 11,536-12,296 3,280-4,728 852-1,388 10,800-18,000 10,945-15,100 1,240-7,798 2,750-3,000 4,600-13,567 5,480-6,085 na 5,975-6,562 4,651-12,056 1,957-2,340 5,736-9,612

Particulates 16,800 24,536-24,537 3,390-6,666 1,340-2,611 6,100-57,000 19,500-23,415 2,014-8,278 2,800-5,415 5,700-20,700 15,006-16,830 na 5,565-6,955 4,418-20,250 2,732-3,840 8,000-22,917

na: not available

It has to be noted that, for NOx, only its impact via nitrates has been assessed with EcoSense. For its impact via ozone, the assessment is much more difficult, due to the complexity of the chemical reactions involved. The estimation of the damages of ozone has been carried out within the ExternE Core Project, and has resulted in an average figure for the whole Europe of 1,500 ECU/t of NOx emitted.

3

The ExternE National Implementation

As may be seen, the higher damages per t of pollutant emitted belong to Central European countries, mostly because of the large population affected. France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Northern Italy present very large damages. On the other hand, periferic countries such as Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy or Ireland present much lower damages. The extreme case corresponds to Scandinavian countries (esp. Finland and Sweden) and Greece. The very low damages present in this countries are not only due to the lower population affected, but also to the limitations of the methodology, which does not include non-European populations. This has been solved, at least in part, by the incorporation of Russian population into EcoSense, for Finland, and to the extrapolation of their results to cover Asian and North-African population, for Greece. In spite of the general trend identified, it has to be noted that site specificity even within countries is still an important aspect due to the presence of large population centres near plant sites, and to the influence of background emissions. The influence of large cities is shown mainly for the waste incineration plants, which are usually placed near or in large cities. This location produces very large damages, as shown especially in the French case, where particulates produce damages around 57,000 ECU/t in the Paris area . These large damages per t of pollutant emitted require then that emission factors are kept to the lowest, so that the external costs of electricity generated by these plants are not excessive. Background ammonia emissions, and the relative contributions of SO2 and NOx are also expected to affect the chemical transformations of aerosols, thus altering results. The main reason for such differences is the spatial variation in SO2, NOx, and NH3 emissions. The availability of free ammonia contributing to the formation of ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate, which in turn as secondary particles have a significant impact on human health, is an important parameter determining the damage costs resulting from power plant emissions. As ammonia is mainly emitted from agricultural activities, and the availability of free ammonia in the atmosphere also depends on the level of SO2 and NOx emissions from other sources, the damage costs we refer to as ‘energy’ externalities in fact strongly depend on emissions from various industrial activities. 1.3.2 Summary of Results for Fuel Cycles An overview of the results obtained by the different teams, for the fuel cycles covered, is presented in this section. The fuel cycles assessed are those shown in the following table. Table 1.2 Fuel cycles covered by the participating countries Fuel cycle Coal Lignite Peat Gas Oil Orimulsion Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Waste incineration

AT

BE

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

GR

IE

IT

NL

NO

PT

SE

UK

Results are presented using the Years-Of-Life-Lost approach recommended by the methodology for the health impacts (which usually dominate the non-global warming impacts). The results for global warming are expressed only for the illustrative restricted range. This presentation is expected to facilitate the comparison of results among countries and fuel cycles. Full ranges for results, and values obtained with the Value of Statistical

4

Executive Summary

Life approach for human health can be obtained from the national reports. For nuclear, results are presented for a discount rate of 0%. Again, results for 3% discount rate may be found in the national reports. The comparison may not be, however, so straightforward. In spite of the general objective of comparing similar technologies, the different national interests have produced a very broad range of technologies, fuels, and pollution abatement options. Therefore, due to the site- and technology-specificity of results, these will be sometimes very different. An important issue also is that of CHP plants. For these plants, the allocation of damages between heat and electricity is not so straightforward. Although a rule has been provided, which will help compare among damages of CHP plants, the comparison of their damages with “pure” power plants is not recommended. Although this may be seen by some as a disadvantage of the project, we understand that it should rather be considered one of its strengths. These problems are not artificial, but real ones, due to the different electricity schemes of the EU countries. So the project is contributing to show these differences, and the consequences they may have for common policy design. Table 1.3 Results of the implementation and update of the ExternE Accounting Framework

Country

AUT BE DE DK ES FI FR GR IE IT NL NO PT SE UK

Coal & lignite

37-150 30-55 35-65 48-77 20-44 69-99 46-84 59-84

Peat

Oil & orimul.

51-78

Damages in mECU/kWh Gas Nuclear Biomass

11-26 11-22 12-23 15-30 11-22

24-25 4.0-4.7 4.4-7.0

23-51 84-109 26-48

24-35 7-13

34-56

15-27 5-19 8-19 8-21

2.5

28-29 12.14 29-52* 8-11 6-7 1-8

Hydro

PV

Wind

1.4-3.3

0.5-0.6 0.9-1.6 1.8-1.9

Waste (ECU/t waste)

0.04**

6 5.1

15-24 67-92

2.4-2.6

33-38

28-42 42-67 18-42 46-67

29-47 31-52++

11-22

3.4 7.4

na

4-5 2.4 14-18 2.7-3 5.3-5.7

2.3 0.3 0.04-7

46-77 0.5-2.5

1.3-1.5

*: biomass co-fired with lignites **: benefits not included ++ : orimulsion na: available in Jan 98 As may be seen, results differ considerably among implementations and fuel cycles. Regarding the implementations, this can be explained by the differences in location and technologies, as already mentioned. In general terms, it may be said that fossil fuels, especially coal, lignites and oil, present the largest damages. Natural gas is the exception, with quite low damages. It may be seen that the damages of the natural gas fuel cycle are very similar for all implementations. This is due to the fact that, for this fuel cycle, the technologies assessed have been very similar, contrarily to what has happened for other fuel cycles. For biomass, for example, the technologies, or fuels used, as well as the assumptions of the assessments, have varied largely, producing a large range for results. Renewable energy sources, together with nuclear, present the lowest damages. While for nuclear this might be explained by the still large limitations of the study, for renewables this is due to their CO2-free character, and to

5

The ExternE National Implementation

the low related pollutant emissions. This is not the case for biomass, however, since TSP and NOx emissions of this fuel cycle produce rather high damages. 1.3.3 Summary of Results for Aggregation As may be observed in the description of the methodology, several aspects make the aggregation of results really difficult. Many strong assumptions have to be used, and therefore, the results are not expected to be very reliable. Regarding fossil fuels, while some countries have been able to use the multi-source EcoSense model, or have improved the simplified approach proposed, others have calculated aggregated damages based only on a few results, so the reliability of their numbers is clearly diminished. As for nuclear and hydro, the transferability of the figures estimated is highly controversial, so, for those countries where these energy sources have a large share, the aggregated damages should be observed with great caution. In fact, these results should be considered in most cases just as preliminary, approximate figures, which might be used only as background information. Further research, both on modelling, and on transferability of damages, is needed, before these results may be used for policy-making purposes. It has to be remarked that the results presented here are a very simple summary of the work undertaken by the national teams. Therefore, it is recommended to read the details of the work in the national reports, rather than directly using these figures. The range used for fossil fuels covers only the illustrative restricted range for global warming damages.

Table 1.4 Results of the aggregation

Country

AT BE (1995)

Electricity generated (TWh/yr) Fossil Nuclear Renew TOTA L

Fossil

External costs (MECU/yr) Nuclear Renew. TOTAL

no aggregation was carried out 1,893-5148 158-183 65.8

26.6

39.2

0.05

270

147

ng

417

9,900-17,118

ng

2,050-5,411

121-691

ng

10,021-17,809

DE (1990) (FRG) DE (1990) (GDR) DK (1995)

94

5

ng

99

37,002-41,003

4-24

ng

37,006-41,027

83.8

-

1.4

85

1,706-2,401

-

1.4-1.8

1,776-2,530

ES (1996)

66.1

53.7

41.6

161

7,137-9,107

171

83

7,391-9,361

FI (1995) FR (1995)

23.6 36.2

18.1 385

18.9 81

61 502

829* 4,106-5,085

ng 19

91 243

920* 4,364-5,347

GR (1995)

36.4

-

3.8

40

3,711-5,005

-

7.7

3,719-5,013

IE (1996)

15.4

-

1.0

16.4

720-1,300

-

ng

720-1300

IT (1990)

181

-

38

225

13,000-16,000

-

ng

13,000-16,000

NL (1994)

76.6

3.9

1.54

82

1,490-2,670

28

3.5-4.5

1,522-2,703

NO (1995) PT (1995)

20.9

-

123 10

123 31

1,274-1,783

-

286 2.7-3.0

286 1,277-1,786

SE (1994)

7.7

70.2

60

138

162*

23

117

302*

6

% GDP (1994) 1.23.1 0.71.2 27-30 2.02.9 1.62.1 1.3 0.50.6 3.95.2 1.73.1 1.51.8 0.61.1 0.4 1.31.8 0.2

Executive Summary

results reported in the JOS3-CT95-002 project UK *results for fossil fuels only calculated for the upper estimate of the restricted range (46 ECU/t) Results for fossil fuels for The Netherlands have been calculated accounting for stack height, flue gas temperature, emission factors, and location, by means of regression analysis. If this analysis were not carried out, and damages were transferred directly, results would be reduced to a 50-70%. For Portugal, Spain, and France, damages have been calculated for several sites using EcoSense, and extrapolated to other plants when needed, based on the emission factors of these plants. In Italy, the approach has been the same, although the emissions considered have been those included in CORINAIR database. This database has also been used for Germany, for the multi-source EcoSense model. Denmark and Sweden have used the simplified approach proposed in the methodology, applying the damages calculated to the total country emissions. For nuclear and renewables, most countries have transferred results from other countries or locations, what makes the figures produced more unreliable. The total damages obtained might be translated into an average externality for the electricity generated in the country. This figure is only indicative, since it will neglect the differences between fuels and technologies. However, it may be useful for comparing the environmental impact of the different national electricity systems in Europe. These externalities are presented in the following figure.

414 160

Low High

140

374

mECU/kWh

120

100

80

60

no data

20

no data

40

0 AT

BE

DE- DE- DK FRG GRD

ES

FI

FR

GR

IE

IT

NL

NO

PT

SE

UK

Figure 1.1 Externalities of EU power systems As may be seen in the figure, damages are higher for those countries where coal or lignites are used more extensively, and lower for those where nuclear and renewables have a larger share. In addition, central European countries also present larger damages, because of the greater populations affected. 1.3.4 Policy Case Studies Two major types of policy case studies have been undertaken within the National Implementation Project, which illustrate the application of the results obtained within the project.

7

The ExternE National Implementation

The first one, and the most straightforward, is its use for the assessment of the social costs and benefits of different energy policies. This has been the case of the British and German studies. In them, the external costs of different policies, such as the acidification strategy of the EU and the EU large combustion plant directive (LCPD) have been analysed. The utilisation of externalities for these purposes is recommended, since most of the uncertainties lied to their valuation are not so relevant for this type of studies. Indeed, the social cost effectiveness of these policies or scenarios only requires that benefits are larger than costs, its precise magnitude not being so relevant. Thus, external costs or benefits may be calculated in order of certainty, that is, the most certain impacts are valued first. If benefits are greater than costs, then the analysis does not have to go into more uncertain externalities (for example, global warming effects). The second one is the integration of externalities into energy planning processes. This has been demonstrated by the Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch studies. In this type of studies, externalities are used as an additional criteria for the evaluation of different energy scenarios, thus introducing the environmental aspects into the social cost optimisation process. The advantage of using externalities as this additional criteria, instead of the common indicators such as pollutant emissions, is, among others, that the criteria are expressed in the same monetary terms, what takes away some of the subjetiveness of the decision process. The Spanish case study also shows the advantages of valuing externalities as a way of introducing environmental considerations into dispatching optimisation models, without the need to modify the general linear programming structure of these models.. In addition, much of the uncertainties lied to the assessment of externalities are removed when these alternative energy scenarios are compared with the same assumptions and methods, as does the ExternE Methodology. In general, both types of studies show that cleaner technologies, such as renewables, gas, or nuclear, or pollution abatement technologies, are always profitable from a social point of view, even though not all their environmental benefits have been assessed yet. This social profitability is reflected in the larger share captured by these technologies in electricity dispatching decisions, the extension of power systems, or future energy scenarios. Other possible uses of externalities, a bit outside the energy sector, are those undertaken by the French and Italian teams. Both address the highly controversial issue of MSW incineration. While the Italian team compares incineration to landfilling, the French team compares the damages caused by waste incineration with that produced by cars. While the preliminary conclusion of the first is that landfilling may be more environmentally benign than incineration, under the assumptions and conditions considered, the French teams point to the rather interesting fact that, in spite of the social concern against incineration, cars produce much larger damages. These studies illustrate the fact that environmental policies should be addressed with an integrated approach, moving across sectors if required. This would require, of course, the extension of the assessment of externalities to other environmentally-relevant sectors, such as transport, or industry. The full list of policy case studies carried out is presented below. - A Policy Case Study on Electricity Taxation (VITO)

- Benefits of an Acidification Strategy for the European Union (ETSU+IER) - Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pollution Abatement Options for Large Combustion Plants (ETSU+IER) - Introduction of Externalities into the Electricity Dispatching System in Spain (CIEMAT+IIT) - Incinerators and Cars: a Comparison of Emissions and Damages (ARMINES) - Social Costing and the Competitiveness of Renewable Energies (NTUA) - Solid Waste Incineration vs. Landfilling (IEFE) - Externalities of Energy Scenarios in The Netherlands (IVM) - Cost-benefit analysis of measures to reduce air pollution & decision on building gas fired power plants in Norway (ENCO)

8

Executive Summary

- Strategies for Meeting Future Electricity Demand in São Miguel Island (Azores archipelago) (CEEETA)

1.4 Conclusions The major conclusion of this study may be that, in spite of the uncertainties underlying the analysis, a large set of externalities for electricity generation has been calculated, and therefore, a first attempt towards the integration of environmental aspects into energy policy may be carried out, taking into account all the limitations which will be explained later. The fact that this study has been carried out at an European level implies that the results may be compared across countries, thus supporting the site-specificity of the externalities assessed. The comparison may not be, however, so straightforward. In spite of the general objective of comparing similar technologies, the different national interests have produced a very broad range of technologies, fuels, and abatement options. Therefore, due to the site- and technology-specificity of results, these will be sometimes very different. Among the most significant fuel cycles for which differences are more obvious among countries are the nuclear and biomass fuel cycles, since upstream activities for these cycles (the extraction of the fuel used, its transport and processing) are highly variable among countries, and therefore their impacts will vary to a large extent. An important issue also is that of CHP plants. For these plants, the allocation of damages between heat and electricity is not so straightforward. Although a rule has been provided, which will help compare among damages of CHP plants, the comparison of their damages with “pure” power plants is not recommended. Although this may be seen by some as a disadvantage of the project, we understand that it should rather be considered one of its strengths. These problems are not artificial, but real ones, due to the different electricity schemes of the EU countries. So the project is contributing to show these differences, and the consequences they may have for common policy design. Regarding the figures obtained for external costs, it has to be noted that, although the results are considered subtotals, that is, that there are still a number of impacts to be quantified in monetary terms, these figures are already significant, specially if global warming damages are taken into account. For example, the coal fuel cycles assessed show external costs of around 50 mECU/kWh, what is at least the same magnitude as the private costs. Gas, which is always considered as a clean fuel, also shows external costs around 10 mECU/kWh, what is also significant. In general, it may be said that fossil fuels have significant external costs, while renewable energies have very small ones. The nuclear fuel cycle also features small external costs, although it is not so clear whether all the significant impacts of this fuel cycle have been duly quantified. When it comes to the aggregation of the damages for the whole electricity sector of the participating countries, the figures obtained, although still preliminary, show significant values, up to 1% of the GDP for some countries. Therefore, it might be concluded that the external costs of some fuel cycles are high enough to affect energy policy decisions. However, here it has to be reminded that the methodology has still a large number of uncertainties. These uncertainties create some difficulties for using the results directly for policy-making. Several aspects should be improved, mainly the estimation of global warming damages. Atmospheric dispersion models, which, at least for some countries, should account for the complex topographic conditions are also a controversial aspect. An important issue which should also be studied is the relationship between atmospheric pollution and chronic mortality, and the valuation of the deaths produced by atmospheric pollution. Regarding global warming damages, its range of estimated results is so broad that it dominates the results for fossil fuel cycles. This produces that, when the higher estimate for global warming damages is considered, fossil

9

The ExternE National Implementation

fuels cannot compete with nuclear, or renewables. Therefore, the high estimates for global warming benefit to a large extent these energy sources. Considering that chronic mortality is, by large, the major externality, besides from global warming damages, of fossil fuel cycles, the fact that there is only one exposure-response function for its estimation, and that this function comes from the US, without being checked in Europe, adds a lot of uncertainty to the final results. The valuation of human life is also a significant factor affecting the results, as it determines the human health externality, which, as said before, is the major one. Controversy still exists around this issue, and, in spite of the modifications introduced in the valuation of life by the Core Project, the values assigned are still contested outside the project. All these uncertainties affect the individual fuel cycles examined. For the aggregation of results to the whole electricity sector, more problems arise, such as the transferability of results from one site to another, or the accounting of effects for which there is a threshold. Indeed, differences in the damages per t of pollutant emitted between different sites are quite large, so the direct transfer of results from one site to another is not reasonable. In the case of nuclear or hydro, this transferability is even more difficult. Hence, it is recommended to use the results provided by this report only as background information. This background information might be very useful for establishing economic incentives, such as environmental taxes, or subsidies for renewable energies, or for energy planning measures. However, as said before, results should not be used directly, until the methodology is refined. For what results may be used directly, though, is for planning processes where the quantitative results are not so relevant, as shown by the different policy case studies carried out within the project. This is the case, for example, of cost-benefit analysis of policy measures, or for choosing among different energy alternatives. In general, both types of studies show that cleaner technologies, such as renewables, gas, or nuclear, or pollution abatement technologies, are always profitable from a social point of view, even though not all their environmental benefits have been assessed yet. This social profitability is reflected in the larger share captured by these technologies in electricity dispatching decisions, the extension of power systems, or future energy scenarios. Other case studies have also been undertaken outside the electricity sector, illustrating the fact that environmental policies should be addressed with an integrated approach, moving across sectors if required. This would require, of course, the extension of the assessment of externalities to other environmentally-relevant sectors, such as transport, or industry. Although further research is required to refine the methodology, and thus, to produce more precise results, removing the existing uncertainties, this report is the first comprehensive attempt to estimate the externalities of electricity generation in the EU. The ExternE Project has succeeded in quantifying externalities and their associated uncertainties in more detail than any previous study. The uncertainties are rather large, but they are more a reflection of the existing knowledge than a function of the methodology used. The ExternE results therefore provide the information that policy makers need to make informed decisions about energy/environment issues, enabling them to balance the risks of not taking action against the costs of doing so. This fact has already been accepted by the scientific community, and is starting to get attention from the industry and policy makers, due to the dissemination activities carried out within the project.

10

2. INTRODUCTION Economic development of the industrialised nations of the world has been founded on continuing growth in energy demand. The use of energy clearly provides enormous benefits to society. However, it is also linked to numerous environmental and social problems, such as the health effects of pollution of air, water and soil, ecological disturbance and species loss, and landscape damage. Such damages are referred to as external costs, as they have typically not been reflected in the market price of energy, or considered by energy planners, and consequently have tended to be ignored. Effective control of these ‘externalities’ whilst pursuing further growth in the use of energy services poses a serious and difficult problem. The European Commission has expressed its intent to respond to this challenge on several occasions; in the 5th Environmental Action Programme; the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment; and the White Paper on Energy. A variety of options are available for reducing externalities, ranging from the development of new technologies to the use of fiscal instruments, or the imposition of emission limits. The purpose of externalities research is to quantify damages in order to allow rational decisions to be made that weigh the benefits of actions to reduce externalities against the costs of doing so. Within the European Commission R&D Programme Joule II, the ExternE Project developed and demonstrated a unified methodology for the quantification of the externalities of different power generation technologies. It was launched as the EC-US Fuel Cycles Study in 1991 as a collaborative project with the US Department of Energy. From 1993 to 1995 it continued as the ExternE project, involving more then 40 European institutes from 9 countries, as well as scientists from the US. This resulted in the first comprehensive attempt to use a consistent ‘bottom-up’ methodology to evaluate the external costs associated with a wide range of different fuel cycles (or fuel chains). The result was identified by both the European and American experts in this field as currently the most advanced project world-wide for the evaluation of external costs of power generation (EC/OECD/IEA, 1995). Under the European Commission’s Joule III Programme, this project has continued with three major tasks: ExternE Core for the further development and updating of the methodology, ExternE National Implementation to create an EU-wide data set and ExternE-Transport for the application of the ExternE methodology to energy related impacts from transport. The current report is the result of the ExternE National Implementation project.

2.1 Objectives of the Project The objective of the ExternE National Implementation project is to establish a comprehensive and comparable set of data on externalities of power generation for all EU member states and Norway. The tasks include; • the application of the ExternE methodology to the most important fuel cycles for each country • updating existing results as new data become available for refinement of methods • aggregation of site- and technology-specific results to the national level • for countries already involved in Joule II, data have been applied to policy questions, to indicate how these data could feed into decision and policy making processes • dissemination of results • creation of a network of scientific institutes familiar with the ExternE methodology and data, and their application • compilation of results in an EU-wide information system for the study. The data in this report results from the application of ExternE-methodology as developed under Joule II. However, because our understanding of the impacts of environmental burdens on humans and nature is

11

The ExternE National Implementation

improving continuously, this methodology (or more precise, the scientific inputs into the accounting framework) has been updated and further developed. These developments have been duly incorporated in the present project. The National Implementation project has generated a large set of comparable and validated results, covering more than 60 cases, for 15 countries and 12 fuel cycles. A wide range of generating options have been analysed, including fossil, nuclear and renewable technologies. Analysis takes account of all stages of the fuel cycle, from (e.g.) extraction of fuel to disposal of waste material from the generating plant. In addition to the estimates of externalities made in the study, the project also offers a large database of physical and social data on the burdens and impacts of energy systems. The ExternE results form the most extensive externality dataset currently available. They can now be used to look at a range of issues, including; • internalisation of the external costs of energy • optimisation of site selection processes • cost benefit analysis of pollution abatement measures • comparative assessment of energy systems Such applications are illustrated by the case studies presented later in this report.

2.2 Publications from the Project The current volume is to be seen as part of a larger set of publications, which commenced with the series of volumes published in 1995 (European Commission, 1995a-f). A further series of reports has been generated under the present study. First, the current volume covers the results of the National Implementation in the EU of the ExternE Accounting Framework, and has been prepared by CIEMAT, with contributions from all teams participating in the project. It contains all the details of the application of the methodology to 15 countries and 12 fuel cycles, together with the preliminary results for the aggregation of damages for national electricity sectors, and policy case studies demonstrating the applicability of the results obtained to policy and decision making. Brief details of the methodology are provided in Chapter 2 of this report; a more detailed review is provided in a separate report (European Commission, 1998a). A further report covers the development of estimates of global warming damages (European Commission, 1998b). Details on the national implementations may be collected from the national reports to be published by the leading teams in each country. In addition, further reports are to be published on the biomass and waste fuel cycles, and on the application and further development of the ExternE methodology for the transport sector. This information can also be accessed through the ExternE website. It is held at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, and is accessible through the Internet (http://externe.jrc.es). This website is the focal point for the latest news on the project, and hence will provide updates on the continuation of the ExternE project.

2.3 Structure of this Volume The structure of this volume reflects that it is part of a wider set of publications. Chapter 2 describes the general framework of the selected bottom-up methodology, which is discussed at full length in the separate methodology publication (see above). This section also contains a summary of the aggregation methodology, the description of the EcoSense model used for the assessment of fossil fuel cycles, and an overview of the ExternE Info System held at IPTS.

12

Introduction

After this introduction, Part I of the report covers the work carried out by the national teams. Here only summaries of this work are presented, compiling the results obtained for each fuel cycle assessed, the preliminary aggregation of damages for national electricity sectors, and a brief description of the policy case studies undertaken. More details of this national work may be collected from the reports to be published by each of the national teams. Part II summarizes and compares the results presented above, both for air pollutants, and for fuel cycles. Aggregated electricity sector damages are also compared. Again, only a summary of these comparisons is presented. Further details are included in the final report of the project presented to the European Commission, or may be requested from the coordinator of the project.

13

The ExternE National Implementation

References EC/OECD/IEA (1995) Proceedings of the First EC/OECD/IEA Workshop on Energy Externalities: The External Costs of Energy. Brussels 30-31 January 1995. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995a). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 1, Summary.

European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995b). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 2, Methodology. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995c). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 3, Coal and Lignite Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995d). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 4, Oil and Gas Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995e). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 5, Nuclear Fuel Cycle. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995f). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 6, Wind and Hydro Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1998a). ‘ExternE’ Project. Methodology Report, 2nd Edition. To be published. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1998b). ‘ExternE’ Project. Analysis of Global Warming Externalities. To be published.

14

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 General Here a brief overview is presented of the ExternE Methodology. This methodology has been used by all teams of the ExternE National Implementation project, based on the recommendations of the ExternE Core project (JOS3-CT95-002). More details of the methodology may be found on the volume to be published by the European Commission on the outcome of the abovementioned ExternE Core project, and in the ExternE volumes already published by the European Commission. 3.1.1 Approaches Used for Externality Analysis The ExternE Project uses the ‘impact pathway’ approach for the assessment of the external impacts and associated costs resulting from the supply and use of energy. The analysis proceeds sequentially through the pathway, as shown in Figure 3.1. Emissions and other types of burden such as risk of accident are quantified and followed through to impact assessment and valuation. The approach thus provides a logical and transparent way of quantifying externalities. However, this style of analysis has only recently become possible, through developments in environmental science and economics, and improvements in computing power has. Early externalities work used a ‘top-down’ approach (the impact pathway approach being ‘bottom-up’ in comparison). Such analysis is highly aggregated, being carried out at a regional or national level, using estimates of the total quantities of pollutants emitted or present and estimates of the total damage that they cause. Although the work of Hohmeyer (1988) and others advanced the debate on externalities research considerably, the style of analysis was too simplistic for adoption for policy analysis. In particular, no account could be taken of the dependence of damage with the location of emission, beyond minor corrections for variation of income at the valuation stage. An alternative approach was the ‘control cost’ method, which substitutes the cost of reducing emissions of a pollutant (which are determined from engineering data) for the cost of damages due to these emissions. Proponents of this approach argued that when elected representatives decide to adopt a particular level of emissions control they express the collective ‘willingness-to-pay’ of the society that they represent to avoid the damage. However, the method is entirely self-referencing - if the theory was correct, whatever level of pollution abatement is agreed would by definition equal the economic optimum. Although knowledge of control costs is an important element in formulating prescriptive regulations, presenting them as if they were damage costs is to be avoided. Life cycle analysis (OECD, 1992; Heijungs et al, 1992; Lindfors et al, 1995) is a flourishing discipline whose roots go back to the net energy analyses that were popular twenty years ago. While there are several variations, all life cycle analysis is in theory based on a careful and holistic accounting of all energy and material flows associated with a system or process. The approach has typically been used to compare the environmental impacts associated with different products that perform similar functions, such as plastic and glass bottles. Restriction of the assessment to material and energy flows means that some types of externality (such as the fiscal externalities arising from energy security) are completely outside the scope of LCA.

15

The ExternE National Implementation

EMISSIONS (e.g. tonnes/year of SO2)

DISPERSION INCREASE IN AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS (e.g. ppb SO2 for all affected regions)

IMPACT

IMPACT (e.g. change in crop yield) CONCENTRATION

COST

Figure 3.1 An illustration of the main steps of the impact pathways methodology applied to the consequences of pollutant emissions. Each step is analysed with detailed process models. The ExternE method has numerous links to LCA. The concept of fuel cycle or fuel cycle analysis (both terms are used as synonyms in this report), in which all components of a given system are analysed ‘from cradle to grave’, corresponds with the LCA framework. Hence for electric power fuel cycles the analysis undertaken within the ExternE Project covers (so far as possible); fuel extraction, transportation and preparation of fuels and other inputs; plant construction, plant operation (power generation), waste disposal and plant decommissioning. There are, however, some significant differences between externalities analysis as presented in this study and typical LCA analysis. Life cycle analyses tend not to be specific on the calculation of impacts, if they have attempted to quantify impacts at all. For example, the ‘classification factors’ identified by Heijungs et al (1992) for each pollutant are independent of the site of release. For air pollution these factors were calculated with the assumption of uniform mixing in the earth's atmosphere. While this can be justified for greenhouse gases and other pollutants with long residence times, it is unrealistic for particulate matter, NOx, SO2 and ozone (O3). The reason for this radical approximation lies in the choice of emphasis in LCA: accounting for all material flows, direct and induced. Since induced flows occur at many geographically different points under a variety of different conditions, it is simply not practicable to model the fate of all emissions. In this sense, ExternE is much more ambitious and precise in its estimates than LCA.

16

Methodology

A second difference is that most LCA studies have a much more stringent view on system boundaries and do not prioritise between different impacts. The ExternE analysts have to a large extent decided themselves if certain stages of the fuel cycle, such as plant construction or fuel transportation, can be excluded. Such decisions are made from experience of the likely magnitude of damages, and a knowledge of whether a given type of impact is perceived to be serious. [Note that it is recommended to quantify damages for any impact perceived to be serious whether or not earlier analysis has suggested that associated damages will be negligible]. What might be referred to as analytical ‘looseness’ is a consequence of the remit of the ExternE project, which has as a final objective quantification of the externalities of energy systems. As such the main emphasis of the study is quite properly on the impacts that are likely (given current knowledge) to dominate the results. Externalities assessments based on the ExternE methodology but conducted for other purposes may need to take a more truly holistic perspective than has been attempted here. The analysis presented in this report places its emphasis on the quantification of impacts and cost because people care more about impacts than emissions. The quantification of emissions is merely a step in the analysis. From this perspective the choice between externalities assessment and conventional LCA is a matter of accuracy; uncertainties increase the further the analysis is continued. In general terms, however, it is our view that the fuel cycle analyses of the ExternE Project can be considered a particular example of life cycle analysis. 3.1.2 Guiding Principles in the Development of the ExternE Methodology The underlying principles on which the methodology for the ExternE Project has been developed are: Transparency, to show precisely how results are calculated, the uncertainty associated with the results and the extent to which the external costs of any fuel cycle have been fully quantified. Consistency, of methodology, models and assumptions (e.g. system boundaries, exposure-response functions and valuation of risks to life) to allow valid comparisons to be made between different fuel cycles and different types of impact within a fuel cycle. That analysis should be comprehensive, we should seek to at least identify all of the effects that may give rise to significant externalities, even if some of these cannot be quantified in either physical or monetary terms. In order to comply with these principles, much of the analysis described in this report looks at the effects of individual power projects which are closely specified with respect to: • The technologies used; • The location of the power generation plant; • The location of supporting activities; • The type of fuel used; • The source and composition of the fuel used. Each of these factors is important in determining the magnitude of impacts and hence associated externalities. 3.1.3 Defining the Boundaries of the Analysis The starting point for fuel cycle analysis is the definition of the temporal and spatial boundaries of the system under investigation, and the range of burdens and impacts to be addressed. The boundaries used in the ExternE Project are very broad. This is essential in order to ensure consistency in the application of the methodology for different fuel cycles.

17

The ExternE National Implementation

Certain impacts brought within these boundaries cannot be quantified at the present time, and hence the analysis is incomplete. However, this is not a problem peculiar to this style of analysis; it simply reflects the existence of gaps in available knowledge. Our rule here is that no impact that is known or suspected to exist, but cannot be quantified, should be ignored for convenience. Instead it should be retained for consideration alongside whatever analysis has been possible. Further work is needed so that unquantified effects can be better integrated into decision making processes.

Stages of the fuel cycle For any project associated with electricity generation the system is centred on the generation plant itself. However, the system boundaries should be drawn so as to account for all potential effects of a fuel cycle. The exact list of stages is clearly dependent on the fuel cycle in question, but would include activities linked to the manufacture of materials for plant, construction, demolition and site restoration as well as power generation. Other stages may need to be considered, such as, exploration, extraction, processing and transport of fuel, and the generation of wastes and by-products, and their treatment prior to disposal. In practice, a complete analysis of each stage of a fuel cycle is often not necessary in order to meet the objectives of the analysis (see below). However, the onus is on the analyst to demonstrate that this is the case it cannot simply be assumed. Worth noting is the fact that variation in laws and other local conditions will lead to major differences between the importance of different stages in different parts of the world. A further complication arises because of the linkage between fuel cycles and other activities, upstream and downstream. For example, in theory we should account for the externalities associated with (e.g.) the production of materials for the construction of the plant used to make the steel that is used to make turbines, coal wagons, etc. The benefit of doing so is, however, extremely limited. Fortunately this can be demonstrated through order-of-magnitude calculations on emissions, without the need for detailed analysis. The treatment of waste matter and by-products deserves special mention. Impacts associated with waste sent for disposal are part of the system under analysis. However, impacts associated with waste utilised elsewhere (which are here referred to not a waste but as by-products) should be considered as part of the system to which they are transferred from the moment that they are removed from the boundaries of the fuel cycle. It is of course important to be sure that a market exists for any such by-products. The capacity of, for example, the building industry to utilise gypsum from flue gas desulphurisation systems is clearly finite. If it is probable that markets for particular by-products are already saturated, the ‘by-product’ must be considered as waste instead. A further difficulty lies in the uncertainties about future management of waste storage sites. For example, if solid residues from a power plant are disposed in a well engineered and managed landfill there is no impact (other than land use) as long as the landfill is correctly managed; however, for the more distant future such management is not certain.

Location of fuel cycle activities One of the distinguishing features of the ExternE study is the inclusion of site dependence. For each stage of each fuel cycle we have therefore identified specific locations for the power plant and all of the other activities drawn within the system boundaries. In some cases this has gone so far as to identify routes for the transport of fuel to power stations. The reason for defining our analysis to this level of detail is simply that location is important in determining the size of impacts. There are several elements to this, the most important of which are: • Variation in technology arising from differing legal requirements (e.g. concerning the use of pollution abatement techniques, occupational safety standards, etc.); • Variation in fuel quality;

18

Methodology

• Variations in atmospheric dispersion; • Differences in the sensitivity of the human and natural environment upon which fuel cycle burdens impact. The alternative to this would be to describe a ‘representative’ site for each activity. It was agreed at an early stage of the study that such a concept is untenable. Also, recent developments elsewhere, such as use of critical loads analysis in the revision of the Sulphur Protocol within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UN ECE) Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, demonstrate the importance attached to site dependence by decision makers. However, the selection of a particular series of sites for a particular fuel cycle is not altogether realistic, particularly in relation to upstream impacts. For example, although some coal fired power stations use coal from the local area, an increasing number use coal imported from a number of different countries. This has now been taken into account.

Identification of fuel cycle technologies The main objective of this project was to quantify the external costs of power generation technologies built in the 1990s. For the most part it was not concerned with future technologies that are as yet unavailable, nor with older technologies which are gradually being decommissioned. Over recent years an increasingly prescriptive approach has been taken to the regulation of new power projects. The concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT), coupled with emission limits and environmental quality standards defined by both national and international legislation, restrict the range of alternative plant designs and rates of emission. This has made it relatively easy to select technologies for each fuel cycle on a basis that is consistent across fuel cycles. However, care is still needed to ensure that a particular set of assumptions are valid for any given country. Across the broader ExternE National Implementation Project particular variation has for example been found with respect to the control of NOx in different EU Member States. As stated above, the present report deals mainly with closely specified technology options. Results have also been aggregated for the whole electricity generating sector, providing first estimates of damages at the national level.

Identification of fuel cycle burdens For the purposes of this project the term ‘burden’ relates to anything that is, or could be, capable of causing an impact of whatever type. The following broad categories of ‘burden’ have been identified: • Solid wastes; • Liquid wastes; • Gaseous and particulate air pollutants; • Risk of accidents; • Occupational exposure to hazardous substances; • Noise; • Others (e.g. exposure to electro-magnetic fields, emissions of heat).

19

The ExternE National Implementation

During the identification of burdens no account has been taken of the likelihood of any particular burden actually causing an impact, whether serious or not. For example, in spite of the concern that has been voiced in recent years there is no definitive evidence that exposure to electro-magnetic fields associated with the transmission of electricity is capable of causing harm. The purpose of the exercise is simply to catalogue everything to provide a basis for the analysis of different fuel cycles to be conducted in a consistent and transparent manner, and to provide a firm basis for revision of the analysis as more information on the effects of different burdens becomes available in the future. The need to describe burdens comprehensively is highlighted by the fact that it is only recently that the effects of long range transport of acidic pollutants, and the release of CFCs and other greenhouse gases have been appreciated. Ecosystem acidification, global warming and depletion of the ozone layer are now regarded as among the most important environmental concerns facing the world. The possibility of other apparently innocuous burdens causing risks to health and the environment should not be ignored.

Identification of impacts The next part of the work involves identification of the potential impacts of these burdens. At this stage it is irrelevant whether a given burden will actually cause an appreciable impact; all potential impacts of the identified burdens should be reported. The emphasis here is on making analysts demonstrate that certain impacts are of little or no concern, according to current knowledge. The conclusion that the externalities associated with a particular burden or impact, when normalised to fuel cycle output, are likely to be negligible is an important result that should not be passed over without comment. It will not inevitably follow that action to reduce the burden is unnecessary, as the impacts associated with it may have a serious effect on a small number of people. From a policy perspective it might imply, however, that the use of fiscal instruments might not be appropriate for dealing with the burden efficiently. The first series of ExternE reports (European Commission, 1995a-f) provided comprehensive listings of burdens and impacts for most of the fuel cycles considered. The tasks outlined in this section and the previous one are therefore not as onerous as they seem, and will become easier with the development of appropriate databases.

Valuation criteria Many receptors that may be affected by fuel cycle activities are valued in a number of different ways. For example, forests are valued not just for the timber that they produce, but also for providing recreational resources, habitats for wildlife, their interactions (direct and indirect) with climate and the hydrological cycle, protection of buildings and people in areas subject to avalanche, etc. Externalities analysis should include all such aspects in its valuation. Again, the fact that a full quantitative valuation along these lines is rarely possible is besides the point when seeking to define what a study should seek to address: the analyst has the responsibility of gathering information on behalf of decision makers and should not make arbitrary decisions as to what may be worthy of further debate.

Spatial limits of the impact analysis The system boundary also has spatial and temporal dimensions. Both should be designed to capture impacts as fully as possible. This has major implications for the analysis of the effects of air pollution in particular. It necessitates extension of the analysis to a distance of hundreds of kilometres for many air pollutants operating at the ‘regional’ scale, such as ozone, secondary particles, and SO2. For greenhouse gases the appropriate range for the analysis is obviously global. Consideration of these ranges is in marked contrast to the standard procedure employed in environmental impact assessment which considers pollutant transport over a distance of only a few kilometres and is further restricted to primary pollutants. The importance of this issue in externalities analysis is that in

20

Methodology

many cases in the ExternE Project it has been found that regional effects of air pollutants like SO2, NOx and associated secondary pollutants are far greater than effects on the local scale (for examples see European Commission, 1995c). In some locations, for example close to large cities, this pattern is reversed, and accordingly the framework for assessing air pollution effects developed within the EcoSense model allows specific account to be taken of local range dispersion. It is frequently necessary to truncate the analysis at some point, because of limits on the availability of data. Under these circumstances it is recommended that an estimate be provided of the extent to which the analysis has been restricted. For example, one could quantify the proportion of emissions of a given pollutant that have been accounted for, and the proportion left unaccounted.

Temporal limits of the impact analysis In keeping with the previous section, impacts should be assessed over their full time course. This clearly introduces a good deal of uncertainty for long term impacts, such as those of global warming or high level radioactive waste disposal, as it requires a view to be taken on the structure of future society. There are a number of facets to this, such as global population and economic growth, technological developments, the sustainability of fossil fuel consumption and the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic emissions. The approach adopted here is that discounting should only be applied after costs are quantified. The application of any discount rate above zero can reduce the cost of major events in the distant future to a negligible figure. This perhaps brings into question the logic of a simplistic approach to discounting over time scales running far beyond the experience of recorded history. There is clear conflict here between some of the concepts that underlie traditional economic analysis and ideas on sustainability over timescales that are meaningful in the context of the history of the planet. For further information, the discounting of global warming damages is discussed further in the volume to be published (European Commission, 1998b) The assessment of future costs is of course not simply a discounting issue. A scenario based approach is also necessary in some cases in order to describe the possible range of outcomes. This is illustrated by the following examples; • A richer world would be better placed to take action against the impacts of global warming than a poorer one; • The damages attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle could be greatly reduced if more effective treatments for cancer are discovered. Despite the uncertainties involved it is informative to conduct analysis of impacts that take effect over periods of many years. By doing so it is at least possible to gain some idea of how important these effects might be in comparison to effects experienced over shorter time scales. The chief methodological and ethical issues that need to be addressed can also be identified. To ignore them would suggest that they are unlikely to be of any importance. 3.1.4 Analysis of Impact Pathways Having identified the range of burdens and impacts that result from a fuel cycle, and defined the technologies under investigation, the analysis typically proceeds as follows: • Prioritisation of impacts; • Description of priority impact pathways; • Quantification of burdens;

21

The ExternE National Implementation

• Description of the receiving environment; • Quantification of impacts; • Economic valuation; • Description of uncertainties.

Prioritisation of impacts It is possible to produce a list of several hundred burdens and impacts for many fuel cycles (see European Commission, 1995c, pp. 49-58). A comprehensive analysis of all of these is clearly beyond the scope of externality analysis. In the context of this study, it is important to be sure that the analysis covers those effects that (according to present knowledge) will provide the greatest externalities (see the discussion on life cycle analysis in section 2.1). Accordingly, the analysis presented here is limited, though only after due consideration of the potential magnitude of all impacts that were identified for the fuel cycles that were assessed. It is necessary to ask whether the decision to assess only a selection of impacts in detail reduces the value of the project as a whole. We believe that it does not, as it can be shown that many impacts (particularly those operating locally around any given fuel cycle activity) will be negligible compared to the overall damages associated with the technology under examination. There are good reasons for believing that local impacts will tend to be of less importance than regional and global effects. The first is that they tend to affect only a small number of people. Even though it is possible that some individuals may suffer very significant damages these will not amount to a significant effect when normalised against a fuel cycle output in the order of several Tera-Watt (1012 Watt) hours per year. It is likely that the most appropriate means of controlling such effects is through local planning systems, which be better able than policy developed using externalities analysis to deal flexibly with the wide range of concerns that may exist locally. A second reason for believing that local impacts will tend to be less significant is that it is typically easier to ascribe cause and effect for impacts effective over a short range than for those that operate at longer ranges. Accordingly there is a longer history of legislation to combat local effects. It is only in recent years that the international dimension of pollution of the atmosphere and water systems has been realised, and action has started to be taken to deal with them. There are obvious exceptions to the assertion that in many cases local impacts are of less importance than others; • Within OECD states one of the most important exceptions concerns occupational disease, and accidents that affect workers and members of the public. Given the high value attached to human life and well-being there is clear potential for associated externalities to be large. • Other cases mainly concern renewable technologies, at least in countries in which there is a substantial body of environmental legislation governing the design and siting of nuclear and fossil-fired plant. For example, most concern over the development of wind farms typically relates to visual intrusion in natural landscapes and to noise emissions. • There is the possibility that a set of conditions - meteorology, geography, plant design, proximity of major centres of population, etc. - can combine to create local air quality problems. The analysis of certain upstream impacts appears to create difficulties for the consistency of the analysis. For example, if we treat emissions of SO2 from a power station as a priority burden, why not include emissions of SO2 from other parts of the fuel cycle, for example from the production of the steel and concrete required for the construction of the power plant? Calculations made in the early stages of ExternE using databases, such as

22

Methodology

GEMIS (Fritsche et al, 1992), showed that the emissions associated with material inputs to fossil power plants are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude lower than those from the power generation stage. It is thus logical to expect that the impacts of such emissions are trivial in comparison, and can safely be excluded from the analysis - if they were to be included the quantified effects would be secondary to the uncertainties of the analysis of the main source of emissions. However, this does not hold across all fuel cycles. In the reports on both the wind fuel cycle (European Commission, 1995f) and the photovoltaic fuel cycle (ISET, 1995), for example, it was found that emissions associated with the manufacture of plant are capable of causing significant externalities, relative to the others that were quantified. The selection of priorities partly depends on whether one wants to evaluate damages or externalities. In quite a few cases the externalities are small in spite of significant damages. For example, if a power plant has been in place for a long time, much of the externality associated with visual and noise impacts will have been internalised through adjustments in the price of housing. It has been argued that occupational health effects are also likely to be internalised. For example, if coal miners are rational and well informed their work contracts should offer benefits that internalise the incremental risk that they are exposed to. However, this is a very controversial assumption, as it depends precisely upon people being both rational and well informed and also upon the existence of perfect mobility in labour markets. For the present time we have quantified occupational health effects in full, leaving the assessment of the degree to which they are internalised to a later date. It is again stressed that it would be wrong to assume that those impacts given low priority in this study are always of so little value from the perspective of energy planning that it is never worth considering them in the assessment of external costs. Each case has to be assessed individually. Differences in the local human and natural environment, and legislation need to be considered.

Description of priority impact pathways Some impact pathways analysed in the present study are extremely simple in form. For example, the construction of a wind farm will affect the appearance of a landscape, leading to a change in visual amenity. In other cases the link between ‘burden’ (defined here simply as something that causes an ‘impact’) and monetary cost is far more complex. To clearly define the linkages involved in such cases we have drawn a series of diagrams. One of these is shown in Figure 3.2, illustrating the series of processes that need to be accounted for from emission of acidifying pollutants to valuation of impacts on agricultural crops. It is clearly far more complex than the pathway suggested by Figure 3.1. A number of points should be made about Figure 3.2. It (and others like it) do not show what has been carried out within the project. Instead they illustrate an ideal - what one would like to do if there was no constraint on data availability. They can thus be used both in the development of the methodology and also as a check once analysis has been completed, to gain an impression of the extent to which the full externality has been quantified. This last point is important because much of the analysis presented in this report is incomplete. This reflects on the current state of knowledge of the impacts addressed. The analysis can easily be extended once further data becomes available. Also, for legibility, numerous feedbacks and interactions are not explicitly shown in the diagrammatic representation of the pathway.

23

The ExternE National Implementation

I Emission

II Transport and atmospheric chemistry

III

Contribution of dry deposition Dry deposition

Wet deposition to total acidity of system

Foliar uptake

1. Soil acidification

IV

2. Mobilization of heavy metals and nutrients

1. Foliar necrosis 2. Physiological damage 3. Chlorosis

1. Root damage Interactions

2. Leaching from foliage

4. Pest performance

3. Nutrient loss from soil

5. Leaching

4. Nutritional balance

6. Growth stimulation

5. Climate interactions

7. Climate interactions

6. Pest performance

8. etc...

7. etc...

V

1. Growth 2. Biomass allocation

VI

3. Appearance 4. Death 5. Soil quality

1. Value of produce 2. Land prices

VII

3. Breeding costs 4. Soil conditioning costs

Figure 3.2 The impact pathway showing the series of linkages between emission of acidifying pollutants and ozone precursors and valuation of impacts on agricultural systems.

Quantification of burdens The data used to quantify burdens must be both current and relevant to the situation under analysis. Emission standards, regulation of safety in the workplace and other factors vary significantly over time and between and within different countries. It is true that the need to meet these demands creates difficulties for data collection. However, given that the objective of this work is to provide as far as possible an accurate account of the environmental and social burdens imposed by energy supply and use, these issues should not be ignored. It is notable that data for new technologies can change rapidly following their introduction. In addition to the inevitable refinement of technologies over time, manufacturers of novel equipment may be cautious in their assessment of plant performance. As an example of this latter point, NOx emission factors for combined cycle gas turbine plant currently coming on stream in several countries are far lower than was suggested by Environmental Statements written for the same plant less than five years ago. All impacts associated with pollution of some kind require the quantification of emissions. Emission rates of the ‘classical’ air pollutants (CO2, SO2, NOx, CO, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter) are quite well known. Especially well determined is the rate of CO2 emission for fuel using equipment; it depends only on the efficiency of the equipment and the carbon/hydrogen ratio of the fuel - uncertainty is negligible. Emissions of the other classical air pollutants are somewhat less certain, particularly as they can vary with operating

24

Methodology

conditions, and maintenance routines. The sulphur content of different grades of oil and coal can vary by an order of magnitude, and hence, likewise, will emissions unless this is compensated for through varying the performance of abatement technologies. The general assumption made in this study is that unless otherwise specified, the technology used is the best available according to the regulations in the country of implementation, and that performance will not degrade. We have sought to limit the uncertainty associated with emissions of these pollutants by close identification of the source and quality of fuel inputs within the study. The situation is less clear with respect to trace pollutants such as lead and mercury, since the content of these in fuel can vary by much more than an order of magnitude. Furthermore, some of these pollutants are emitted in such small quantities that even their measurement is difficult. The dirtier the fuel, the greater the uncertainty in the emission estimate. There is also the need to account for emissions to more than one media, as pollutants may be passed to air, water or land. The last category is the subject of major uncertainty, as waste has historically been sent for disposal to facilities of varying quality, ranging from simple holes in the ground to well-engineered landfills. Increasing regulation relating to the disposal of material and management of landfills should reduce uncertainty in this area greatly for analysis within the European Union, particularly given the concept of selfsufficiency enshrined in Regulation 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste into, out of and within the European Community. The same will not apply in many other parts of the world. The problem becomes more difficult for the upstream and downstream stages of the fuel cycle because of the variety of technologies that may be involved. Particularly important may be some stages of fuel cycles such as biomass, where the fuel cycle is potentially so diverse that it is possible that certain activities are escaping stringent environmental regulation. The burdens discussed so far relate only to routine emissions. Burdens resulting from accidents also need to be considered. These might result in emissions (e.g. of oil) or an incremental increase in the risk of injury or death to workers or members of the public. Either way it is normally necessary to rely upon historical data to quantify accident rates. Clearly the data should be as recent as possible so that the rates used reflect current risks. Major uncertainty however is bound to be present when extreme events need to be considered, such as the disasters at Chernobyl and on the Piper Alpha oil rig in the North Sea. To some extent it is to be expected that accident rates will fall over time, drawing on experience gained. However, structural changes in industries, for example through privatisation or a decrease in union representation, may reverse such a trend. Wherever possible data should be relevant to the country where a particular fuel cycle activity takes place. Major differences in burdens may arise due to different standards covering occupational health, extension of the distance over which fuel needs to be transported, etc.

Description of the receiving environment The use of the impact pathway approach requires a detailed definition of the scenario under analysis with respect to both time and space. This includes: • Meteorological conditions affecting dispersion and chemistry of atmospheric pollutants; • Location, age and health of human populations relative to the source of emissions; • The status of ecological resources; • The value systems of individuals. The range of the reference environment for any impact requires expert assessment of the area influenced by the burden under investigation. As stated above, arbitrary truncation of the reference environment is methodologically wrong and will produce results that are incorrect. It is to be avoided as far as possible.

25

The ExternE National Implementation

Clearly the need to describe the sensitivity of the receiving environment over a vast area (extending to the whole planet for some impacts) creates a major demand on the analyst. This is simplified by the large scale of the present study - which has been able to draw on data held in many different countries. Further to this it has been possible to draw on numerous databases that are being compiled as part of other work, for example on critical loads mapping. Databases covering the whole of Europe, describing the distribution of the key receptors affected by SO2, NOx, NH3 and fine particles have been derived or obtained for use in the EcoSense software developed by the study team. In order to take account of future damages, some assumption is required on the evolution of the stock at risk. In a few cases it is reasonable to assume that conditions will remain roughly constant, and that direct extrapolation from the present day is as good an approximation as any. In other cases, involving for example the emission of acidifying gases or the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases this assumption is untenable, and scenarios need to be developed. Confidence in these scenarios clearly declines as they extend further into the future.

Quantification of impacts The methods used to quantify various types of impact are discussed in depth in the report on the study methodology (European Commission, 1998a). The complexity of the analysis varies greatly between impacts. In some cases externalities can be calculated by multiplying together as few as 3 or 4 parameters. In others it is necessary to use a series of sophisticated models linked to large databases. Common to all of the analysis conducted on the impacts of pollutants emitted from fuel cycles is the need for modelling the dispersion of pollutants and the use of a dose-response function of some kind. Again, there is much variation in the complexity of the models used (see description of the EcoSense model). The most important pollutant transport models used within ExternE relate to the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants. They need to account not only for the physical transport of pollutants by the winds but also for chemical transformation. The dispersion of pollutants that are in effect chemically stable in the region of the emission can be predicted using Gaussian plume models. These models assume source emissions are carried in a straight line by the wind, mixing with the surrounding air both horizontally and vertically to produce pollutant concentrations with a normal (or Gaussian) spatial distribution. The use of these models is typically constrained to within a distance of 100 km of the source. Air-borne pollutant transport of course extends over much greater distances than 100 km. A different approach is needed for assessing regional transport as chemical reactions in the atmosphere become increasingly important. This is particularly so for the acidifying pollutants. For this analysis we have used receptororientated Lagrangian trajectory models. The outputs from the trajectory models include atmospheric concentrations and deposition of both the emitted species and secondary pollutants formed in the atmosphere. A major problem has so far been the lack of a regional model of ozone formation and transport within fossil-fuel power station plumes that is applicable to the European situation. In consequence a simplified approach has been adopted for assessment of ozone effects (European Commission, 1998a). The term ‘dose-response’ is used somewhat loosely in much of this work, as what we are really talking about is the response to a given exposure of a pollutant in terms of atmospheric concentration, rather than an ingested dose. Hence the terms ‘dose-response’ and ‘exposure-response’ should be considered interchangeable. A major issue with the application of such functions concerns the assumption that they are transferable from one context to another. For example, some of the functions for health effects of air pollutants are still derived from studies in the USA. Is it valid to assume that these can be used in Europe? The answer to this question is to a certain degree unknown - there is good reason to suspect that there will be some variation, resulting from the affluence of the affected population, the exact composition of the cocktail of pollutants that the study group was exposed to, etc. Indeed, such variation has been noted in the results of different epidemiological studies. However, in most cases the view of our experts has been that transference of functions is to be preferred to ignoring particular types of impact altogether - neither option is free from uncertainty.

26

Methodology

Dose-response functions come in a variety of functional forms, some of which are illustrated in Figure 3.3. They may be linear or non-linear and contain thresholds (e.g. critical loads) or not. Those describing effects of various air pollutants on agriculture have proved to be particularly complex, incorporating both positive and negative effects, because of the potential for certain pollutants, e.g. those containing sulphur and nitrogen, to act as fertilisers. Figure 3.3 A variety of possible forms for dose-response functions.

Response

Non-linear Linear, no treshold Non-linear, fertilisation effect

Linear, with treshold

Dose

Ideally these functions and other models are derived from studies that are epidemiological - assessing the effects of pollutants on real populations of people, crops, etc. This type of work has the advantage of studying response under realistic conditions. However, results are much more difficult to interpret than when working under laboratory conditions, where the environment can be closely controlled. Although laboratory studies provide invaluable data on response mechanisms, they often suffer from the need to expose study populations to extremely high levels of pollutants, often significantly greater than they would be exposed to in the field. Extrapolation to lower, more realistic levels may introduce significant uncertainties, particularly in cases where there is reason to suspect that a threshold may exist. The description and implementation of exposure-response relationships is fundamental to the entire ExternE Project. Much of the report on methodology (European Commission, 1998 a) is, accordingly, devoted to assessment of the availability and reliability of these functions.

Economic valuation The rationale and procedures underlying the economic valuation applied within the ExternE Project are discussed in more detail in the methodology report (European Commission, 1998a). The approach followed is based on the quantification of individual ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP) for environmental benefit. A limited number of goods of interest to this study - crops, timber, building materials, etc. - are directly marketed, and for these valuation data are easy to obtain. However, many of the more important goods of concern are not directly marketed, including human health, ecological systems and non-timber benefits of

27

The ExternE National Implementation

forests. Alternative techniques have been developed for valuation of such goods, the main ones being hedonic pricing, travel cost methods and contingent valuation. All of these techniques involve uncertainties, though they have been considerably refined over the years. The base year for the valuation described in this report is 1995, and all values are referenced to that year. The unit of currency used is the ECU. The exchange rate was approximately 1 ECU to US$1.25 in 1995. The central discount rate used for the study is 3%, with upper and lower rates of 0% and 10% also used to show sensitivity to discount rate. The rationale for the selection of this range and best estimate, and a broader description of issues relating to discounting, was given in an earlier report (European Commission, 1995b).

Assessment of uncertainty Uncertainty in externality estimates arises in several ways, including: • The variability inherent in any set of data; • Extrapolation of data from the laboratory to the field; • Extrapolation of exposure-response data from one geographical location to another; • Assumptions regarding threshold conditions; • Lack of detailed information with respect to human behaviour and tastes; • Political and ethical issues, such as the selection of discount rate; • The need to assume some scenario of the future for any long term impacts; • The fact that some types of damage cannot be quantified at all. It is important to note that some of the most important uncertainties listed here are not associated with technical or scientific issues, instead they relate to political and ethical issues, and questions relating to the development of world society. It is also worth noting that, in general, the largest uncertainties are those associated with impact assessment and valuation, rather than quantification of emissions and other burdens. Traditional statistical techniques would ideally be used to describe the uncertainties associated with each of our estimates, to enable us to report a median estimate of damage with an associated probability distribution. Unfortunately this is rarely possible without excluding some significant aspect of error, or without making some bold assumption about the shape of the probability distribution. Alternative methods are therefore required, such as sensitivity analysis, expert judgement and decision analysis. In this phase of the study a more clearly quantified description of uncertainty has been attempted than previously. Further discussion is provided in the methodology report, though it is worth mentioning that in this area of work uncertainties tend to be so large that additive confidence intervals usually do not make sense; instead one should specify multiplicative confidence intervals. The uncertainties of each stage of an impact pathway need to be assessed and associated errors quantified. The individual deviations for each stage are then combined to give an overall indication of confidence limits for the impact under investigation.

28

Methodology

3.1.5 Priority Impacts Assessed in the ExternE Project

Fossil technologies The following list of priority impacts was derived for the fossil fuel cycles considered in the earlier phases of ExternE. It is necessary to repeat that this list is compiled for the specific fuel cycles considered by the present study, and should be reassessed for any new cases. The first group of impacts are common to all fossil fuel cycles: 1. Effects of atmospheric pollution on human health; 2. Accidents affecting workers and/or the public; 3. Effects of atmospheric pollution on materials; 4. Effects of atmospheric pollution on crops; 5. Effects of atmospheric pollution on forests; 6. Effects of atmospheric pollution on freshwater fisheries; 7. Effects of atmospheric pollution on unmanaged ecosystems; 8. Impacts of global warming; 9. Impacts of noise. To these can be added a number of impacts that are fuel cycle dependent: 10. Impacts of coal and lignite mining on ground and surface waters; 11. Impacts of coal mining on building and construction; 12. Resettlement necessary through lignite extraction; 13. Effects of accidental oil spills on marine life; 14. Effects of routine emissions from exploration, development and extraction from oil and gas wells.

Nuclear technologies The priority impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle to the general public are radiological and non-radiological health impacts due to routine and accidental releases to the environment. The source of these impacts are the releases of materials through atmospheric, liquid and solid waste pathways. Occupational health impacts, from both radiological and non-radiological causes, were the next priority. These are mostly due to work accidents and radiation exposures. In most cases, statistics were used for the facility or type of technology in question. When this was not possible, estimations were taken from similar type of work or extrapolated from existing information.

29

The ExternE National Implementation

Impacts on the environment of increased levels of natural background radiation due to the routine releases of radionuclides have not been considered as a priority impact pathway, except partially in the analysis of major accidental releases.

Renewable technologies The priority impacts for renewables vary considerably from case to case. Each case is dependent upon the local conditions around the implementation of each fuel cycle. For the wind fuel cycle (European Commission, 1995f) the following were considered: 1. Accidents affecting the public and/or workers; 2. Effects on visual amenity; 3. Effects of noise emissions on amenity; 4. Effects of atmospheric emissions related to the manufacture of turbines and construction and servicing of the site. Whilst for the hydro fuel cycle (European Commission, 1995f) another group was considered: 1. Occupational health effects; 2. Employment benefits and local economic effects; 3. Impacts of transmission lines on bird populations; 4. Damages to private goods (forestry, agriculture, water supply, ferry traffic); 5. Damages to environmental goods and cultural objects.

Related issues It is necessary to ask whether the study fulfils its objective of consistency between fuel cycles, when some impacts common to a number of fuel cycles have only been considered in a select number of cases. In part this is due to the level of impact to be expected in each case - if the impact is likely to be large it should be considered in the externality assessment. If it is likely to be small it may be legitimate to ignore it, depending on the objectives of the analysis. In general we have sought to quantify the largest impacts because these are the ones that are likely to be of most relevance to questions to which external costs assessment is appropriate. 3.1.6 Summary This Chapter has introduced the ‘impact pathway’ methodology of the ExternE Project. The authors believe that it provides the most appropriate way of quantifying externalities because it enables the use of the latest scientific and economic data. Critical to the analysis is the definition of fuel cycle boundaries, relating not only to the different stages considered for each fuel cycle, but also to the: • Location of each stage; • Technologies selected for each stage;

30

Methodology

• Identified burdens; • Identified impacts; • Valuation criteria; • Spatial and temporal limits of impacts. In order to achieve consistency it is necessary to draw very wide boundaries around the analysis. The difficulty with successfully achieving an assessment on these terms is slowly being resolved through the development of software and databases that greatly simplify the analysis. The definition of ‘system boundary’ is thus broader than is typically used for LCA. This is necessary because our analysis goes into more detail with respect to the quantification and valuation of impacts. In doing so it is necessary to pay attention to the site of emission sources and the technologies used. We are also considering a wider range of burdens than is typical of LCA work, including, for example, occupational health effects and noise. The analysis requires the use of numerous models and databases, allowing a logical path to be followed through the impact pathways. The functions and other data originally used by ExternE were described in an earlier report (European Commission, 1995b). In the present phase of the study this information has been reassessed and many aspects of it have been updated (see European Commission, 1998a). It is to be anticipated that further methodological changes will be needed in the future, as further information becomes available particularly regarding the health effects of air pollution and global warming impacts, which together provide some of the most serious impacts quantified under the study.

3.2 Aggregation 3.2.1 Overall methodological issues and approaches This extension of ExternE to assess whole electricity systems can be carried out using the same EcoSense software system which is being used for calculation of marginal damages due to individual power stations (see section 3.3). This can be done in either of two ways: 1. With a revised "front-end", EcoSense can calculate damages due to emissions from multiple sources, rather than a single source, or 2. Existing ExternE results (and future updates) for individual power plants can be transferred with appropriate adjustments to other plants and aggregated outside any software system. The first approach has the advantage of being a very direct methodology and automatically retains the main features of the ExternE methodology. EcoSense is being revised to allow the inclusion of many sources simultaneously. The locations and emissions of German and British sources have been included to undertake the case studies. Separate runs have then been done with and without the power sectors in these countries to asses the aggregate damages due to these sectors. These calculations will demonstrate the viability of this approach. However, this approach is not available for all teams involved in the National Implementation Project. Therefore, the simplified one has to be used. This second approach is problematic, as it is necessary to derive approaches to transferring existing results to other technologies and other sites. In addition, there are practical and theoretical difficulties to overcome to aggregate from a small increment to the impacts of a whole sector. This approach is not therefore recommended where it is possible to use EcoSense. However, for local and

31

The ExternE National Implementation

global scale impacts, use of the European scale grid calculations of EcoSense is not appropriate. For these impacts, aggregation will therefore be undertaken outside the software framework. Calculation of sectoral damages will require that ExternE results are aggregated from a particular power plant to the electricity sector of a national economy or the whole EU. The methodology required to achieve this has three parts, each with a specific objective: 1. To develop procedures for applying assessments to other technologies in the electricity sector (and possibly later to other sectors) - technological transferability, 2. To develop procedures for applying externalities calculated at one site to other European locations (where the software does not achieve this automatically) - spatial transferability, and 3. To develop procedures for aggregating from the marginal impact of a single plant to the total impact of national and EU electricity pollution - impact aggregation. Each of these objectives needs to be realised successfully for each impact category. The difficulties which might arise in attempting this exercise are pointed out elsewhere (European Commission, 1998a). Here a practical, simplified methodology is presented for the different fuel cycles covered.

Fossil fuels Global damages These damages are site independent, and so the values proposed are valid for all emissions. These values have been calculated within the ExternE Core Project, To convert damage values in ECU/t to the total electricity sector damage, it is necessary to multiply by the emissions from the power sector in tonnes. Emissions should be taken from national statistics for the whole power sector for the relevant member state (upstream fuel cycles emissions should ideally be added, but these are a second order correction at least for carbon dioxide). If these data are not available, emissions of carbon dioxide from each fossil fuel may be calculated approximately by multiplying fossil fuel inputs in TJ by the following factors: coal 87 t/TJ, oil 73 t/TJ, gas 50 t/TJ. Regional scale damages The regional scale damages should be derived by aggregating from the fossil fuel power plant analysed in the relevant member state. In this instance regional scale damages are those of SO2, NOx and PM10. It should be recalled that reliably quantified damages in ExternE exclude impacts to forests or fisheries. Values for ozone damages have been estimated as an average for the whole Europe, as mentioned before. Damages should first be quantified in ECU/t of pollutant emitted. To assess the total damages due to national emissions from the electricity sector, the specific damage values (ECU/t) for each pollutant should be multiplied by the national electricity sector emissions. National emissions should be taken from national statistics for these emissions. (N.B. It is important, in this case, not to use the g/kWh emission factors from the reference power plant as a proxy for the whole sector as new plant is very unlikely to be typical of the sector as whole.) It has to be noted that this procedure assumes that the reference power plant values are transferable within the country. For low stacks, there may actually be significant site sensitivity, especially for particulates emitted in an urban environment. For high stacks, the sensitivity should be smaller, as the range of these pollutants exceeds the size of all European countries.

32

Methodology

However, exercises carried out by some countries show that values can vary up to a 100% from site to site. Therefore, for some countries, even high stack results are not so easily transferable. The approach adopted by some countries, then, has been to calculate damages for at least a representative part of the power plants, so that these results may be transferred more easily. In other cases, a more sophisticated approach as been implemented, adjusting regression functions for damages and some significant parameters such as stack height, location, etc., in order to obtain more precise results. Local impacts Local impacts are more difficult to aggregate sensibly as they are inevitably more site dependent. However, they are, for the most part less important, so accuracy is less critical to the overall sectoral damage assessment. The following approaches are recommended: Occupational Health Where the reference fuel cycles in the relevant member state is typical of practice in that country, the marginal damages of the reference fuel extraction (in mECU/t of fuel extracted) should also be typical. Ideally it is this measure of damages which should be the basis of aggregation, as it allows for differences in fuel efficiency in generation. Total damages for power generation (in ECU/year) from that fuel are calculated by multiplying by annual fuel use (in kt). Where data in terms of mECU/t of fuel are unavailable, a second best option is to multiply the reference damages (in mECU/kWh) by the power generated from that fuel (in MWh/year) to give annual damages (in ECU/year). Where there is no relevant national implementation, data from another EU country with similar fuel use should be used. Where fuel is imported from outside the EU, estimates of non-EU damages should be derived from ExternE Core Project. Noise In the absence of detailed site data the best which can be achieved is to scale up the damages from the relevant national implementation to the whole electricity output. Where national implementations do not exist or have not considered noise, values from ExternE published results of 0.2 mECU/kWh for coal and 0.03 mECU/kWh for gas should be used. If no other results are available for oil, the gas number should be used.

Nuclear Reliable values for accidents, high level wastes impacts, nuclear proliferation and impacts of terrorism have not been developed in ExternE. These omissions may well be significant and therefore should be clearly noted in any assessment. ExternE results show that nuclear damages are characteristic more of the technology than the site, and therefore aggregate damages should be assessed by scaling up damages most typical of the technologies used in each stage of the fuel cycle. Usually, but not always, the national implementation in the member state will be the best baseline data source. Where national implementations are not available, the ExternE published results for France should be used, except adjusted as explained below to take account of technological differences. The recommended adjustments are as follows:

• •

where reprocessing is not used, the ExternE damages due to the reprocessing stage should be excluded, where reprocessing is undertaken other than in the French UP3 plant assessed by ExternE, global average carbon-14 emissions from UNSCEAR should be used instead. The effect is to multiply the long term global damages by a factor of 3.2. An exception is the UK THORP reprocessing plant which has carbon abatement, giving a factor of 0.1.

33

The ExternE National Implementation





for reactors other than PWRs, the generation stage damages should be modified to reflect the higher emissions of carbon-14 documented by UNSCEAR. The result is to multiply global, long term damages by factors of 3.9 for BWRs and 4.6 for gas cooled reactors. published ExternE results represent a case where mill tailings at the mine are covered by an impervious material. For other cases the radon-222 dose due to mill tailings is significantly higher. For world average uranium, the future mill tailings emissions are assumed by UNSCEAR to be 3 Bq/m2/s, giving additional damages of 0.0004 mECU/kWh, 0.003 mECU/kWh and 18 mECU/kWh at 10, 3 and zero percent discount rates respectively. Where the source of uranium is known, these results can be scaled to the actual emission rate. These damages should be added to those calculated in the ExternE report

In all cases, aggregate nuclear damages should be calculated by multiplying the adjusted marginal damage cost by the total power generated in nuclear stations (or the appropriate category of nuclear stations.)

Renewable Energy Sources In general, renewable energy sources have rather low damages, and those tend to be rather localised and short term. The result is that renewable energy external costs are rather site dependent, so that aggregation is difficult, but probably the aggregate damages are not significant in the overall energy system in most countries. Wind A model for transferring the costs of wind noise has been developed as part of the ExternE Aggregation task. Ideally this is the route to calculating aggregate wind power noise. However, it requires information on population density, source and background noise level. If these are not easily available, it is suggested that a noise external cost of 0.1 mECU/kWh is assumed, which is typical of wind farms analysed to date. This should be multiplied by the total wind energy generated (in MWh/year) to give the aggregate damages in ECU/year. There is no reliable method for quantifying the external costs of visual impacts of wind energy - certainly not one that is transferable across the range of projects, landscapes and cultures involved in the EU. Visual damages cannot therefore be included and this should be noted in the assessment. Hydropower There is a wide range of types of hydropower scheme, notably in terms of size and location. The external costs can therefore be expected to vary significantly. For modern small run-of-river schemes outside recreationally important areas, it seems likely that the damages are small. A larger modern scheme in Norway was found in ExternE to have aesthetic damages of 2 mECU/kWh. In the absence of better data it is suggested that provisional values of 2 mECU/kWh for large schemes and zero for small schemes are used in aggregation. Aggregate damages should be calculated by multiplying these by the total hydropower generation. The provisional nature of the assessment should always be noted. Others ExternE data does not yet allow reasonable estimates of aggregate damages from other renewable electricity sources, as there is a multiplicity of different technologies and fuels. However, in most EU countries these technologies have a small share of aggregate electricity generating capacity, and therefore this omission is not serious. However, of course, it should be noted in any aggregate assessment.

34

Methodology

3.3 The EcoSense Model 3.3.1 Introduction Since the increasing understanding of the major importance of long range transboundary transport of airborne pollutants also in the context of external costs from electricity generation, there was an obvious need for a harmonised European-wide database supporting the assessment of environmental impacts from air pollution. In the very beginning of the ExternE Project, work was focused on the assessment of local scale impacts, and teams from different countries made use of the data sources available in each country. Although many teams spent a considerable amount of time compiling data on e.g. population distribution, land use etc., we had to realise that country specific data sources and grid systems were hardly compatible when we had to extend our analysis to the European scale. So it was logical to set up a common European-wide database by using official sources like EUROSTAT and make it available to all ExternE teams. Once we had a common database, the consequent next step was to establish a link between the database and all the models required for the assessment of external costs to guarantee a harmonised and standardised implementation of the theoretical methodological framework. Taking into account this background, the objectives for the development of the EcoSense model were: • • • • •

to provide a tool supporting a standardised calculation of fuel cycle externalities, to integrate relevant models into a single system, to provide a comprehensive set of relevant input data for the whole of Europe, to enable the transparent presentation of intermediate and final results, and to support easy modification of assumptions for sensitivity analysis.

As health and environmental impact assessment is a field of large uncertainties and incomplete, but rapidly growing understanding of the physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of action, it was a crucial requirement for the development of the EcoSense system to allow an easy integration of new scientific findings into the system. As a consequence, all the calculation modules (except for the ISC-model, see below) are designed in a way that they are a model-interpreter rather than a model. Model specifications like e. g. chemical equations, dose-response functions or monetary values are stored in the database and can be modified by the user. This concept allows an easy modification of model parameters, and at the same time the model does not necessarily appear as a black box, as the user can trace back what the system is actually doing. 3.3.2 Scope of the EcoSense model EcoSense was developed to support the assessment of priority impacts resulting from the exposure to airborne pollutants, namely impacts on health, crops, building materials, forests, and ecosystems. Although global warming is certainly among the priority impacts related to air pollution, this impact category is not covered by EcoSense because of the very different mechanism and global nature of impact. Priority impacts like occupational or public accidents are not included either because the quantification of impacts is based on the evaluation of statistics rather than on modelling. Version 2.0 of EcoSense covers 13 pollutants, including the ‘classical’ pollutants SO2, NOx, particulates and CO, as well as some of the most important heavy metals and hydrocarbons, but does not include impacts from radioactive nuclides. 3.3.3 The EcoSense Modules Figure 3.4 shows the modular structure of the EcoSense model. All data - input data, intermediate and final results - are stored in a relational database system. The two air quality models integrated in EcoSense are standalone models, which are linked to the system by pre- and postprocessors. There are individual executable programs for each of the impact pathways, which make use of common libraries. The following sections give a more detailed description of the different EcoSense modules.

35

The ExternE National Implementation

The EcoSense database Reference Technology Database The reference technology database holds a small set of technical data describing the emission source (power plant) that are mainly related to air quality modelling, including e.g. emission factors, flue gas characteristics, stack geometry and the geographic coordinates of the site. Reference Environment Database The reference environment database is the core element of the EcoSense database, providing data on the distribution of receptors, meteorology as well as a European wide emission inventory. All geographical information is organised using the EUROGRID co-ordinate system, which defines equal-area projection gridcells of 10 000 km2 and 100 km2 (Bonnefous a. Despres, 1989), covering all EU and European non-EU countries. Data on population distribution and crop production are taken from the EUROSTAT REGIO database, which in some few cases have been updated using information from national statistics. The material inventories are quantified in terms of the exposed material area from estimates of 'building identikits' (representative buildings). Surveys of materials used in the buildings in some European cities were used to take into account the use of different types of building materials around Europe. Critical load maps for nitrogen deposition are available for nine classes of different ecosystems, ranging from Mediterranean scrub over alpine meadows to tundra areas. To simplify access to the receptor data, an interface presents all data according to administrative units (e.g. country, state) following the EUROSTAT NUTS classification scheme. The system automatically transfers data between the grid system and the respective administrative units. In addition to the receptor data, the reference environment database provides elevation data for the whole of Europe on the 10x10 km grid, which is required to run the Gaussian plume model, as well as meteorological data (precipitation, wind speed and wind direction) and a European-wide emission inventory for SO2, NOx and NH3 from EMEP 1990 which has been transferred to the EUROGRID-format. Exposure-Response Functions Using an interactive interface, the user can define any exposure-effect model as a mathematical expression. The user-

Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment

Human health

Crops

Materials

Forests

Ecosystems

graphical display of results

technology database

Air transport models

- ISC - WTM

Monitor

reference environment database

doseresponse functions

Figure 3.4 Structure of the EcoSense model 36

monetary values

Methodology

defined function is stored as a string in the database, which is interpreted by the respective impact assessment module at runtime. All exposure-response functions compiled by the various ‘area experts’ of the ExternE Maintenance Project are stored in the database. Monetary Values The database provides monetary values for most of the impact categories following the recommendations of the ExternE economic valuation task group. In some cases there are alternative values to carry out sensitivity analysis

Air Quality Models To cover different pollutants and different scales, EcoSense provides two air transport models completely integrated into the system: • The Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC) is a Gaussian plume model developed by the US-EPA (Brode and Wang, 1992). The ISC is used for transport modelling of primary air pollutants (SO2, NOx, particulates) on a local scale. • The Windrose Trajectory Model (WTM) is a user-configurable trajectory model based on the windrose approach of the Harwell Trajectory Model developed at Harwell Laboratory, UK (Derwent, Dollard, Metcalfe, 1988). For current applications, the WTM is configured to resemble the atmospheric chemistry of the Harwell Trajectory Model. The WTM is used to estimate the concentration and deposition of acid species on a European wide scale. All input data required to run the Windrose Trajectory Model are provided by the EcoSense database. A set of site specific meteorological data has to be added by the user to perform local scale modelling using the ISC model. The concentration and deposition fields calculated by the air quality models are stored in the reference environment database. Section 3.3.4 gives a more detailed description of the two models.

Impact Assessment Modules The impact assessment modules calculate the physical impacts and - as far as possible - the resulting damage costs by applying the exposure-response functions selected by the user to each individual gridcell, taking into account the information on receptor distribution and concentration levels of air pollutants from the reference environment database. The assessment modules support the detailed step-by-step analysis for a single endpoint as well as a more automised analysis including a range of prespecified impact categories.

Presentation of Results Input data as well as intermediate results can be presented on several steps of the impact pathway analysis in either numerical or graphical format. Geographical information like population distribution or concentration of pollutants can be presented as maps. EcoSense generates a formatted report with a detailed documentation of the final results that can be imported into a spreadsheet programme.

37

The ExternE National Implementation

3.3.4 The air quality models integrated in EcoSense

Local scale modelling of primary pollutants - the Industrial Source Complex model Close to the plant, i.e. at distances of some 10-50 km from the plant, chemical reactions in the atmosphere have little influence on the concentrations of primary pollutants, if NO and its oxidised counterpart NO2 can be summarised as NOx. Due to the large emission height on top of a tall stack, the near surface ambient concentrations of the pollutants at short distances from the stack are heavily dependent on the vertical mixing of the lower atmosphere. Vertical mixing depends on the atmospheric stability and the existence and height of inversion layers (whether below or above the plume). For these reasons, the most economic way of assessing ambient air concentrations of primary pollutants on a local scale is a model which neglects chemical reactions but is detailed enough in the description of turbulent diffusion and vertical mixing. An often used model which meets these requirements is the Gaussian plume model. The concentration distribution from a continuous release into the atmosphere is assumed to have a Gaussian shape:

⎡ y2 ⎤ ⎛ ⎡ ( z + h ) 2 ⎤⎞ ⎡ ( z − h) 2 ⎤ ⎜ ⎟ c( x , y , z ) = ⋅ exp ⎢− 2 ⎥ ⋅ exp ⎢ − 2 ⎥ + exp ⎢ − 2 ⎥ u2πσ yσ z ⎢⎣ 2σ y ⎥⎦ ⎝ ⎣ 2σ z ⎦⎠ ⎣ 2σ z ⎦ Q

where:

c(x,y,z) Q u

σy σz

h

concentration of pollutant at receptor location (x,y,z) pollutant emission rate (mass per unit time) mean wind speed at release height standard deviation of lateral concentration distribution at downwind distance x standard deviation of vertical concentration distribution at downwind distance x plume height above terrain

The assumptions embodied into this type of model include those of idealised terrain and meteorological conditions so that the plume travels with the wind in a straight line. Dynamic features which affect the dispersion, for example vertical wind shear, are ignored. These assumptions generally restrict the range of validity of the application of these models to the region within some 50 km of the source. The straight line assumption is rather justified for a statistical evaluation of a long period, where mutual changes in wind direction cancel out each other, than for an evaluation of short episodes. EcoSense employs the Industrial Source Complex Short Term model, version 2 (ISCST2) of the U.S. EPA (Brode and Wang, 1992). The model calculates hourly concentration values of SO2, NOx and particulate matter for one year at the center of each small EUROGRID cell in a 10 x 10 grid centred on the site of the plant. Effects of chemical transformation and deposition are neglected. Annual mean values are obtained by temporal averaging of the hourly model results. The σy and σz diffusion parameters are taken from BMJ (1983). This parameterisation is based on the results of tracer experiments at emission heights of up to 195 m (Nester and Thomas, 1979). More recent mesoscale dispersion experiments confirm the extrapolation of these parameters to distances of more than 10 km (Thomas and Vogt, 1990). The ISCST2 model assumes reflection of the plume at the mixing height, i.e. the top of the atmospheric boundary layer. It also provides a simple procedure to account for terrain elevations above the elevation of the stack base: • The plume axis is assumed to remain at effective plume stabilisation height above mean sea level as it passes over elevated of depressed terrain.

38

Methodology

• The effective plume stabilisation height hstab at receptor location (x,y) is given by:

hstab = h + zs − min( z ( x , y ) , zs + hs ) where:

h hs zs

z ( x,y)

plume height, assuming flat terrain height of the stack height above mean sea level of the base of the stack height above mean sea level of terrain at the receptor location

• The mixing height is terrain following. Mean terrain heights for each grid cell are provided by the reference environment database. However, it should be mentioned that the application of a Gaussian plume model to regions with complex topography is problematic, so that in such cases better adapted models should be used if possible. It is the responsibility of the user to provide the meteorological input data. These include wind direction, wind speed, stability class as well as mixing height, wind profile exponent, ambient air temperature and vertical temperature gradient.

Regional scale modelling of primary pollutants and acid deposition - the Windrose Trajectory Model With increasing distance from the stack the plume spreads vertically and horizontally due to atmospheric turbulence. Outside the area of the local analysis (i.e. at distances beyond 50 km from the stack), it can be assumed for most purposes that the pollutants have vertically been mixed throughout the height of the mixing layer of the atmosphere. On the other hand, chemical transformations can no longer be neglected on a regional scale. The most economic way to assess annual, regional scale pollution is a model with a simple representation of transport and a detailed enough representation of chemical reactions. The Windrose Trajectory Model (WTM) used in EcoSense to estimate the concentration and deposition of acid species on a regional scale was originally developed at Harwell Laboratory by Derwent and Nodop (1986) for atmospheric nitrogen species, and extended to include sulphur species by Derwent, Dollard and Metcalfe (1988). The model is a receptor-orientated Lagrangian plume model employing an air parcel with a constant mixing height of 800 m moving with a representative wind speed. The results are obtained at each receptor point by considering the arrival of 24 trajectories weighted by the frequency of the wind in each 15° sector. The trajectory paths are assumed to be along straight lines and are started at 96 hours from the receptor point. The chemical scheme of the model is shown in Figure 3.5. In EcoSense, the model is implemented by means of • a set of parameters and chemical equations in the Ecosense database which defines the model • a model interpreter (wmi.exe) • a set of meteorological input data (gridded wind roses and precipitation fields) in the reference environment database • emission inventories for NOx, SO2 and ammonia, which are also provided in the reference environment database • additional emissions of the plant from the reference technology database The 1990 meteorological data were provided by the Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-West of EMEP at The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (Hollingsworth, 1987), (Nordeng, 1986). 6-hourly data in the EMEP 150 km grid of precipitation and wind (at the 925 hPa level) were transformed to the EUROGRID grid and averaged to obtain, receptor specific, the mean annual wind rose (frequency distribution of the wind per sector), the mean annual windspeed, and total annual precipitation. Base line emissions of NOx, SO2 and NH3 for Europe are taken from the 1990 EMEP inventory (Sandnes and Styve, 1992).

39

The ExternE National Implementation

O3 O3

OH

NO

NO2

Aerosol

HNO3

Nitrate Aerosol

hv

NH3

Emission

Dry deposition

OH

Wet deposition

NH3

SO2

H2SO4

Sulphate Aerosol

H2O2

Emission

Dry deposition

Wet deposition

HNO3

NH3

Ammonium Aerosol H2SO4

Emission

Dry deposition

Wet deposition

Figure 3.5 Chemical Scheme in WTM, adopted from Derwent et al. (1993)

3.4 The ExternE Info System The exploitation and publication of the results of the ExternE project is an important part of the overall exercise. Consequently, an analysis of the needs for the diffusion and exploitation of the ExternE results was carried out. It showed that • The information on the ExternE project should be readily available and accessible for all parties interested. • Information should be easily retrievable. • The information should give sufficient detail and underlying assumptions rather then the bare “final” numbers. • Aggregated reading should be possible, i.e. policy makers should have a summary without having to read all detailed reports.

40

Methodology

Based on the analyses the IPTS has defined an adequate data base structure to host the results and technoeconomic data concerning the selected fuel cycles. Furthermore, a prototype version has been developed, thus implementing an appropriate scheme for the diffusion and exploitation of the results. 3.4.1 The Chosen Approach In order to meet the specifications given above, a computer accessible tool is being designed by IPTS. The Infosystem makes use of the Internet and the “World-Wide-Web” (WWW). The Internet is growing rapidly. Almost all Institutions as well as an increasing number of private users have access to the Internet. Thus, by using this medium, the information on the ExternE results can be diffused all over the world. The information is retrievable by searching the “Web” using one of the various search engines available. Access is possible from many places much quicker than by distributing books or diskettes. The WWW is also platform independent, allowing access from all kinds of computer platforms (PC/Windows, Macintosh, UNIX, ..). As compared with printed media, the on-line system can be up-dated as soon as new information becomes available, thus always providing the most recent information. The update has to be made only once in one place and is immediately available to the interested user. 3.4.2 Design Principles The Information system is built as a World-Wide-Web (WWW) application. By itself this does not define the layout of the information system as such. Since the field of Internet applications is developing at a tremendous speed, there is not such a thing as a standard application. Various Browsers (i.e. application to browse the information offered in the WWW are available and in use. These browsers have different capabilities and can use different extensions to the standard features of the WWW (HTML) definitions. Since the aim of the ExternE infosystem is to make access to the ExternE information as easy as possible, a concept of layout and programming has been chosen that allows virtually all users to access the information, no matter which browser software they are using. The design principles do also account for users, which have slow internet connections and, therefore, will want to have access to information without having to download huge amount of data carrying no additional information. The layout does not make use of fancy features like colourful backgrounds, constantly reloading banners and time consuming and bandwidth demanding animations. However, it is still attractive for the user, in order to attract the casual reader to read more on ExternE and to explore the Infosystem. 3.4.3 Info system structure To meet the needs of all potential users and make maximum use of the information available the information system will be divided in different domains and layers (see Figure 3.6). A domain comprises a specific area or part of the information taylored to be used by a specific user group. Within a domain the information is provided in different lawyers corresponding to different levels of aggregation. The “public” area In order to provide information on and rise awareness of the ExternE project some information has been made available already in May 1996. Besides background information, available publications and contact addresses are given. Moreover, all issues of the ExternE Newsletter are available on-line (the WWW address of the Infosystem is http://ExternE.jrc.es).

41

The ExternE National Implementation

The information service is already now used frequently by visitors from outside the project. When the results of the ongoing project will be available on the server, the information of the existence of the server will be submitted to the main search engines so as to simplify the information retrieval for all potential users of the ExternE infosystem. The Project Area The main target of the information system is -of course- not to provide information to the partners involved in the study. However, the system can be favourably be used to improve the flow of information within the project an thus enhance the output of the project. Therefore, a domain for project partners has been developed, which provides some tools for enhanced communication on project related issues. This domain comprises the following features. • A discussion board. All project partners can add remarks and proposals. Questions can be asked, which are accessible to all project partners and the answers can be seen by all partners as well. Rather than a bilateral discussion, the discussion can thus be carried out by the whole project. • A calendar. In the calendar dates related to the project such as meeting dates or deadlines can be added by all project partners. Thus the project partners can inform all colleagues about events. • A download area Here, available drafts, maintenance notes and other project related documents can be deposited and downloaded. The “project area” of the system has proven to be a valuable tool. It is foreseen to apply this for forthcoming research projects. The core information system This part of the system is containing the results of the ExternE project. Access to the results will be granted to all interested users once they registered to the system. That means they have to leave their name, address and some additional information and, after a brief check will receive the access key for the system. The main target of the system is to provide information to people and decisionmakers interested in external costs. A “layer” structure will enable every user to retrieve the information taylored to his individual needs in respect of level of detail or aggregation. Starting from a executive summary, the user can explore all existing background information in detail. That means that for all national implementation studies a extended summary are available on-line. For interested users, there exists the possibility to selectively download parts of the reports. The user will be able to download information packages tailored to his specific interests. However, in any case it will be assured that the basic information needed to understand the results will be added to the information package selected for downloading. This information service will offer prompt response and information without having to wait for reports being sent as it used to be the case for the previous phase of ExternE. Nevertheless, due to the registration of the users, a detailed record of the users of the service is readily available.

42

Methodology

Public Area

Project Area

General Information Newsletter Publications Announcements

password

Project News Project Calendar Project Discussion Board

(password)

Overview

Abstracts / Executive Summaries Scientific Explanation

Detail

Expert Knowledge

Figure 3.6 The structure of the Infosystem as a whole.

43

The ExternE National Implementation

References BMJ (1983): Der Bundesminister der Justiz (ed.). Störfall-Leitlinien. Bundesanzeiger 35, 245a. Bonnefous, S. and A. Despres (1989): Evolution of the European data base, IPSN/EURATOM - CEA Association, BP 6, 92265 Fontenay-Aux-Roses, France. Derwent, R.G. and K. Nodop (1986): Long-range transport and deposition of acidic nitrogen species in north-west Europe. Nature 324, 356-358. EC/OECD/IEA (1995) Proceedings of the First EC/OECD/IEA Workshop on Energy Externalities: The External Costs of Energy. Brussels 30-31 January 1995. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995a). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 1, Summary.

European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995b). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 2, Methodology. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995c). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 3, Coal and Lignite Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995d). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 4, Oil and Gas Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995e). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 5, Nuclear Fuel Cycle. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995f). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 6, Wind and Hydro Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1998a). ‘ExternE’ Project. Methodology Report, 2nd Edition. To be published. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1998b). ‘ExternE’ Project. Analysis of Global Warming Externalities. To be published.

Fritsche, U., Leuchtner, J., Matthes, F.C., Rausch, L. and Simon, K.-H. (1992). GesamtEmissions-Model Intergrierter Systeme (GEMIS) Version 2.0. OKO-Institutt Buro Darmstadt, Bunsenstr. 14, D-6100 Darmstadt. An English version is distributed under the name TEMIS. Heijungs, R., et al (1992). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Part 1. Guide. Part 2. Backgrounds. Centre of Environmental Science, Garenmarkt 1, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands. Hohmeyer, O, (1988). Social Costs of Energy Consumption. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Hollingsworth, A. (1987): Objective analysis for numerical weather prediction. Collection of papers presented at The WMO/IUGG NWP Sympsium, Tokyo, 4-8 August 1986, 11-59.

44

Methodology

ISET (1995) Externalities of photo-voltaics. In the ExternE National Implementation Report for Germany, written by IER (Universitat Stuttgart) and others. To be published in 1998. Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V., Leskinen, A., Hanssen, O.-J., Ronning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (1995). LCA-NORDIC Technical Report No. 10: Impact Assessment. TemaNord 1995:503, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Nester, K. and P. Thomas (1979): Im Kernforschungszentrum Ausbreitungsparameter für Emissionshöhen bis 195 m. Staub 39, 291-295.

Karlsruhe

experimentell

ermittelte

Nordeng, T.E. (1986): Parameterization of physical processes in a three-dimensional numerical weather prediction model. Technical Report No. 65. DNMI, Oslo. OECD (1992). Proceedings of an OECD Workshop on Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Systems. Paris, 21-22 May, 1992. R.G. Derwent, G.J. Dollard, S.E. Metcalfe: On the nitrogen budget for the United Kingdom and north-west Europe. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 114, 1127-1152, 1988. R.W. Brode, J. Wang: Users's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Models Volumes I-III. EPA-450/4-92-008a. EPA-450/4-92-008b. EPA-450/4-92-008c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Sandnes, H. and H. Styve (1992): Calculated Budgets for Airborne Acidifying Components in Europe 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. EMEP/MSC-W Report 1/92, Oslo. Thomas, P. and S. Vogt (1990): Mesoscale Atmospheric Dispersion Experiments Using Tracer and Tetroons. Atmospheric Environment 24a, 1271-1284.

45

4. RESULTS FOR AUSTRIA Prepared by VEO.

4.1

Introduction

Austria is located in the centre of Europe. It covers some 84,000 km2, mostly placed either on alpine regions or the Danube plain. It has a population of around 8 million, and one of the highest GDP per capita of the world, what makes a total GDP of around 184,000 million US$. Its major energy sources are oil, natural gas, coal, and hydro, the first two of them contributing to more than 75% of the primary energy supply. The selection of the fuel chains assessed is justified in the following section. 4.1.1

Selection of the fuel chains studied

Analyses concerning the future supply of electricity in Austria in order to cover the expected demand point to the increasing use of thermal power stations since the construction of hydraulic power stations is increasingly faced with objections. Among the fossil fuels available, the supply of natural gas will be the energy source predominantly used, not only because of the efficient technology available but also because of the positive environmental characteristics of this energy source. In particular in the case of Austria, it is expected that the amount of natural gas used in power plants will be doubled, from 87,325 TJ at present (1995) to 151,557 TJ in 2010. The power plant considered in the Austrian case, the CHP plant at Linz Süd, represents the most modern technology available. It could be expected that this technology will be used as reference technology for future constructions in Austria. Because of the optimal use of the energy content of the fuel, such type of thermal power plants are to be used also at those sites where a demand for heat is prevailing. Both criteria, demand for electricity and demand for heat, complied the requests prevailing at Linz. In the Austrian industry, in particular the pulp & paper industry and the particle board industry, experiences are made with CHP plants fuelled by biomass that operate at capacities level ranging between 80 and 120 MWth. For supplying a village district network with heat, however, smaller units, operating in the range between 5 and 10 MWth are important. Using the big supply of (cheap) industrial waste wood from sawmills and smaller wood industries, such units provide district heat on the one hand and cover the demand for (process)heat on the other. The CHP plant in Reuthe is the first such cogeneration system with a small(er) thermal capacity in Austria. The CHP plant located in Reuthe might be used as a model plant for other similar projects. As for the hydro fuel chain, the power plant analysed differs remarkably from the cases presented in the earlier project. The most evident specifications of power plant "Greifenstein" are: -

given an installed capacity of nearly 300 MW, the run-of-river plant is considered a large site unit,

57

The ExternE National Implementation

-

the plant is a multipurpose plant in the sequence of plants along the river Danube with manifold effects on ecology and economy, and

-

the plant is in operation for more than a decade.

From this point of view, the consideration of the Austrian run-of-river plant will broaden the scope of hydro power plants to be analysed with the framework of the "ExternE" project. Furthermore, the selection of "Greifenstein" as case example is positively supported by the fact that a variety of information on economic and ecological effects is accessible.

4.2

Gas fuel cycle

4.2.1

Definition of the Natural Gas Fuel Cycle

The power plant analyzed for this fuel cycle is of the type CCGT (combined cycle, gas turbine) with heat extraction for district heating. The power plant, located in Linz, Upper Austria, Austria, has an installed power capacity of 116 MWel (net), and an operation time of 4,690 hours per year. The fuel, natural gas, is supplied via pipelines by Russia. In accordance with the guidelines given by ISO, the different stages of the Austrian Natural Gas Fuel Cycle are shown in the following figures:

58

Results for Austria

3) 1)

Processing II

3) 1)

0-5.1

Production 0-8.1

Processing I

Transportation

0-7.1

0-6.0

2)

Storage 0-4.0

Processing III 0-3.1

Transportation 0-2.0

Grid Electricity

Fuel transformation in power plant

4)

District Heat

0-1.0

2) Main Input Materials; Products 1) Ancillary Materials and Services; Other Inputs 2) By-Products; Releases 3) Inputs for Manufacturing and Construction 4) Outputs from Termination and Dismantling

System Boundary Modular Subsystem (Element) Non-Modular Subsystem (Element) 1.0, 2.1,... Element-no.

4)

Figure 4.1 Stages of the Natural Gas Fuel Cycle of the CHP plant Linz Süd - operation

59

The ExternE National Implementation

3) 1) 3) 1) Natural Ga s Fuel Cycle Construction 3)

3) 3) 1) Main Input Materials

Main 1) Input Materials

Manufacturing Subsector C-9.0

Construction Subsector

2)

C-10.1

2) 4)

Natural Ressources

Space

Construction Outputs (Capital Goods and Facilities)

Grid Electricity

Natural Gas unextracted Natural Gas Fuel Cycle Operation

4) C-tot

District Heat

O-tot

2)

2)

4) 3)

Space

1) 3)

Dismantling Inputs

3)

Natural Gas Fuel Cycle 1)

1) Dismantling Wasted Facilities Recyclable Materials

Construction Subsector

Waste Handling and Processing Subsector

Decommissioned Hardware Residues and Contamination

Dismantling Outputs

D-11.0

D-10.1

2)

2)

4)

4)

D-tot

4)

2) (C+O+D)-tot

2) Main Input Materials; Products 1) Ancillary Materials and Services; Other Inputs 2) By-Products; Releases 3) Inputs for Manufacturing and Construction 4) Outputs from Termination and Dismantling

1.0 , 2.1 ,...

System Boundary Modular Subsystem (Element) Non-Modu lar Subsystem (Element) Element-no.

4)

Figure 4.2 Stages of the Natural Gas Fuel Cycle of the CHP plant Linz Süd - construction and dismantling The characteristics of the technologies at each stage of the Natural Gas Fuel Cycle are presented in the following figure and table. Area 27,779.0 m2 Capital 1.4 billion ATS

natural gas

Concrete Steel Formwork Synthetic material Aluminium Copper Glass

11, 870.0 2,368.0 33,100.0 10.0 20.0 60.0 2.0

160.0 million Nm3/yr

ammonia gas sodium hydroxide hydrochloric acid ammonia solvent corrosion-inhibitor detergent oil binder lubricant

own electricity own heat cooling water

39.0 t/yr 10.0 t/yr 23.0 t/yr 200.0 l/yr 30.0 l/yr 987.0 l /yr 100.0 l/yr 590.0 kg/yr

Emissions during construction 12.6 t NOx SO2 9.9 t Particles 1.7 t CO 60.0 t CO2 4,179.4 t

electricity

640.0 GWh/yr

district heat

269.0 GWh/yr

waste heat (coooling water) cooling water waste water

230.0 GWh/yr 34.8 million m3 /yr 46,906.0 m3/yr

garbage 29.0 m3/yr screen materrials 13.5 t/yr paper 12.0 m3/yr metal 1,940.0 kg/yr waste oil 10,920.0 kg/yr oil separator 4,500.0 kg/yr workshop waste 2,090.0 kg/yr

14.0 GWh/yr 3.5 GWh/yr 34.9 million m3/yr

Dismantling not available

60

m3 t m2 t t t t

Emissions to air NOx 131.0 SO2 0.5 Particles 0.0 CO 52.0 CO2 274,000.0

t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr

Emissions to water Na 7.5 Cl 3.2 SO4 0.7 Ca 1.6 Mg 0.3 K 0.04

t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr

Results for Austria

Figure 4.3 Energy and material balance (including preparatory works for 3rd GT unit) of the CHP plant Linz Süd Table 4.1 Natural Gas Fuel Cycle - technical characteristics Stage 1. Gas production in NON-EU

Parameter

Value

Location Gas field production 1994 Composition of raw gas

Urengoy „C“ /Western Siberia 222.4 bn m3 CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H8 n-C4H10 i-C4H10 C5+ CO2 N2 H2S

Lower heating value (LHV) Labor Gas leakages - normal operation 2) Final energy requirements 2) electricity heat Primary energy consumption 1)

99.0 vol. % 0.1 vol. % 0.01 vol. % 0.005 vol. % 0.005 vol. % 0.005 vol. % none 0.085 vol. % 0.79 vol. % 8.5 10-6 vol. % 35.6 MJ/m3 n.a. 0.315 % 0.017 kWhel/m3 0 MJ/m3 319.27 MJ/1,000 m3

2. Gas processing in NON-EU Facility Gas volume processed Gas leakages - normal operation 3) Labor Final energy requirements 3) electricity heat Primary energy consumption 1)

absorption (DEG) 5 to 10 bn m3 per line 0.12 % n.a. 0.00028 kWhel/m3 0.0068 MJ/m3 2.616.13 MJ/1,000 m3

3. Gas transportation in NON-EU Mode of transport Pipeline length Pipeline diameter Gas volume transported Gas leakages - normal operation

pipeline 4,950 km 1,420 mm 28 bn m3/yr

pipeline 4) compressor stations 4), 5) Number of compressor stations Compression stations location installed power efficiency Labor Final energy requirements - gas 4) Primary energy consumption 1)

0.113 %/1,000 km 0.57 % 36 2,880 MW 28 % n.a. 0.182 %/100 km 2,557.56 MJ/1,000 m3

3a. Manufacturing pipeline in EU and NON-EU Material demands steel Labor Construction period Primary energy consumption

3,479,000 t n.a. n.a. 19,521 GWh

61

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage 4. Gas processing in EU

Parameter

Value

Facility Gas volume processed 7) Gas leakages - normal operation 3) Labor Final energy requirements 3) electricity heat Primary energy consumption 1), 7)

absorption (TEG) 0 0.0273 % n.a. 0.00007 kWhel/m3 0.0006 MJ/m3 0 MJ/1,000 m3

Facility Gas volume stored 7) Gas leakages 6) Labor Final energy requirements - gas 6) Primary energy consumption 1), 7)

depleted gas field 0 0.1 % n.a. 0.5 % 0 MJ/1,000 m3

5. Gas storage in EU

6. Gas transportation in EU Mode of transport Pipeline length Pipeline diameter Gas volume transported Gas leakages

pipeline 200 km; 50 km 800 mm; 500 mm 5 bn m3/yr; 1.9 bn m3/yr

pipeline 4) compressor station 4), 5) Number of compressor stations Compressor station location installed power efficiency Labor Final energy requirements - gas 4) Primary energy consumption 1)

0.0024 %/100 km 0.0056 % 1 Baumgarten/Austria 40 MW 33 % n.a. 0.22 %/100 km 139.01 MJ/1,000 m 3

7. Power generation in EU Fuel Technology Location Surface elevation at site Anemometer height Installed capacity 8)

natural gas/light fuel oil combined cycle Linz/Upper Austria 252 m 10 m

electricity (net) - 2 gas turbines (net) - steam turbine (extraction) (net) heat (net)

max. 116 MWel 80 MWel 36 MWel 11)/26 MWel 110 MWth

Efficiency (base load) 8) electric thermal total

32 % 54 % 86 % 129 mio. m3/a approx. 4,690 h/yr 25 yr DLN (Dry Low NOx ) - burners, SCR

land area required cooling system amount of cooling water stack height

27,779 m2 river 5,000 m3/h 40 m

Gas consumption Full load hours 13) Technical lifetime Pollution control Size of the plant

62

Results for Austria

Stage

Parameter

Value stack diameter

3.45 m 18 workers

flue gas volume 12) flue gas temperature

approx. 720,000 m3/h 348 K

garbage paper metal waste oil workshop waste

30.8 m3/yr 11 m3/yr 129 kg/yr 800 kg/yr 1,560 kg/yr

concrete steel

11,870 m3 2,368 t n.a. 1 yr n.a.

Labor 10) Exhausts (base load)

Waste products

9)

7a. Construction (manufacturing) of power plant in EU Material demands 9)

Labor Construction period 7b. Dismantling of power plant n.a. DEG TEG 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

4.2.2

not available diethylene glycol triethylene glycol based on natural gas loco power station Linz Süd based on output produced based on output processed based on output transported derived from installed capacity based on gas injected because of the calculations in EcoSense, a continuous gas supply is assumed, i.e. no storage or drying in Austria is required (however, because of the actual operation of the power plant, storage and drying would have to be considered) for natural gas fuel operation, max. heat extraction based on air inlet temperature 1 °C, 250 m above sea level, 60 % humidity extracted from figure 1.3 administration excluded at 0 MWth heat extraction based on 15 % O2 by volume the power plant operates only in Cogeneration mode

Discussion of Burdens and Impacts of the Natural Gas Fuel Cycle

Fuel specific, atmospheric emissions dominate , and, to a lower extent, emissions into water and soil must be considered. Table 4.2 Environmental aspects - operation Stage 1. Gas production in NON-EU

Parameter

Value

SO2 NOx (as NO2) NMVOC CO CO2 CH4

0.0014 g/1,000 m3 0.1266 kg/1,000 m3 0.0063 kg/1,000 m3 0.0507 kg/1,000 m3 18.160 kg/1,000 m3 3.0733 kg/1,000 m3 0.033 l/m3

SO2 NOx (as NO2) NMVOC CO CO2

0.0002 g/1,000 m3 0.0103 kg/1,000 m3 0.0007 kg/1,000 m3 0.0044 kg/1,000 m3 1.839 kg/1,000 m3

Emissions into air 1)

Emissions into water 2) 2. Gas processing in NON-EU Emissions into air 1)

63

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter CH4

Value 1.3197 kg/1,000 m3 n.a.

SO2 NOx (as NO2) NMVOC CO CO2 CH4 Emissions into water/soil

0.0115 g/1,000 m3 0.8129 kg/1,000 m3 0.0507 kg/1,000 m3 0.4058 kg/1,000 m3 134.270 kg/1,000 m3 11.1771 kg/1,000 m3 negligible

Emissions into water/soil 3. Gas transportation in NON-EU Emissions into air 1)

4. Gas transportation in EU Emissions into air 1) SO2 NOx (as NO2) NMVOC CO CO2 CH4 Emissions into water/soil

0.0006 g/1,000 m3 0.0390 kg/1,000 m3 0.0012 kg/1,000 m3 0.0116 kg/1,000 m3 7.284 kg/1,000 m3 0.1519 kg/1,000 m3 negligible

5. Gas processing in EU 4) 6. Gas storage in EU 4) 7. Power generation in EU Emissions into air 1), 3) SO2 NOx (as NO2) NMVOC CO CO2 CH4 TSP

2.5287 g/1,000 m3 0.5759 kg/1,000 m3 ~0 kg/1,000 m3 0.5295 kg/1,000 m3 1,899.2 kg/1,000 m3 ~0 kg/1,000 m3 ~0 kg/1,000 m3

Emissions into water 3), 5) Na Cl SO4 Ca Mg K Sewage water 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

3.5 t/yr 9.1 t/yr 0.8 t/yr 1.9 t/yr 0.4 t/yr 0.05 t/yr 30,662 m3/yr

based on natural gas loco power station Linz Süd based on output produced extracted from figure 1.3 because of the calculations in EcoSense, a continuous gas supply is assumed, i.e. no storage or drying in Austria is required it should be noticed that the standards for emissions into water prescribed by law are much higher and are not achieved by the actual emissions from the power plant by far.

The grand total of primary energy needs required to transport natural gas from the source, the Urengoy gas fields in Western Siberia, to the power site total 5,632 MJ per 1,000 m3. In comparison to the total amount of gas transported per year from the gas field to the power plant, such energy requirements imply that around 16 % of the provided energy is needed for extraction, processing, transportation and other operations. The direct and indirect emissions of methane (releases from normal operation and incidents) amount to 15.7 kg per 1,000 m3, about 2.2 % of the natural gas supply provided at the power plant. The larger share of methane emissions occur in the pipeline system stretched along the Russian territory. However, the improvements of the transportation facilities will lead to sizable emission reductions in future. Figure 4.4 compares the upstream and downstream emissions into air of the entire Natural Gas Fuel Cycle.

64

Results for Austria

SO 2

NO 2

CO 47,2%

63,2%

99,5%

0,5%

36,8%

CO 2

52,8%

CH 4

Upstream

7,8% 100 ,0%

Downstream (fuel transformation)

92,2 %

Figure 4.4 Upstream and downstream emissions into air of the entire Natural Gas Fuel Cycle Following priority items are identified: Global warming, public health and occupational health. The fire risk associated with the entire fuel cycle is low. 4.2.3

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Table 4.3 Damages of the entire Natural Gas Fuel Cycle Energy (grid electricity and district heat) mECU1995/kWh

σg

mECU1995/kWh

Exergy (grid electricity and district heat 1)) mECU1995/kWh

1.509252 n.g. 0.000257 1.854575 0.075680 0.421260 n.g. 0.000005 0.345575 0.075680 n.q. 0.032148 0.000630 n.g. 0.021676 n.g. n.g. 3.349927 3.349154 0.000773

1.269211 n.g. 0.000215 1.559534 0.063610 0.354148 n.g. 0.000004 0.290534 0.063610 n.q. 0.028878 0.000529 n.g. 0.018044 n.g. n.g. 3.009181 3.008487 0.000694

0.774729 n.g. 0.000132 0.951972 0.038840 0.216215 n.g. 0.000003 0.177372 0.038840 n.q. 0.020527 0.000323 n.g. 0.010569 n.g. n.g. 2.138922 2.138428 0.000494

B

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Energy (grid electricity)

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality2) - YOLL of which TSP SO2 NOx CO Morbidity of which TSP SO2 NOx CO Accidents Occupational health 3) Major accidents Crop Ecosystems Material Noise Visual Impacts Global warming of which CO2 CH4 OTHER FUEL CHAIN STAGES Public health

A

B B B

C

65

The ExternE National Implementation

Occupational health Global warming 4) of which CO2 CH4 Emissions into water Fire risk Emissions into soil SUB-TOTAL n.g. n.a. 1) 2) 3) 4)

0.051377 0.876303 0.283520 0.592783 n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.26

0.046151 0.787168 0.254681 0.532487 n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.51

0.032804 0.559518 0.181028 0.378490 n.a. n.a. n.a 3.75

B C

negligible not assessed Carnot - factor for district heat 0.2 YOLL = mortality impacts based on „Years of Life Lost“ approach including operation and construction/manufacturing of the plant only operation

In comparison to other fuels electorate generation from natural gas leads to low external costs. This conclusion is also valid for natural gas extracted in Western Siberia which has to be transported more than 5,000 km to the power plant. The lion’s share of the external costs comes from global warming, in particular from CO2. Because of the NOx reduction measures the emissions into air at the plant site are rather low. The remaining external costs from the operation of the power plant are dominated by nitrates. A general view must take into account waste heat utilization (local emission reduction due to district heating). Specially the CO2 reduction is considerable.

4.3

Hydro fuel cycle

4.3.1

Definition of the Hydropower Fuel Cycle

The power plant Greifenstein located in Lower Austia, Austria, is the eighth run-of-river plant on the river Danube. Having an installed capacity of 293 MW and a yearly mean energy generation of 1,720 GWh, Greifenstein is the second largest run-of-river plant. The construction period lasted from 1981 to 1985 and the construction costs summed about 8.1 billion ATS (about 600 million ECU). The power plant is managed by Österreichische Donaukraftwerke AG (DONAUKRAFT) or VERBUND respectively. The phases and impacts of the analyzed technology are shown in Figure 4.5.

66

Results for Austria

Construction of the power plant impacts of - main building - catchment area - labour force - traffic at construction site

Power generation impacts of - main building - catchment area - infrastructure facilities - labour force

Dismantling of the power plant (not considered)

Figure 4.5 Phases and impacts of the hydropower fuel cycle The technical characteristics are listed in Table 4.4, and a schematic presentation of the energy and material balance of the run-of-river plant Greifenstein is shown in Figure 4.6.

67

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 4.4 Technical characteristics of the run-of-river plant Greifenstein Distance from mouth 1,949.18 km Backwater length 30.6 km Catchment area 100,101 km2 Headwater elevation 177 m above MSL Mean annual production 1,720 GWh Maximum output 293 MW

Firm flow Mean flow Maximum flow 100 years’ flood

flow rate 893 m3/s 1,882 m3/s 5,125 m3/s 10,750 m3/s

Powerhouse No. of units Type of units Rated flow Rated head Turbine capacity Generator capacity Rated voltage Transformer rating

9 bulb 350 m3/s 10.9 m 35 MW 38 MVA 8 kV 114 MVA

gross head 14.3 m 12.6 m 8.4 m

Source: DONAUKRAFT (1997) Area 5,000,000 m 2 Capital 8.1 billion ATS

Water load

Main station Excavated material gravel 13.9 solids 2.4 Concrete 1.1 Steel 21,000

million m 3 million m 3 million m 3 t

Backwater area Excavated material gravel 9.9 Thin diaphragm wall 0.4 Gravel compaction and skin jacket 0.8 Riprap 1.0

59,57 billion m 3 /yr

Own electricity use and locks Production facilities

million m 3 million m 3

Emissions during construction not available

million m 3 million m 3

Net electricity

Waste material Grating material

1,720 GWh/yr

6,600 kg/yr 125 t/yr

9.0 GWh/yr negligible

Emissions to air negligible

Emissions to water negligible

Dismantling not considered

Figure 4.6 Energy and material balance of the hydro power plant Greifenstein 4.3.2

Discussion of Burdens, Benefits and Impacts

The analyses of the impact pathways distinguish between power generation and construction of the power plant. More than 70 impact pathways - covering burden pathways (42) as well as benefit pathways (30) - on human

68

Results for Austria

environment, economy, and environment were identified and analyzed. 20 of these impact pathways have external effects (burdens or benefits) with medium or high priorities. Effects on the human environment with medium or high priority are: -

a remarkably impairment of people living in the vicinity of the power plant by noise and dust during the construction period (burden)

-

an additional crossing over the river Danube (benefit)

-

improved possibilities for recreation and leisure, e.g. the recreation area “Altarm” (benefit)

-

an entire protection against high water of the right river bank; on the left river banks the retention areas could be maintained (benefit)

Effects on the economy with medium or high priority are: -

an impairment of the shipping traffic due to the lifting of bridges, low river beds, and changes in the velocity of the river flow during the construction period (burden)

-

an increase of the real estate value on the right side of the river Danube (benefit)

-

improved commercial shipping traffic due to saved transport charges (benefit)

-

upgraded tourist attraction because of the improved infrastructure and the increased supply of recreation and leisure facilities (benefit)

-

an annual employment effect of 13,000 jobs during the construction period due to investments of 8.1 billion ATS (benefit)

Effects on the environment with medium or high priority are: -

the use of landscape (the main station requires permanently an area of 30.3 km2 and the catchment area 19.7 km2) (burden)

-

effects on the scenery in the catchment area by dikes, by the loss of shallow waters and by the monotony of the river banks (burden)

-

a sensible impairment of the fauna by noise, dust and shaking during the construction period (burden)

-

impacts on the surface waters of the river Danube due to the damming, with the negative effects prevailing (burden)

-

the clearing of woodland (About 4 % of the ”Auwald” had to be cleared because of the construction of the power station and the catchment area.) (burden)

-

the connection of the old river beds on the left river banks to the so-called “Gießgang” (benefit)

4.3.3

Summary and Interpretation of Results

The hydropower schemes analyzed in the course of the ExternE project are characterized by remarkable diversities with regard to type and size of the plant and the site specific impacts on environment and economy.

69

The ExternE National Implementation

It has to be noted that the Austrian power plant Greifenstein differs remarkably from other hydropower schemes analyzed in the course of the project. Site and type specific characteristics of the power plant Greifenstein include: -

The plant is a relatively large run-of river plant. It is not a stand-alone plant but is part of a chain of power plants along the river Danube.

-

The plant is a multi-purpose facility with manifold impacts on the environment and selected economic sectors.

-

The power plant is in use for more than a decade.

An advantage from having selected this power plant as case example consists in the fact that this plant is similar to other power plants along the river Danube. Hence, the analysis of the power plant Greifenstein serves not only as a complementary analysis to those carried out within the ExternE project but could be used to provide indicators for the power plants along the river Danube. Not all of the manifold external positive and negative effects of the power plant could be analyzed in detail. It was necessary to focus on some selected aspects, the results of which are shown in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 Moreover, external costs typical of the operation and construction of a hydropower plant could be defined for the power plant Greifenstein (Table 4.5).

70

Results for Austria

Table 4.5 Damages of the hydro fuel cycle mECU/kWh POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality Morbidity Accidents Occupational health Major accidents (nuclear) Ozone impacts Crops Ecosystems Materials Monuments Noise Visual impacts Global warming OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health Occupational health Ecological effects Road damages Global warming SUBTOTAL Occupational accidents only ng nq iq -

ng 6.5*10-2 nq nq nq nq ng nq nq 4.2*10-2 nq ng nq

σg

A A

A

A A

0.11

negligible not quantified only impact quantified not relevant

In principal, a standardized evaluation approach for some external effects (i.e., occupational accidents) is possible. On the other hand the quantitative evaluation of environmental impacts from the power plant turned out to cause major difficulties. Applying approaches such as the contingent value-methodology are labour and time intensive. Apart from the common negative effects that are identified in Table 4.5, selected positive external effects have been analyzed and are listed in Table 4.6.

71

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 4.6 Benefits of the hydro fuel cycle POWER GENERATION Human environment Recreation/Leisure Protection against flooding Economy Real estate Ship transport Tourism OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Economy Creation of jobs SUBTOTAL Occupational accidents only ng nq iq -

mECU/kWh

σg

nq iq

A

nq 0.78 - 8.3 nq

A

iq

A

0.78 - 8.3

negligible not quantified only impact quantified not relevant

It is to be noted that the identified benefits and burdens resulting from the construction and operation of the power plant Greifenstein are certainly site specific and might be transferable to only those power plants located along the river Danube. The results are only to a limited extent transferable to smaller sites and types of run-ofriver plants or plants located in other Member States of the Community. It goes without saying that results from a run-of-river plant are barely comparable to hydro storage power plants; any comparison to fossil or nuclear fuel cycles should be done with caution. Despite of this restricted comparability, some general conclusions can be drawn with regard to external effects resulting from the construction and operation of a (run-of-river) hydropower fuel cycle. •

Like other fuel cycles, the generation of electricity of large run-of-river hydropower plants is accompanied by significant external costs. The impacts of external effects are primarily local and regional. However, as for the time aspect, the effects alternate remarkably between short, medium and long term.



Large run-of-river hydropower plants generate positive external effects in areas such as economy and living conditions.



The range and intensity of negative and positive effects can be largely influenced and controlled by sensitive planning of the site and the vicinity.



Since some of the external effects that could be important but are difficult to quantify, in particular in cases of environmentally relevant parameters, it deems advisable not to focus only on monetised costs and benefits but also on detailed descriptive information.

4.4

Biomass Fuel Cycle

4.4.1

Definition of the Biomass Fuel Cycle

The power plant analyzed for this fuel cycle is located in Reuthe, Vorarlberg, Austria. The plant is of the type „Combined heat and power“ with an installed power capacity of 1.2 MWe and 6.3 MWth. The fuel, biomass, is supplied from the near-by vicinity.

72

Results for Austria

The analyses focus on two different fuel chains concerning the upstream supply of biomass. Case A reflects the actual situation of the fuel chain under analysis, i.e. the small and coarse fuelwood are provided as waste from an industrial production facility. Case B was chosen as alternative fuel chain in order to cover a situation whereby the small fuelwood will result from industrial waste while the coarse fuelwood comes from biomass obtained from forest residues. In Case A and Case B the annual fuel requirements of the CHP plant is on average 70 % small fuelwood (wood powder, shavings, sawdust) and 30 % coarse fuelwood (wood chips). In both cases, fuel oil is used in the pilot flame to ignite the small fuelwood in the muffle furnace. For illustrative purposes, only on the extended Biomass Fuel Cycle (Case B) will be reflected subsequently.

73

The ExternE National Implementation

Main Input Materials and Products - Case B

3) 1) 3) 1) Wood Cultivation and Harvesting

Biomass

Fuelwood

5.0

2)

3)

3)

3)

1)

Fuelwood

Wood Transport 4.0

Fuel Processing II

4)

2.1

2)

4)

Wood 1) Powder

Fuel Processing I

Fuel Storage II

Shavings

3.1

Wood Chips

Fuel Storage I

3)

4)

1)

Industrial Waste

Wood Chips

3.2

2) 3)

4)

3) 1)

1)

1)

Sawdust 2)

Shavings

2.2

3)

Grid Electricity

2) Wood Powder

District Heat

Fuel Transformation in power plant

Sawdust 2)

4)

1)

4) Fuel Oil

Fuel Storage III

Fuel Oil 1.0

2.3

2)

2) 4)

4)

Main Input Materials; Products 1) Ancillary Materials and Services; Other Inputs 2) By-Products; Releases 3) Inputs for Manufacturing and Construction 4) Outputs from Termination and Dismantling

(C+O+D)-tot

2)

4)

System Boundary Modular Sub-System (Element) Non-Modular Sub-System (Element) 1.0, 2.1,... Element no.

Figure 4.7 Stages of the Biomass Fuel Cycle of the CHP plant Reuthe - Case B concrete steel copper plastic mineral wool glass

Area 2,000 m2 Capital 61.7 million ATS

11, 700.0 2,368.0 42.0 28.0 9.0 0.3

t t t t t t

Emissions during construction 53.0 t NOx 12.0 t SO2 Particles 19.0 t CO 33.0 t 18,000.0 t CO2 37.0 t CH4 3.5 t N2O net electricity

wood chips wood powder shavings saw dust fuel oil gluey water chemicals air water replacement parts own electricity own heat cooling water

2,800.0 320.0 4,200.0 1,900.0 0.7 450.0 2.4 83,000.0 1,000.0 7.0

net district heat

t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr

4,700.0 MWh/yr 29,000.0 MWh/yr

ash 11.0 ash and cinder 21.0 fly ash 77.0 sludge 230.0 contaminated water 340.0 solids from equipment 7.0

830 MWh/yr 0 MWh/yr 0 m3/yr

Recycling materials Waste Emissions to air NOx CO CO2

370.0 t 11,700.0 t

Emissions to air NOx 14.0 Particles 0.8 CO 2.3 2.3 C xH y CH4 0.6 0.15 N2O

t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr

t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr

Emissions to water Na n.q. Cl n.q. SO4 n.q. Ca n.q. Mg n.q. K n.q.

2.3 t 1.1 t 160.0 t n.q......not quantified

Figure 4.8 Characteristics of the energy and material balance of the CHP plant Reuthe

74

Results for Austria

The technical characteristics of the technologies considered in Case B at each stage of the biomass fuel cycles are presented in Table 4.7. Table 4.7 Biomass Fuel Cycle - technical characteristics, Case B Stage Parameter Value 1. Biomass harvesting (B: O-5.0) Location of wood cultivation Bregenzerwald, Vorarlberg Species spruce Composition of biomass branches, tops, bark Total area required 2,350 ha Harvested biomass 5,500 t/yr Alternative use of biomass left in the forest Heating value 2.2 kWh/kg Labor 8,000 h/yr 2. Biomass transport (B: O-4.0) Mode of transport 100 % road Mass of transported biomass 5,500 t/yr Mass of losses 50 t/yr Labor 2,200 h/yr 3. Biomass processing (B: O-3.0) Processing facility Chipper and dryer Mass of biomass processed 5,450 t/yr Mass of losses 50 t/yr Labor 2,600 h/yr 4. Biomass storage (B: O-2.0) Storage facility 4 weeks of energy consumption Volume of biomass stored 5,350 m³ (330 t; 9,350 t/yr) Volume of losses 80 t/yr Labor 300 h/yr 5. Power generation (B: O-1.0) Fuel shavings, sawdust, wood powder, wood chips Lower heating value 4.0 to 4.8 kWh/kg Moisture content 8 to 30 % Technology steam process with muffle furnace and grate furnace Type of plant Combined heat and power plant Location Reuthe, Vorarlberg, Austria Capacities boiler fuel input 10 MW electric power 1.265 MWe heat power 6.3 MWth Efficiency (elec + district heat) 78 % Biomass consumption shavings 4,200 t/yr sawdust 2,000 t/yr wood powder 300 t/yr wood chips 2,800 t/yr Full load hours per year 4,500 h/yr Lifetime 20 years Pollution control particle separator multicyclon with electrostatic filter Plant characteristics land area required 2,000 m2

75

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter cooling system stack height stack diameter surface elevation at site

Labor Air emissions flue gas temperature flue gas volume TSP SO2 NOx CO organ. C 6. Construction of power plant (B: C-tot) Material demands: concrete steel copper plastic glass mineral wool Labor Construction period 7. Dismantling (B: D-tot) Recycling materials Waste Labor Dismantling period 4.4.2

Value condenser for district heat 27 m 1m 650 m 12,000 h/yr 170 °K 17,000 Nm3/h 10 mg/Nm3 4 mg/Nm3 175 mg/Nm3 30 mg/Nm3 3 mg/Nm3

12,200 t 560 t 43 t 35 t 25 t 9t 33,000 h 1 year 470 t 12,200 t 32,000 h 1 year

Discussion of Burdens and Impacts of the Biomass Fuel Cycle

The detailed analysis of the biomass fuel cycle is data intensive and the results depend strongly on the data quality. The data set used combines the information provided by three sources: measured plant specific data, data given from the operator of the plant and data from literature. The analyses focus on emissions into air, however, emissions into water and soil as well as risk components, accident and fire, are also considered, although to a lower extent.

76

Results for Austria

Table 4.8 Biomass Fuel Cycle - environmental aspects, Case B Stage Parameter 1. Biomass harvesting (B: O-5.0) Emissions into air SO2 SO2 biogen SO2 fossil NOx NMVOC CO CO2 CO2 biogen CO2 fossil CH4 N2O CxHy Particles Emissions into soil wood losses Emissions into water liquids from equipment Accident risk Fire risk 2. Biomass transport (B: O-4.0) Emissions into air SO2 SO2 biogen SO2 fossil NOx NMVOC CO CO2 (bio. & fos.) CO2 biogen CO2 fossil CH4 N2O CxHy Particles Emissions into soil wood losses Emissions into water liquids from equipment Accident risk 3. Biomass processing (B: O-3.0) Emissions into air CO2 biogen Emissions into soil wood losses solids from equipment (scrap metal) Emissions into water liquids from equipment Accident risk Fire risk

Value

0.02 t/yr 0 t/yr 0.02 t/yr 0.58 t/yr 0.10 t/yr 0.28 t/yr 40 t/yr 0 t/yr 40 t/yr < 0.01 t/yr 1 Vol.-%), the rest is lean gas. The gas from the Netherlands and Norway is 100 % lean gas while the acid/acid gas split of gas from the GUS is 20/80 %. Natural gas is transported by pipelines. It is assumed that the power plant is directly connected to the regional distribution network. The pressure in pipelines drops over long-distances because of the inner friction and the friction at the pipeline walls. Hence, compressor station are needed in intervals of 100 to 200 km. Further technical installations are control, measure and mixing devices. Storages are needed to level daily fluctuations (high pressure and low pressure gas containers) and seasonal differences (underground storages in emptied gas fields or salt caverns).

114

Results for Germany

Emissions from Up- and Downstream Process Steps For the quantification of emissions from up- and downstream process steps generic emission factors are used. Due to the use of electricity and heat in the up- and downstream process steps air pollutants and greenhouse gases are emitted. In addition, in some processes pollutants are emitted directly. Coal mining leads to a considerable release of CH4. Recent sources give 21 m3/t as emission factor. The mining of lignite sets CH4 free, too, but much less as coal mining. During the extraction and transport by pipelines of oil and gas significant amounts of CH4 are emitted. Especially for the pipelines in the GUS high CH4 emission factors are given in the literature. Due to loading and unloading 0.2 kg dust per ton coal or lignite handles are emitted (UBA, 1989). Table 6.2 summarises the emissions of the German fossil reference energy systems. With some exceptions the highest percentage of the emissions is due to the process step generation. These exceptions are • the emissions of particulates by loading and unloading of coal and lignite. These emissions have only a very local impact and are not taken into account in the impact assessment; • the high CH4 emissions in the upstream processes of all reference energy systems. 6.2.2

Selection of priority impacts

The impacts considered as most relevant are those caused by atmospheric emissions from the power generation stage on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming. In addition, impacts on occupational health are analysed, which are most important for underground coal mining. Discharges of effluents from mining activities might have a significant impacts on groundwater systems, but these effects are very difficult to quantify. 6.2.3

Quantification of impacts and damages

Public Health Effects The general public is affected by an increased level of air pollution from activities on all process steps of the fossil fuel cycles. Both acute and chronic health impacts on the general public are estimated for particulate matter, ozone and acid aerosols resulting from emissions of SO2 and NOx. Although uncertainties in this field are high, an important finding of this study is that acid aerosols are a major source of health effects, so that damages from the oil and even from the gas fuel cycles are higher than previously expected. Table 6.2 SO2, NOx, particulates, CH4, and N2O emission factors in mg/kWh and CO2 emission factors in g/kWh for the process steps of the reference energy systems

SO2 Extraction Coal 35.1 Lignite 12.3 Oil 224.0 Gas 3.2 Transport Processes Coal 3.0 Lignite 1.5 Oil 88.4 Gas 0.05 Refinery Oil 91.9

NOx

Particulates

CO2

CH4

N2O

20.6 22.1 74.6 30.1

2.9 2.5 13.5 17.4

31.1 30.4 10.2e + 20.1d 8.1

0.1c + 3267.7e 0.4c + 11.4e 1.4c + 89.5e 6.9c + 1294.0e

0.7 1.3 0.8 0.3

23.8 28.5 69.2 39.2

115a + 0.6d 425a + 0.6d 34.0 0.5

2.9 1.5 8.3 6.7

3.4 0.1 9.7 0.9d + 336.2e

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3

26.6

1.4

28.4

11.5b + 6.8e

0.5

115

The ExternE National Implementation

Electricity Generation Coal 288 Lignite 411 Oil 1207 Gas 0 Total Coal 326 Lignite 425 Oil 1611 Gas 3

516 739 814 208

57 82 18 0

781 1015 858 348

42 14 35 27

42 45 23 1

560 790 985 277

182 511 67 18

815 1047 935 362

3313 26 145 1700

43 46 25 2

a: loading and unloading, b: thermal energy demand, c: electricity demand; d: energy demand, e: direct Occupational Health Effects Health impacts from occupational accidents and occupational diseases are assessed using a statistical approach. We have quantified the ‘net’-risks, i.e. only the difference between the risks of average industrial activities and the specific activity related to the fuel cycle of concern, in order to better reflect the marginal effects. Occupational health effects are the highest from the hard coal fuel cycle, with underground mining as the major source of impacts. The net effects from the lignite and gas fuel cycles are close to zero, i.e. occupational impacts from fuel cycle specific activities are very similar to average industrial activities.

Agriculture Crops can be directly or indirectly injured by air pollutants. Of these pollutants SO2 and NOx are quantitatively the most important which are directly emitted from the different facilities of the fossil fuel cycles. Secondary pollutants which derive from these are O3 and acid deposition (SO42- and NO3-). Again, as emissions from the power plants are the most important, only effects related to the operation of the power plants are calculated. The effects which have been covered in the assessment are yield changes due to O3 and SO2, liming measures additionally required due to acid deposition and fertiliser less required due to nitrogen deposition. The last effect is a benefit of electricity generation from fossil fuels. Crop losses due to O3 are assessed using a simplified approach because site-specific ozone models are not available at the moment.

Forests and natural ecosystems In the fossil fuel cycles SO2 and NOx are emitted which can directly or indirectly (via O3 or deposition of acidity of nitrogen) damage forest ecosystems. At the moment there are no relationships or models for the impact of these air pollutants on forests available. Therefore, the assessment has to fall back on the critical levels/loads concept developed by the UN-ECE. So far, critical load maps for nutrient nitrogen in natural ecosystems are and critical load maps for acidity in German forests available. The additional exceedance heights due to the fossil power plant emissions in the areas where the critical loads are already exceeded have been quantified. These indicators are called potential impact weighted exceedance areas (PIWEA). However, damages are not directly proportional to exceedances of critical loads of acidity or nutrient nitrogen. Therefore, it is not possible to derive physical impacts or even damage costs only using the critical loads. Further criteria are needed for a monetary assessment. Applying the PIWEA indicators the fossil plants can be ranked according to their potential eutrophication impact on natural ecosystems in Europe and according to their potential acidification impact on German forest ecosystems. In both cases the oil power plant has the highest potential impact followed by coal, lignite and gas. The lignite power plant, which is located in Grevenbroich, has a lower potential impact than expected when

116

Results for Germany

compared to coal and oil located in Lauffen. This is caused by the difference in the distributions of the ecosystem areas and pollutant levels for the background scenario around the two sites.

Materials Material surfaces are mostly endangered by SO2 or wet acid deposition. Increased maintenance costs on natural stone, mortar, rendering, zinc and galvanised steel surfaces on European dwelling houses have been evaluated. The material inventory is derived by extrapolating building identikits based on building or population data across Europe. Building identikits for six European cities are available, none of them in Southern Europe. Thus, differences between city and countryside, and different regions are neglected. The dose-response functions for mortar and rendering are extrapolated from that of natural stone. The dose-response function for paint was derived for different paint systems as used nowadays. Critical thickness losses are partially derived from expert opinions and not from behavioural data. For other objects or materials, like historic and industrial buildings, inventories cannot be compiled or exposure-response relationships are not available.

Global warming The fossil reference energy systems emit greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. Although the knowledge about the climate system of the earth has improved considerably during the last years, major uncertainties remain. As part of the EXTERNE project damage factors for CO2 have been assessed, which are applied here. However, major uncertainties concerning the potential impacts of climate change and its costs remain.

Effects of oil spills on marine ecosystems The operational discharge of hydrocarbons from oil tankers to the sea is characterised by a high level of noncompliance to existing regulations. Looking at tanker accidents with major oil spills, the probability of an accident is estimated from world-wide statistics and damage costs from the AMOCO CADIZ and the EXXON VALDEZ accidents are used to derive a first estimate of externalities, resulting in 0.031 mECU/kWh (AMOCO CADIZ) and 0.33 mECU/kWh (EXXON VALDEZ).

Further impacts considered The negative effects of coal mining on aquatic ecosystems are draining and leaching from refuse piles and the impacts of pit water on surface water. When ferric sulphide is oxidised in the refuse pile, the pH can decrease further because this process produces sulphur acid and therefore trace elements can be mobilised. Damage resulting from this impacts will cover a long time period. The costs caused by leaching of chemicals have not been considered in German mining law until now. This may be because groundwater resources in the Ruhrgebiet have not been considered for use as drinking water. In the mining area of the Ruhrgebiet 150 Mill. m3/year of mine water is introduced into the receiving streams, 50 % coming from pits having been already shut down. The river Ruhr itself receives 50 Mill. m3/year, containing an average concentration of 900 g/m3 sulphate and 900 g/m3 chloride. The pit water causes 67 % of the chloride and 42 % of the sulphate in the river Ruhr near Essen. Surface waters may be used as drinking water. They have to concur with the German Drinking Water Standards. Therefore, expensive water treatment is necessary in most cases. Underground mining causes ground subsidence. This subsidence leads to damages to buildings, to the infrastructure, and to disturbances of the river system. According to the German Mining Law the mining companies have to pay for the damages caused by coal mining. It is not possible to check whether these

117

The ExternE National Implementation

reimbursements cover the full costs of the impaired. For the regulation of the river system the operators of the mines have to pay a contribution to co-operative managing of the water system. 7600 people have to resettle over forty years to allow the mining of Garzweiler II, the reference mine. A resettlement procedure has been established over the last decades which especially compensate material losses of the resettlers in case they are owners and not tenants in the old village. In an expert opinion started in 1987 and finished in 1990 the social acceptability of the present resettlement process has been studied. Weak points of the present procedure are lack of transparency and participation possibilities, the neglect of tenants and the undermining of solidarity of the resettlers. But even when these points are taken into account in the future the loss of home, of cultural and historical identity and a structural change of the region cannot be avoided. 6.2.4

Summary and interpretation of results

From the large number of burdens associated with the electricity generation from fossil fuels, a set of priority impact pathways which are expected to cause major environmental damage were analysed. The major fraction of the quantified external costs results from impacts on human health and from global warming effects - in particular the latter impact category is subject of large uncertainties. Nitrate and sulphate aerosols are the main source of human health effects, so that damages from the oil and even the gas fuel cycles are higher than previously expected. Results summarised in Table 6.3 show that external costs from the oil fired gas turbine plant with relatively low thermal efficiency are close to the private costs of electricity generation, while the external costs from a modern combined cycle gas fired power plant are small compared to the internal costs.

118

Results for Germany

Table 6.3 Damages of the fossil fuel cycles mECU/kWh Coal POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx

10.4 (39.0) 1.1(3.3) 2.9 (12.9) 6.3 (19.7) 0.12 (3.1) 1.5 1.3 0.21 ng

σg Lignite

Oil

Gas

13.2 (50.1) 1.7 (5.6) 4.2 (18.6) 7.1 (21.9) 0.17 (4.0) 2.0 1.7 0.30

22.6 (89.1) 0.35 (1.1) 12.9 (54.7) 9.2 (28.4) 0.18 (4.9) 3.1 2.8 0.32

2.4 (8.9) 2.4 (7.7) 0.046 (1.2) 0.39 0.31 0.082

B

NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx A NOx (via ozone) B Accidents A Occupational health A Crops 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.004 B of which 0.001 0.002 0.005 0 SO2 NOx (via acid and -0.0004 -0.0006 -0.0007 -0.0002 N dep.) NOx (via ozone) 0.010 0.014 0.015 0.004 Ecosystems iq B Materials 0.14 0.19 0.42 0.03 B Monuments nq nq nq nq Noise ng ng ng ng Visual impacts ng ng ng ng Aquatic systems 0.18 Global warming C low 3.0 3.9 3.3 1.3 mid 3% 14.3 18.5 15.6 6.3 mid 1% 36.6 47.3 39.8 16.0 High 110.5 143.1 120.4 48.5 OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health 1.3 (3.5) 0.77 (2.4) 7.8 (26.8) 1.5 (3.5) Occupational health (including power 0.19 0 0.052 0.0040 A generation stage) Crops ng ng ng ng B Materials 0.015 0.015 0.13 0.01 B Monuments nq nq nq nq Global warming C low 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 mid 3% 1.9 0.6 1.4 0.9 mid 1% 4.7 1.5 3.7 2.3 High 14.3 4.5 11.1 7.0 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

119

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 6.4 Sub-total damages of the fossil fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

Coal 17.0 (47.8) 29.7 (60.5) 54.9 (85.7) 138.4 (169.2)

mECU/kWh Lignite Oil 20.2 (58.8) 37.9 (123.4) 35.3 (73.8) 51.3 (136.8) 65.0 (103.6) 77.8 (163.3) 163.8 (202.3) 165.8 (251.3)

Coal 11 710 (46 432) 13 898 (40 274) 1 500 21 579 (60 175) 3.8 - 139

ECU / t of pollutant Lignite Oil 11 832 13 688 (46 869) (52 107) 10 945 12 773 (30 973) (36 360) 1 500 1 500 23 415 21 944 (70 976) (63 611) 3.8 - 139 3.8 - 139

Gas 5.9 (14.4) 11.5 (20.0) 22.7 (31.2) 59.8 (68.3)

Table 6.5 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *

YOLL (VSL) NOx * YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) PM10 * YOLL (VSL) CO2

Gas 13 148 (38 629) 1 500 3.8 - 139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach.

6.3

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

6.3.1

Description of the nuclear fuel cycle, quantification of burdens

The German nuclear fuel cycle is broken down into the process steps shown in Figure 6.1 Reference sites and technologies are defined for each of these stages as listed in Table 6.6. The reference site for uranium mining, milling and transformation is Key Lake in Canada. Emission data for this site are taken from (UNSCEAR, 1993). As shown in Table 6.7, a major release of activity results from Radon222 emission from abandoned mill tailing piles. According to UNSCEAR, we assume an exhalation rate of 3 Bq/m2/s from reasonably covered mill tailings that is expected to remain unchanged over at least 10 000 years.

120

Results for Germany

Uraniummining

Milling and Transformation

Enrichment

Conversion

Reprocessing

Fuelfabrication

Reactor

Conditioning

Final disposal

Intermediate storage

Figure 6.1 Process steps of the German nuclear fuel cycle

121

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 6.6 Reference sites and technologies Stage Uranium mining Milling a. transformation Conversion Enrichment Fuel Fabrication Electricity generation Intermediate storage Reprocessing Final disposal

Site Key Lake Key Lake France France France Southwest of Germany Germany France, Le Hague Germany, Gorleben

Technology Open pit

Gaseous diffusion PWR Dry storage Salt rock formation

Table 6.7 Radioactive emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle Mining

H-3 C-14 Aerosols Noble gases I-129 I-131 I-133 Rn-222 U-234 U-235 U-238 Pu-238 Pu-239

Milling (operation)

Milling Mill tailings in operation

Milling Abandoned mill tailings

Conversion

Enrichment

Fuel fabrication

Electricity generation

Reprocessing

1.8 E-9 1.3 E-10 4.4 E-10

7.9 E-2 7.3 E-3 3.5 E-7 1.5

2.4 E-2 3.8 E-2

9.5 E-7 18.8

0.11

1.1

381 2.7 E-5 3.8 E-7 1.7 E-7

1.1 E+3 3.4 E-7 1.5 E-8 3.2 E-7

1.7 E-7 8.9 E-9 1.3 E-10 5.4 E-12 1.2 E-11

To quantify the environmental burden from the conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication processes we have used data from the French ExternE study (CEPN, 1995), as no appropriate data have been available for Germany. Data are adjusted to take into account the difference in fuel requirement of the German reference reactor. The power plant analysed is a hypothetical PWR with a capacity of 1375 MW (Wehowsky et al., 1994), operated at a hypothetical site in the Southwest of Germany. The annual electricity generation is 10.725 TWh over a lifetime of 40 years. The expected burn-up is 50 MWd/kg. For reprocessing we again use data from the French study (CEPN, 1995) for Le Hague, adjusting the release per unit electricity by taking into account the different fuel requirement. Exposure from final disposal of low and medium level radioactive waste in salt rock formation is estimated by using data from a study by (Hirsekorn et al. 1991). The study provides a detailed analysis of potential exposure pathways for different intrusion scenarios, but does not give any probability of event, so that it is difficult to achieve a reliable estimate of impacts per TWh. Although the concepts for final disposal of high level radioactive wastes followed in France and Germany show substantial differences, in the absence of appropriate data for Germany we use results from the French study to get an indication of the order of magnitude of potential impacts from this stage of the fuel cycle. The release of activity to the air from all stages of the fuel cycle is summarised in Table 6.8. To assess the consequences from a beyond design accident at the power plant a set of source terms calculated for different accident scenarios by (GRS, 1989) is used. Estimates of accident frequencies are taken from (Keßler, 1994) (Table 6.8).

122

Results for Germany

Although the analysis of impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle is primarily focused on radiological effects, the various process steps of the fuel cycle emit a considerable amount of ‘classical’ pollutants which have to be considered for impact assessment. Table 6.9 summarises the emissions of SO2, NOx, particles and CO2 cumulated over the full life cycle. Table 6.8 Fraction of core inventory released for several beyond design accident categories according to German Reactor Safety Study (GRS, 1989). Frequency of occurrence estimated based on (Keßler, 1994). Accident category

fraction of core inventory released

Noble gases

Iodines

Alkali metals

Tellurium group

(0.5 - 0.9)

Frequency of occurrence per year

Alkaline earth metals

Noble metals

Metal oxides

3.6 E-1

1.0 E-5

3.4 E-2

10-7

DRSB 1

1

DRSB 2

1

3.7 E-1

3.7 E-1

2.3 E-1

1.4 E-1

2.5 E-6

1.2 E-2

10-7

DRSB 3

1.7 E-1

1.5 E-1

1.5 E-1

5.0 E-2

6.4 E-4

8.8 E-8

2.1 E-9

10-8

DRSB 4

1.7 E-1

2.5 E-2

2.5 E-2

1.5 E-2

1.2 E-4

1.7 E-8

3.8 E-10

10-8

DRSB 5

1

7.8 E-3

7.8 E-3

2.1 E-3

1.4 E-4

3.6 E-7

1.1 E-5

10-6

DRSB 6

9 E-1

2.0 E-3

2.0 E-3

3.5 E-6

1.9 E-7

6.4 E-10

3.3 E-8

10-6

Table 6.9 Cumulated non-radioactive emissions from the nuclear life cycle SO2 NOx Particles 32 70 7 6.3.2

CO2 19 700

Selection of priority impacts

The assessment of impacts is primarily focused on radiological impacts on both workers and the general public, including fatal and non-fatal cancers and hereditary effects. In addition, occupational accidents leading to deaths, major and minor injuries are assessed. For the non-radioactive pollutants emitted from the nuclear fuel cycle, the set of priority pathways identified for the fossil fuels are analysed, including effects on public health, crops, materials, ecosystems and global warming. 6.3.3

Quantification of impacts and damages

The collective dose resulting from increased levels of ionising radiation due to activities on the various stages of the fuel cycle are calculated by using ‘collective dose per unit release’ factors provided by UNSCEAR (1993). These factors are derived from detailed modelling at representative sites in northern Europe and give the collective dose resulting from a unit activity released for different nuclides from different source categories. While the French study (CEPN, 1995) assumes a complete sealing of the abandoned uranium mill tailings, data from UNSCEAR seems to be more realistic, assuming that some reasonably impermeable cover would be used and that the radon exhalation rate from abandoned tailing piles would be 3 Bq/m2/s, which will remain unchanged over the next 10 000 years. These long-term emissions clearly dominate the exposure from the whole fuel cycle. Because of the efficient mixing in the environment and/or long lifetime of the released nuclides, a full global assessment has been included for all process steps, leading to an estimate of a global collective dose integrated over 10 000 years. The global and long term dose resulting from Rn-222, H-3, Kr-85 and C-14 emissions cause the major fraction of the total collective dose. Resulting health effects are estimated using the extensively reviewed dose-response functions of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1991). Consequences from beyond design accidents are analysed by using the COSYMA code (Jones et al., 1993). Source terms quantified for six accident categories of a 1300 MW PWR in the German Reactor Safety Study Phase B (GRS, 1989) are linked to an estimated probability of accident (Keßler, 1994) (Table 6.8). Using the linear ICRP risk factors for impact assessment, results indicate that a single event might lead to several ten thousand fatal cancers

123

The ExternE National Implementation

occurring within an exposed population of about 335 Mill. over 200 years after the accident. Based on the expected value of risk, the external costs normalised to a unit electricity output however contribute to a small fraction of the total external costs of the fuel cycle only. 6.3.4

Summary and interpretation of results

External costs from the nuclear fuel cycle are summarised in Table 6.10. As discussed before, the major source of exposure are radon emissions from abandoned mill tailing piles, which together with globally dispersed H-3, Kr-85 and C-14 from the power generation and reprocessing stages accounts for about 98% of the calculated collective dose integrated over 10 000 years. However, the average individual dose is very small and the doseresponse function is considered to be very uncertain as it is interpolated from the results of studies for high individual dose levels. Because of the long time horizon of the radiological effects, the discounted damage is much lower and dominated by the non-radiological impacts due to emissions of non-radioactive pollutants from the life cycle. Based on the expected value of risk, the damage from beyond design accidents are small compared to the external costs from the whole fuel cycle.

Table 6.10 Damages of the nuclear fuel cycle σg

mECU/kWh POWER GENERATION normal operation Public health fatal cancer1) - YOLL (VSL) non-fatal cancer hereditary effects Accidents Occupational health - YOLL (VSL) Beyond design accidents OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health radiological impacts YOLL (VSL) non-radiological impacts2) YOLL (VSL) Occupational health Crops Ecosystems Materials Monuments Noise Visual impacts Global warming low mid 3 % mid 1 % high 1)

0%

3%

0.059 (0.099) 0.034 0.020 ng 0.063 (0.084) 0.0034 (0.0046)

0.00017 (0.00034) 0.00010 0.000060

B B B

0.056 (0.071) 0.00050 (0.00076)

A B

3.5 (4.7) 0.56 (2.7)

0.010 (0.015) 0.43 (2.1)

B B A B

0.060 0.00016 iq 0.0077 ng ng ng

C 0.075 0.35 0.91 2.7

Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= ‘value of statistical life’ approach. Including power generation stage ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

2)

124

B

Results for Germany

Table 6.11 Sub-total damages of the nuclear fuel cycle mECU/kWh Discount rate for health effect valuation: YOLL (VSL) low mid 3 % mid 1 % upper

6.4

0% 4.4 (7.8 ) 4.7 (8.1) 5.2 (8.6) 7.0 (10.4 )

3% 0.60 (2.3) 0.90 (2.6) 1.5 (3.2) 3.3 (5.0)

The Photovoltaic Fuel cycle

The following sections summarise the assessment of external costs from the photovoltaic life cycle reported in (ISET, 1995). Results are updated to take into account new findings concerning exposure-response functions and monetary valuation. A detailed discussion of the approach is given in (ISET, 1995). 6.4.1

Description of reference technologies, quantification of burdens

PV home application The selected PV plant is a typical application in the frame of the German 1000 Roofs Programme. The PV generator is constructed on the south-facing roof of a household in the village Emstal-Riede. Additionally, a small sculptures workshop is run during the day. The PV plant was put into operation in November 1991 and corresponds to state of technology in 1990. The photovoltaic energy is used to cover the electrical demand of the house and the PV energy surplus flows into the grid. There are no shadow effects from other buildings etc. throughout the whole year. The social acceptance of the PV plant in the location is very high and no complaints have been made. The PV generator consists of 96 PV polycrystalline modules from the company DASA/AEG with a total peak power of 4.8 kWp. The rated power is high in comparison to the mean power peak of the PV plants in the 1000 Roofs Programme (2.5 kWp). The influence of this is negligible for the calculation of the external costs. Other special features of this reference location (e.g. use of three inverters, special cabling, measurement systems etc.) have not been taken into account in the calculation of material and energy use. An ISET measurement system has been installed for energy and performance analysis. The following energy data was measured in the year 1993: •PV energy production 3,494 kWh/year; •Energy supply in the grid 2,148 kWh/year The expected energy balance in the whole life time of 25 years is as follows: •PV energy production: 87,375 kWh; •PV energy supply in the grid : 53,750 kWh

PV facade application Nowadays, new trends in photovoltaic technology with regard to PV integration in buildings are adding a new

125

The ExternE National Implementation

dimension to the philosophy of energy supply systems. PV modules can be used as multi-functional construction elements i.e. for weather, noise and solar radiation protection. The energy and material use is significantly reduced and no land is required for PV integration. Today's facades can be mainly classified according to functional and constructional properties as cold, coldwarm, warm and light transparent facades. Although these PV technologies are still in the initial phase of development, first applications have already been implemented. There is large variety in the different PV facade applications (locations and technology used). The selected PV facade of the company SCHÜCO International is integrated in the central office buildings in Bielefeld, Germany. The PV facade was put into operation in October 1993. The shading effects from other neighbouring buildings are very low. The surrounding area is both industrial and residential. There is a highway about 100 m away. The light reflections are very low (the PV facade is darker than the conventional facades of the building). The PV generator consists of 200 modules with a total module area of 155 m2 and a rated power of 13 kWp. Frameless, polycrystalline modules from the company Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) have been used in the required dimensions for integration into the frames of the facade. The mechanical construction of the PV facade is identical to the standard facades of the company. No technical corrections have been made for the integration of the PV modules. For this reason the mechanical construction of the facade is not taken into account in the calculation of PV material and energy use. The glass in the conventional facade of the building will be subtracted from the amount of glass in the PV modules. The material requirements for the PV plant mainly consists of the PV modules and the electrical installation.

Quantification of environmental burdens Based on a detailed life cycle analysis, emission of SO2, NOx, particles and CO2 during the production and installation phase of the modules are summarised in Table 6.12. In addition to these emissions, a wide range of substances and materials released into the environment during the production of the PV modules has been quantified in a study by Hagedorn and Hellriegel (1992). As it was not possible to perform a full impact pathway analysis for these substances, the potential impacts of these substances on the environment are described qualitatively. Table 6.12 Emissions from the PV life cycle

SO2 NOx Particles CO2 CH4 N 2O 6.4.2

PV Home Application per kWp per MWh 1894.6 g 104.1 g 1801.3 g 99.0 g 110.3 g 6.1 g 970.8 kg 53.3 kg 1602.0 g 88.0 g 3.1 g 0.2 g

PV Facade Application per kWp per MWh 1793.0 g 113.7 g 1287.7 g 81.7 g 777.2 kg 49.3 kg 1025.3 g 65.0 g 2.4 g 0.15 g

Selection of priority pathways

Taking into account the emissions from the full PV life cycle, the priority impact pathways identified for the fossil fuel cycles are analysed, including effects on public health, crops, materials and global warming. In addition, impacts on occupational health, land use and visual intrusion are assessed.

126

Results for Germany

6.4.3

Quantification of impacts and damages

Impacts from airborne pollutants Impacts from airborne pollutants on public health, crops, materials and global warming are quantified following the standard approach established for the assessment of fossil power plants. Reasonable reference sites for the life cycle emission sources were quantified to allow the application of EcoSense.

Occupational health impacts Occupational health impacts are quantified by using data on the work effort required for production and installation, transport processes and operation of the plant, together with occupational health data from the German Employees’ Insurance System.

Land use and visual intrusion Impacts caused by the use of land are discussed for ground-mounted centralised PV systems for example in (Baumann, Hill, 1993). The low energy density of PV systems leads to large land requirements. Damages to natural ecosystems may result from the use of land. Due to the numerous additional disadvantages this kind of application do not have a promising future. As the reference plants examined in this study do not require areas of natural ground, no external costs resulting from the use of land are connected with this kind of application. Observers could feel annoyed when ground-mounted PV systems are built in areas of high scenic value. Modules integrated in buildings of cultural value could also irritate people. However, laws for the protection of historic buildings and monuments do no allow the construction of solar applications on the roofs of such buildings. Neither point mentioned above applies to the applications examined here. The modules of the home application can not be seen by local residents because they are hidden from view by other parts of the building. The modules of the facade application are integrated in a way that there are no significant differences in design when compared to the rest of the facade. As no negative visual effects exist no external costs are related to the appearance of the PV plants. 6.4.4

Summary and interpretation of results

Atmospheric emissions released during the production phase (SO2, NOx, particulates, CO2, CH4, N2O) have been determined and the related external costs have been quantified, including impacts on public health, agriculture, forests, materials and the global climatic system. Concerning other substances which are released into the environment during the production phase a quantification of impacts is not possible at the moment. Occupational health impacts caused by accidents and diseases are assessed using statistical information from the relevant industrial sectors. Net risks have been calculated, that is the difference between the risks of average industrial activities and the specific activities related to the life cycle. In the case of photovoltaics this leads to negative damage costs in some areas. The external costs shown in Table 6.13 are calculated based on the assumption that in the production phase fossil fuels are used and the required electrical energy is taken from the grid. The emissions therefore represent average values for heat processes and power plants in Germany. The external costs are mainly caused by the present use of fossil plants. External costs are much lower when it is assumed that electrical energy required for the production is not taken from the grid but is produced by the PV technology itself.

127

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 6.13 External costs of the PV fuel cycle PV Home PV Facade mECU/kWh PV LIFE CYCLE Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) 1.1 (5.1) 1.1 (4.9) Morbidity 0.14 0.13 Accidents ng ng Occupational health - 0.28 - 0.81 Crops 0.00051 0.00041 Ecosystems iq iq Materials 0.023 0.023 Monuments nq nq Noise ng ng Visual impacts ng ng Global warming low 0.2 0.2 mid 3 % 1.0 0.9 mid 1% 2.5 2.3 high 7.7 7.0 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

σg

B A A B B B

C

‘value of

Table 6.14 Sub-total damages of the PV fuel cycle PV Home

PV Facade mECU/kWh

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3 % mid 1 % high

6.5

1.1 (5.2) 1.9 (5.9) 3.3 (7.3) 8.1 (12.1)

0.6 (4.4) 1.4 (5.2) 2.8 (6.6) 7.6 (11.4)

The Wind fuel cycle

The following sections summarise the assessment of external costs from the wind life cycle reported in (ISET, 1995). Results are updated to take into account new findings concerning exposure-response functions and monetary valuation. A detailed discussion of the approach is given in (ISET, 1995). 6.5.1

Description of the reference technology

The wind park "Nordfriesland Windpark" is located in the coastal area of Friedrich-Wilhelm-Lübke-Koog in the federal state Schleswig-Holstein. All data given below refers to the 45 WECs monitored in the WMEP (Scientific Measurement and Evaluation Programme of the German Ministry for Research and Technology), which constitute the majority of the WECs in the wind park. The manufacturer of the WECs is the Husumer Schiffswerft company in Husum, Germany. The subsidiary "Nordfriesland Windpark GmbH" is the owner and operator of the wind park. The average distance between WECs is about 170 m. Table 6.15 shows further details about the location and the characteristics of the wind park. The expected energy output of the "Nordfriesland Windpark" (45 WECs) is 24.3 GWh/year, which is 486 GWh for a total life time of 20 years.

128

Results for Germany

6.5.2

Quantification of burdens

Atmospheric emissions occur mainly in the production and installation phase. These emissions result from the energy used in the production stages of the materials used for the WECs. The most important emissions are determined using data on material weights in the HSW-250 wind energy converter. Using data on energy use and emissions caused by the production of materials from the GEMIS database, the total atmospheric emissions per WEC are calculated (Table 6.16). To standardise the emissions to a unit output of electricity they are related to the expected electricity production during the lifetime of the wind park (10.8 GWh per WEC). Table 6.15 Characteristics of the ‘Nordfriesland Windpark’ Site characteristic Location

Friedrich-Wilhelm-Lübke-Koog

Wind data 1992 (average value at 10 m/ 28 m) 1993 (average value at 10 m/ 28 m)

5.87 / 7.29 m/s 5.57 / 7.30 m/s

WECs Type Total number of WECs Number of WECs measured in WMEP Total rated power of measured WECs

HSW 250 51 45 11.25 MW

Concept

parallel operation with the grid

Table 6.16 Atmospheric emissions in the Life Cycle of a HSW-250

Aggregates Aluminium Cement Copper GRP Plastic Steel Transport Total per WEC Total per MWh

Weight/WEC 20000 kg 230 kg 10000 kg 694 kg 2250 kg 692 kg 26130 kg (232 kg diesel) 59996 kg 5.56 kg NOx

Aggregates Aluminium Cement Copper GRP Plastic Steel Transport Total per WEC Total per MWh

174 g 9412 g 24720 g 14489 g 16081 g 1725 g 140762 g 13920 g 221283 g 20 g

Primary Energy/WEC 220 kWh 15940 kWh 12350 kWh 6993 kWh 101250 kWh 13140 kWh 145440 kWh 3008 kWh 298341 kWh 27.6 kWh Particulates 20020 g 1507 g 10680 g 1019 g 1566 g 141 g 14528 g ? 49461 g 4.6 g

CO2 44 kg 3365 kg 8590 kg 1707 kg 14821 kg 947 kg 39509 kg 641 kg 69716 kg 6.46 kg CH4 88 g 4149 g 16530 g 1664 g 21710 g 2083 g 173085 g ? 219309 g 20 g

SO2 142 g 10423 g 3620 g 13490 g 28438 g 1846 g 103893 g 609 g 162548 g 15 g N2O 0g 23 g 290 g 21 g 200 g 9g 183 g ? 726 g 0.07 g

129

The ExternE National Implementation

6.5.3

Selection of priority pathways

Taking into account the emissions from the full life cycle, the same priority impact pathways as identified for the fossil fuel cycles are analysed, including effects on public health, crops, materials and global warming. In addition, impacts on occupational health, noise and visual intrusion are assessed. 6.5.4

Quantification of impacts and damages

Impacts from airborne pollutants Impacts from airborne pollutants on public health, crops, materials and global warming are quantified following the standard approach established for the assessment of fossil power plants. Reasonable reference sites for the life cycle emission sources were quantified to allow the application of EcoSense.

Occupational health impacts Occupational health impacts are quantified by using data on the work effort required for production and installation, transport processes and operation of the plant, together with occupational health data from the German Employees’ Insurance System.

Noise impacts During the operation phase wind energy converters produce noise which can annoy neighbouring residents. The total noise is the sum of aerodynamic and mechanical noise. Aerodynamic noise is caused by the interaction of the rotating blades with the air and mechanical noise is caused by the moving parts in the nacelle. The residents registration office gives the following figures about inhabitants of the "Friedrich-Wilhelm-LübkeKoog" for 1994: There are 70 households with 219 inhabitants, composed in the following way: 48 farms, 21 residential buildings and one restaurant. The average number of persons per household is therefore 3.13. All the farms are built in the same way: the residential part being protected from the wind by large agricultural building e.g. stables. A reduction in noise level is expected due to these buildings. Furthermore, all farms are fenced in by trees or bushes. The background noise level will therefore be even greater than noise from the windpark. For these reasons the values calculated here are probably an overestimation of the real damages. The operation of the windpark leads to a constant increases in sound level as follows: 57 6 7

households are affected by an increase between 0.5 and 1.5 dB households are affected by an increase between 1.5 and 2.5 dB households are affected by an increase between 2.5 and 3.5 dB

A willingness to pay (WTP) of 1.97 DM (= 1.02 ECU) per month for a noise reduction of one dB(A) Leq is given by Rennings (1995) for disbenefits caused by traffic noise. This corresponds to a change in property values of around 1 % per dB(A). Lower noise levels should be calculated with a change in property values of 0.45 % per unit increase in dB(A). According to Rennings this represents an upper limit of disbenefits. Expressed as WTP, this is about 0.89 DM (=0.46 ECU) per dB(A) per month and person, resulting in a damage costs of 0.064 mECU per kWh.

Visual intrusion Along with noise impacts visual intrusion is considered to be the most important environmental effect in the wind energy life cycle. Many factors influence the visual effects caused by a wind park. The most important are the design of the WECs and the wind park as a whole, the characteristics of the surrounding landscape, weather

130

Results for Germany

conditions, the distance from the observer and other subjective factors. The area in which the "NordfrieslandWindpark" is built is not part of a nature reserve area, a national park or a vacation area and there are no spas nearby. This area is apparently not considered to be of high scenic or recreational value by the general public. Impacts on tourists will therefore be neglected here. An average willingness to pay (WTP) for visiting intact landscapes of 2.89 DM (= 1.49 Ecu) per person per day is given by Rennings (1995) for Germany. This value is true for one-day-visits but can not be projected to a whole year. A mean WTP on vacation is 145 DM (= 74.88 Ecu) for the whole holiday. It can be assumed that people are willing to spend this amount in one year for intact landscapes. No value is available for residents. The figures given by Eyre (1994) for the UK are almost the same for residents and tourists. Therefore, the same value is used for the WTP of residents. The energy production per year is about 27.54 GWh (51 WECs and 0.54 GWh per WEC). This leads to costs of 0.6 mECU per kWh for intact landscapes. This value has to be considered as an upper limit. Costs are in the range from 0 to 0.6 mECU and the best estimate is considered to be 0.06 mECU.

Other impacts Impacts on Animals The environment in which wind parks are placed is a habitat for quite a number of animals. Therefore it has to be considered to what extent these animals are affected. In most cases WECs and wind parks are built in areas which are intensively used for agriculture. This is also the case for the Nordfriesland-Windpark. In (NNA, 1990) an extremely low number of different vegetation species has been counted for this area. From a botanical point of view it can not be said that valuable area has been destroyed by the construction of the wind park. Extensivation of agriculture was demanded as a compensation for the construction of the wind park. Therefore costs are already internalised and a change for the worse can not be seen. Impairment of birds seems to be more important. Some examinations have been carried out about this question in Germany (NNA, 1990), Denmark (Bleijenberg, 1988) and the Netherlands (Winkelman, 1988). In WEC locations which have been in operation for several years no serious change in the number of species or quantities of hatching birds could be registered. Neither for the construction nor the operation of the wind park "Krummshörn" could a loss of species be noticed, even for protected or sensitive species. Hatching birds approach WECs or wind parks without visible uneasiness. They fly under or above the rotating blades or through the wind park. No change in behaviour could be recognised for very different species concerning their rests or search for food. Birds of passage showed obvious reactions: birds flying towards a WEC or a wind park either rose before it and descended afterwards or flew round it by changing direction. The distance from the WECs was significant being between 50 m and 100 m. For these reasons there is no high risk of flying birds colliding with rotating blades. A statistic for 7 locations with 69 WECs in all came to the result that 32 birds could have been killed by collisions in an observation period of one year (1989/90). This examination and examinations from the neighbouring foreign countries show that nether solitary WECs nor wind parks in Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein represent a serious risk for birds. This is especially true when the risk is compared to other risks e.g. traffic, pylons or transmitter masts. Epileptic fits It is expected that epileptic fits can be triggered by frequencies between 2.5 Hz and 3 Hz in susceptible people (Clarke, 1988). As long as the rotation speed is below 50 r.p.m. for three-blade rotors no problems are expected. For this reason the rotation speed is usually limited to 45 r.p.m. The highest rotation speed of the HSW-250 is 39.3 r.p.m. and therefore no external effects exist. Electromagnetic Interference Rotating blades can produce electromagnetic interference and many communication frequencies might be affected. This problem is discussed by Eyre (1994). It is most important for metallic blade materials because they are strongly reflective. Glass reinforced plastic is partially transparent to electromagnetic waves, therefore the effect is not so much noticeable. Eyre comes to the conclusion that problems with domestic television reception

131

The ExternE National Implementation

cannot always be avoided but can be remedied cheaply by the developer and is therefore no externality. For the case of the "Nordfriesland Windpark" no difficulties are known. 6.5.5

Summary and interpretation of results

The "Nordfriesland Windpark" is located in the coastal area of Friedrich-Wilhelm-Lübke-Koog in the federal state Schleswig-Holstein. The park includes 51 wind energy converters of the type HSW-250. The rated power of one WEC is about 250 kW. They represent the state of technology in 1990. The wind park is operating parallel to the grid. The following impacts have been examined in detail: • Quantities of atmospheric emissions released in the production phase (SO2, NOx, particulates, CO2, CH4, N2O) have been calculated. the related external costs have been quantified, including impacts on public health, agriculture, forests, materials and the global climatic system. • Noise propagation has been calculated according to the VDI-guideline 2714. The increase in sound at the point of the observer has been calculated considering the background noise level. 70 households are affected, most of them by an increase of around 1 dB. Willingness to pay figures for noise reduction have been used to valuate these increases. A value of 0.064 mECU per kWh has been calculated for noise impacts. This value is highly site specific. • Wind parks are mainly built in open countryside and are therefore visible from long distances. The quantification of these amenity impacts is very difficult because no valuation studies exist which directly refer to typical wind park sites. Willingness to pay for intact countryside during holidays has been used to valuate the impacts. A zone of 2 km has been considered as mainly affected. Costs are estimated to be in the range from 0 to 0.6 mECU per kWh and the best estimate is considered to be 0.06 mECU per kWh. • Occupational health impacts caused by accidents and diseases are assessed using statistical information from the relevant industrial sectors. Construction, transport, operation and dismantling of the WEC have been considered. • Impacts on animals and risks of epileptic fits have been discussed but seem to be negligible. Results are summarised in . The external costs are calculated based on the assumption that in the production phase fossil fuels are used and the required electrical energy is taken from the grid. The emissions therefore represent average values for heat processes and power plants in Germany. The external costs are mainly caused by the present use of fossil plants. External costs are much lower when it is assumed that electrical energy required for the production is not taken from the grid but is produced by the wind technology itself. Table 6.17 External costs of the wind fuel cycle

WIND LIFE CYCLE Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) Morbidity Occupational health Crops Ecosystems Materials Noise Visual impacts Global warming

mECU/kWh

σg

0.24 (1.1) 0.030 0.044 0.000097 iq 0.0032 0 - 0.062 iq

B A B B B

C low 0.026 mid 3 % 0.12 mid 1% 0.3 high 1.0 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach.

132

Results for Germany

ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant Table 6.18 Sub-total damages of the wind fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3 % mid 1 % high

6.6

Biomass Fuel Cycle

6.6.1

Description of the fuel cycles, quantification of burdens

mECU/kWh 0.37 (1.2) 0.47 (1.3) 0.67 (1.5) 1.3 (2.2)

Biomass combustion in combined heating and power (CHP) plants is for larger units (20-30 MWth) a sensible economic option. Such facilities are especially suited to supply industrial and/or communal consumers that have a more or less constant heating demand (e.g. hospitals). The CHP plants are usually heat-driven; surplus electricity is supplied to the public electricity supply system. The reference CHP plant is located in Tübingen and supplies the hospitals there. Tübingen was chosen as firstly the hospitals there are consumers with an approximately constant heating demand and secondly as around Tübingen there are enough forests to supply the residual wood needed. For the reference plant to be analysed a circulating atmospheric fluidised bed combustion (AFBC) is assumed. The operation costs of this technology are higher than for grate combustion but the emissions and thus the environmental impacts are lower. The plant is equipped with a multicyclone and fibrous filter for dedusting. The CHP plant can be fired by chop wood (< 30 mm) and cereals. The reference CHP plant has a generator capacity of 20 MW and is operated 3000 h per year. Its total net efficiency is 85 %. Further technical data are summarised in Table 6.19

Up- and downstream processes The use of residual forest wood is analysed for Norway spruce. The biomass fuel cycle under analysis consists of the process steps conveying in forest, drying, hacking, transport, storage at the CHP plant, generation, waste transport and disposal. In comparison to normal tree stands no additional cultivation measures are necessary. There is no alternative usage for the residual wood and no market price exists for it. The residual wood would remain otherwise in the forest. The loss of nutrients for the forest is negligible because most of the needles, bark, etc., which contain most of the nutrients, is not removed. Thus, the process step cultivation is not taken into account in this analysis. The maximum distance from the CHP plant, for which it is economically sensible to supply the plant with residual wood, is 50 km. Therefore, it is assumed that the tree stands from which the residual wood is taken are in that area.

Air-borne emissions from up- and downstream process steps The analysis of the upstream processes is based on the fuel use and emission factors of trucks and other machinery. For the specific fuel use, different load factors for the trucks and machinery have been taken into account, including (for the forest machinery) different load factors during set-up time and other loss times. Table 6.20 summarises the annual emissions of the biomass reference energy system.

133

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 6.19 Technical data of the reference CHP plant Plant type Generator capacity Heat produced Electricity sent out Net efficiency Total efficiency Full load hours per year Projected lifetime Data relevant for atmospheric transport modelling Stack height Stack diameter Flue gas volume stream (full load) Flue gas temperature Fuel specification Calorific value Hu Sulphur content Emissions relative to calorific value SO2 NOx Particulates CO2 CH4 N2O Bulk materials and wastes Cyclone ash Filter ask

circulating atmospheric fluidised bed combustion (AFBC) with multicyclone and fibrous filter 20 MW 12.8 MJ/s 3.6 MW 18% 85% 3000 h 30 a 40 m 4m 23 730 Nm3/h 100°C 18.6 MJ/kg dry mass 0.01 % 3.6 mg/MJ 97.2 mg/MJ 2.9 mg/MJ 105.9 mg/MJ 0.6 mg/MJ 5.7 mg/MJ 35 t/year 3 t/year

The process step ‘combustion’ contributes above all to the total air-borne emissions – with the exception of CO2, diesel particulates, NH3, non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and benzo(a)pyrene. CO2 is a special case. The most common position concerning CO2 produced by biomass combustion is that there is no net atmospheric CO2 build-up from using biomass grown sustainably because CO2 released in combustion is compensated for by that withdrawn from the atmosphere during growth (IPCC, 1996). Without the CO2 emissions from the combustion, the overall CO2 emissions of the biomass fuel cycle are very low.

Table 6.20 Annual air-borne of the different process steps of the biomass fuel cycle Process step

Tractor

Hacker

SO2 [kg/year] NOx [kg/year] TSP [kg/year] Diesel part. [kg/year] CO2 [t/year]

16.7 552.1

CO [kg/year]

134

Storage at CHP plant 1.2 40.5

Combustion

Ash transport

Total

63.4 2210.2

Truck transport 10.1 405.9

784.6 21010.3

0.0 1.0

876.1 24220.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

618.0

0.0

618.0

49.2

143.4

22.3

3.6

0.0

0.1

218.6

53.2

201.2

32.2

3.9

22874.43/0

0.1

193.2

355.0

101.5

14.2

12005.9

0.3

23164.9/ 290.5 12670.0

Results for Germany

1 2

3

CH4 2.1 5.6 1.2 0.2 120.1 0.0 129.1 [kg/year] NMHC1 85.7 226.0 49.5 6.3 360.2 0.1 727.9 [kg/year] Benzo(a)102.2 500.2 78.3 7.5 1081.5 0.2 1769.8 pyrene [mg/year] N 2O 2.4 9.1 1.5 0.2 1235.5 0.0 1248.6 [kg/year] TE2 1.0 3.8 0.6 0.1 1544.9 0.0 1550.4 [µg/year] including benzo(a)pyrene TCDD-Equivalent calculated from toxic equivalence quotients of dioxins and dibenzofurans after (NATO/CCMS, 1988) These CO2 emissions do not have to be considered in the assessment of global warming impacts (see text).

6.6.2

Selection of Priority Impact Pathways

Impacts on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems caused by air-borne emissions have been identified as priority impact pathways. Furthermore, occupational health impacts and global warming are analysed. For some of the impacts lack of knowledge or data prevent a complete or any assessment of the impacts. This is especially true for forest damages and eutrophication effects on unmanaged ecosystems as well as the analysis of ozone effects. Due to the low CO2 emissions of the biomass fuel cycle the inclusion of global warming in this list could be argued. The impacts of cultivation do not have to be taken into account for the biomass fuel cycle under analysis because while the residual wood has to be removed from the felling site anyway, without the energetic use it would remain at some place in the forest. Therefore, cultivation effects can be attributed to the main object of the harvest, timber production. 6.6.3

Quantification of impacts and damages

Impacts from airborne pollutants Impacts from airborne pollutants on public health, crops, materials and global warming are quantified following the standard approach established for the assessment of fossil power plants. For diesel particulates emitted by the upstream processes the health functions for fine particles (PM2.5), i.e. particles of less than 2.5 µm, have been applied instead of the functions for PM10. Cancer effects from dioxin, diesel particulates and benzo(a)pyrene were not identified as priority impact pathways but as the analysis is comparatively fast to carry out, the impacts were assessed using risk factors taken from different international sources. The results are several orders of magnitude lower than e.g. the quantified crop losses. Thus, the judgement was confirmed that these effects do not contribute in a significant way to the external costs.

Occupational health impacts Occupational health impacts are quantified by using data on the work effort required for harvest, transport processes and operation of the plant, together with occupational health data from the German Employees’ Insurance System. Net risks have been calculated, that is the difference between the risks of average activities in industry and agriculture and the specific activities related to the fuel cycle.

135

The ExternE National Implementation

Global warming All processes of the biomass fuel cycle emit greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. However, the CO2 emissions of the CHP plant itself are not taken into account because CO2 released in combustion is compensated for by that withdrawn from the atmosphere during growth. Although the knowledge about the climate system of the earth has improved considerably during the last years, major uncertainties remain. As part of the EXTERNE project damage factors for CO2 have been assessed, which are applied here. However, major uncertainties concerning the potential impacts of climate change and its costs remain. 6.6.4

Summary and interpretation of results

Table 6.21 summarises the quantified damages for the fuel cycle. Annual damages are given as well as the damages per electricity and heat produced as allocated by their exergy content. Employing the YOLL approach for mortality effects annual damages without global warming of 490400 ECU/year were quantified, employing the VSL approach the annual damages increase to 1648860 ECU/year. Increased mortality, mostly due to the NOx emissions of the generation stage, contribute the most to the total quantified damage costs. NOx emissions of the CHP plant are high if compared to the fossil power plants because emission standards for plants of this size are not as stringent as for power plants of more than 50 MW. Applying the ExternE results for CO2 the global warming damages of 12200–31300 ECU/year are quantified (illustrative restricted range). These damages are small compared to the damages quantified for the other effects. Table 6.22 summarises the totals of the quantified damages, depending on choice of YOLL/VSL for mortality effects and on the global warming damage costs per tonne CO2. Allocated to electricity, the total damages are about 27 to 32 mECU/kWh for the YOLL approach and about 90 to 94 mECU/kWh for the VSL approach. The damages allocated to the produced heat are 1450 to 1700 mECU/MJ and 4800 to 5080 mECU/MJ, respectively. Table 6.21 Damages of the biomass fuel cycle (negative numbers constitute benefits)

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality – YOLL2 (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx

Damage Costs [ECU/year]

Damage Costs [mECU/kWh] allocated to electricity production (59.2%)1

Damage Costs [ECU/TJ] allocated to heat production (40.8%)1

σg

336000 (1241700) 12040 (26050)

18.4 (68.0) 0.7 (1.4) 0.5 (2.3) 17.2 (63.4) 2.8 ng -0.02 1.7_(13.2)

991 (3670) 36 (77) 27 (123) 928 (3411) 150 ng -1 94_(710)

B

-0.002 iq 0.20 nq ng ng

-0.1 iq 11 nq ng ng

9140 (41680) 314400 (1155700) Morbidity 50860 Accidents ng Occupational health -300 Ozone impacts (human health & crops) 31700 (240600) – YOLL2 (VSL) Crops -42 Ecosystems iq Materials 3710 Monuments nq Noise ng Visual impacts ng

136

A A A

B B B

Results for Germany

Damage Damage Costs_[ECU/yea Costs_[mECU/kWh]_ r] allocated to electricity production (59.2%)1 Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health – YOLL2 (VSL) Outside EU Inside EU Occupational health Outside EU Inside EU Ozone impacts (human health & crops) – YOLL2 (VSL) Crops Ecological effects Materials Road damages Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high

Damage Costs [ECU/TJ] allocated to heat production (40.8%)1

σg

C 1465 6940 17734 53588

0.08 0.4 1.0 2.9

4 21 52 158

62700 (71900)

3.4 (11.5) 0 3.4 (11.5) 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 (2.2)

168 (620) 0 168 (620) 10 0 10 15 (117)

-1 ng 555 ng

-0.0001

-0.004

0.03

2

1120 5306 13559 40970

0.06 0.3 0.7 2.2

3 16 40 121

0 62700 (71900) 3310 0 3310 5100 (39800)

B B B A C

1

based on exergy (flow temperature of 110 °C, out-going temperature 60 °C, ambient temperature of 15 °C) Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach; here results are calculated assuming a discount rate of 3 %, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. 3 CO2 equivalent emissions are calculated from the CH4 and N2O emissions employing the Global Warming Potentials of IPCC (1996a) for the time horizon of 100 years. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant 2

Table 6.22 Sub-total damages of the German biomass fuel cycle Damage Costs [ECU/year]

Damage Costs [mECU/kWh] allocated to electricity production (59.2%)1

Damage Costs [ECU/TJ] allocated to heat production (40.8%)1

492900 (1628700) 502600 (1638400) 521700 (1657500) 584900 (1720700)

27.0 (89.3) 27.6 (89.8) 28.6 (90.9) 32.1 (94.3)

1454 (4806) 1483 (4835) 1539 (4891) 1726 (5078)

YOLL (VSL) low mid 3% mid 1% high

137

The ExternE National Implementation

1

based on exergy (flow temperature of 110 °C, out-going temperature 60 °C, ambient temperature of 15 °C)

Table 6.23 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) CO2 low mid 3% mid 1% high

ECU / t of pollutant 11700 (54200) 15100 (57100) 19500 (9321) 1500 3.8 18 46 139

* Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach; here results are calculated assuming a discount rate of 3 %, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach.

6.7

Aggregation

6.7.1

Introduction

The current results of the ExternE project provide estimates of marginal external costs of electricity generation from a wide range of specific technologies at various locations in Europe. While marginal costs per kWh derived for a large number of technologies and sites are important for environmental regulation, there is a need for more aggregated information to be used at national or European level policy analysis. In order to maintain the advantages and benefits from a detailed bottom-up modelling within an operational aggregation task, the EcoSense model that has been used as a standard tool for analysing external costs from single point sources is currently extended towards a multi-source version. This new version supports the assessment of environmental impacts and resulting damage costs from a whole industry sector (e. g. power sector) within a specific region, but still follows the traditional detailed impact pathway approach, taking into account site specific conditions and possible non-linearities in chemical conversion of airborne pollutants and impact mechanisms. 6.7.2

The German electricity sector

The structure of the electricity generation sector in the former Federal Territory and the ‘neue Länder’ differs significantly with regard to the fuel used. In 1990, nuclear energy with a contribution of 33 % was the major source for electricity generation in the former Federal Territory. In the ‘neue Länder’, nuclear contributed to 5 % of electricity generation in 1990, but after shut-down of the Greifswald nuclear power plant in December 1990 there is no nuclear plant in operation any more. In the ‘neue Länder’, lignite is the dominant fuel contributing to 86 % of electricity generation. In the former Federal Territory, hard coal contributed to 31 %, natural gas to 8 %, hydro to 4 %, oil to 2 % and other sources to 3 % of electricity generation, while these sources contributed to less than 10 % of electricity generation in the ‘neue Länder’. SO2, NOx, particle and CO2 emissions from power and cogeneration plants as reported by (BMWI, 1996) are presented in Table 6.24. Although in 1990 electricity generation in the ‘neue Länder’ was much lower than in the former Federal Territory, emissions from the power sector partly were much higher than in the former Federal Territory. As shown below, this spatial distribution of major emission sources has a major impact on the results. Due to re-structuring of the power sector in the ‘neue Länder’ a significant decrease of emissions can be observed, so that results from the present study using 1990 data cannot necessarily be transferred to current conditions.

138

Results for Germany

Table 6.24 Emissions from power and cogeneration plants (BMWI, 1996) 1989 SO2 (in kt) former Federal Territory ‘neue Länder’ total NOx (in kt) former Federal Territory ‘ neue Länder’ total Particles (in kt) former Federal Territory ‘ neue Länder’ total CO2 (in Mt) former Federal Territory ‘neue Länder’ total

6.7.3

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

334 4115 4449

295 2514 2809

316 2159 2475

313 1877 2190

312 1655 1967

323 1553 1876

484 299 783

335 252 587

352 216 568

316 196 512

315 173 488

326 162 488

23 1138 1161

23 454 477

24 293 317

24 179 203

24 158 182

25 148 173

247 156 403

255 143 398

267 122 389

259 110 369

256 99 355

259 93 352

The modelling approach

The CORINAIR database provides emission data for a wide range of pollutants according to both a sectoral (SNAP categories) and geographic (NUTS categories) dissaggregation scheme. A transformation module implemented in EcoSense supports the transformation of emission data between the NUTS administrative units (country, state, municipality) and the grid system required for air quality modelling (EUROGRID or EMEP). Based on this functionality, a user can change emissions from a selected industry sector within a specific administrative unit, create a new gridded European-wide emission scenario taking into account the previously specified modifications, and compare environmental impacts and resulting external costs between different scenarios. Following this approach, we have used the CORINAIR 1990 emission data as reference scenario, and created an additional scenario by setting emissions from the German ‘public power and cogeneration plants’ (SNAP category 0101) to zero. 6.7.4

Electricity generation from fossil fuels

Impacts from SO2, NOx and PM10 on health, crops and materials To estimate the external costs caused by the German power sector, we have used the CORINAIR 1990 emission inventory as the reference baseline scenario. An additional scenario was generated by subtracting the emissions from the German power sector from the baseline emission scenario, so that results should be interpreted as avoided damage costs due to emission reduction. Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 show SO2-emissions and the change in SO2 concentration levels resulting from the German power sector. Table 6.25 shows aggregated damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted.

139

The ExternE National Implementation

Figure 6.2 SO2 emissions from the German public power sector

Figure 6.3 Increment on SO2 concentration due to German public power sector

140

Results for Germany

For the purpose of comparison, Table 6.25 includes results that have been calculated before for the Lauffen coal fired power station. While the damage costs per tonne of PM10 are similar, the damage costs per tonne of SO2, and in particular per tonne of NOx differ considerably. Theses differences are explained by the spatial variations in SO2, NOx and NH3 emissions, which strongly influence the formation of sulphate and nitrate aerosols. Table 6.25 Damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted (excluding ozone damage) SO2 Change in annual emissions (in kt)

Germany Lauffen plant

- 2232 + 2.2

NOx

Damage costs per tonne SO2 (ECU/t)

9732 13676

Change in annual emissions (in kt)

- 411 + 2.2

PM10

Damage costs per tonne NOx (ECU/t)

4214 15684

Change in annual emissions (in kt)

Damage costs per tonne PM10 (ECU/t)

- 477 0.55

18655 23857

Impacts from ozone In the absence of detailed own ozone modelling, we use the damage costs per ton of precursor for average emissions in Europe (1500 ECU/t NO2) estimated by (Rabl and Eyre, 1997) to give a first estimate of ozone impacts on human health and crops due to increased level of NOx emissions. Resulting damage costs from the German electricity sector in 1990 are presented in Table 6.26.

Global warming Global warming damage costs are estimated by using marginal damage values of 3.8, 18, 46 and 139 ECU(1995)/t CO2 as recommended by the ExternE Task Group on Global Warming. The resulting damage costs for the German electricity sector in 1990 are presented in Table 6.26 .

Occupational health impacts The assessment of damage costs resulting from occupational health impacts is based on results derived from detailed calculation for specific reference plants for each fuel type (see (CEC, 1995c), (CEC, 1995d), (Krewitt et al., 1995)). As fuel extraction and fuel transport is the main source of occupational health impacts for the fossil fuel cycles, impacts do strongly depend on the fuel requirement, and thus on the thermal efficiency of the power station. As the reference power stations analysed in the fuel cycle studies mentioned above do not necessarily represent average technologies of the national power sector, results are adjusted by taking into account the national average thermal efficiency of electricity generation for each fuel type.

External costs per unit electricity Although our interest was focused on the calculation of aggregated damage costs per unit pollutant emitted to be used in various types of energy and environmental policy analysis, we can also convert our results into costs per unit electricity generation. Unfortunately, the CORINAIR SNAP 01 category includes cogeneration plants, so that damage costs have to be allocated to either heat or electricity production. In 1990, the electricity generation from fossil fuels was 363.5 TWh (1.3⋅1018 J), while heat production amounted to 1.9⋅1017 J. Following the ExternE approach of allocating environmental damage between heat and electricity according to the exergy content of the products (Krewitt et al., 1996), and assuming an exergy to enthalpy ratio of 0.174 for the heat output as calculated for a German reference CHP plant, 97.5 % of the total damage costs should be allocated to electricity generation. Taking into account the overall uncertainties of the impact assessment procedure, for simplicity reasons we allocate the full damage costs to electricity generation only. The resulting external costs in terms of mECU/kWh are presented in Table 6.26.

141

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 6.26 Damage costs in mECU/kWh from fossil fired public power and cogeneration plants in Germany in 1990

Germany former Federal Territory SO2, NOx , PM10 Health effects mortality morbidity Crops Materials Ozone impacts (aggregated) Global warming Occupational health effects Sub-Total

6.7.5

15.5 1.6 0.12 0.25 1.9 3.6 - 131 0.6 23.6 - 151

‘neue Länder’

320.2 33.5 3.0 6.1 4.0 5.8 - 212 0.6 373 - 579

Electricity generation from nuclear energy

The ‘average’ external costs from nuclear electricity generation in Germany in the year 1990 are summarised in Table 6.27 by impact category and fuel cycle stage. Taking into account the electricity production from nuclear fuels of 152.5 TWh, the total damage costs amount to 716.8 Mill. ECU in the case of 0 % discounting, and 125.1 Mill. ECU for 3 % discounting in the year 1990. For all the effects caused by an increased level of exposure to radiation, the main fraction of damage results from a global and long-term (10 000 years) exposure to extremely long-living nuclides, i. e. from the cumulated exposure of a large population to a very small dose. Problems arising from the application of the ICRP risk factors which have been established for the field of radiation protection within this context have been discussed several times elsewhere within ExternE. Table 6.27 External costs from nuclear electricity generation in Germany in mECU/kWh

Uranium mining and milling Power generation routine operation major accidents Effects from ‘classical’ pollutants SO2 NOx Particles CO2 Occupational health effects Sub-total 6.7.6

Discount rate = 0 % 2.9

Discount rate = 3 % 0.0086

0.32 0.012

0.00094 0.0018

0.31 0.29 0.13 0.73 0.046 4.7

0.27 0.26 0.11 0.12 0.046 0.82

Electricity generation from renewable energy sources

The main source of electricity from renewable energy in Germany are small scale run-of-river plants, which in 1990 have produced 19.7 TWh or 3.6 % of the total electricity. In the ExternE National Implementation Project we have not analysed the hydro fuel cycle, but results from other countries suggest that externalities are close to zero. External costs from the wind and PV fuel cycles in Germany were estimated by (Raptis et al., 1995), resulting in costs of < 0.56 mECU/kWh for wind and < 5.3 mECU/kWh for photovoltaic. Taking into account the current low contribution of renewable energy sources to the total electricity generation in Germany, and the

142

Results for Germany

relatively low external costs per kWh, we neglect external costs from renewable energy sources without distorting the overall results derived for the German electricity sector. 6.7.7

Summary and Conclusions

Within the Aggregation Task of the current ExternE Project we have demonstrated the applicability of the detailed bottom-up impact pathway approach to the whole electricity sector in Germany by using an extended multi-source version of the EcoSense software. One of the main findings concerning the aggregation methodology is that damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted might differ significantly even within a country. The main reason for such differences is the spatial variation in SO2, NOx, and NH3 emissions. The availability of free ammonia contributing to the formation of ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate, which in turn as secondary particles have a significant impact on human health, is an important parameter determining the damage costs resulting from power plant emissions. As ammonia is mainly emitted from agricultural activities, and the availability of free ammonia in the atmosphere also depends on the level of SO2 and NOx emissions from other sources, the damage costs we refer to as ‘energy’ externalities in fact strongly depend on emissions from various industrial activities. In Germany, we have to take into account the specific situation in the former GDR (‘neue Länder’) with very high emissions from the power sector, leading to external costs which are much higher than the private costs of electricity generation. The damage costs from electricity generation in Germany in 1990 excluding global warming are estimated to result in about 30 ·109 ECU, which is more than 1 % of the 1990 GDP. Estimates of global warming damage costs are very uncertain, they are estimated to be within a range of 1.5 to 55 billion ECU/a. While emissions from the power sector in the Former Federal Territory have been constant or slightly increasing over the last years, there was a drastical reduction of emissions in the ‘neue Länder’, leading to a reduction of the overall damage costs of about 25 % since 1990. The quantified damage costs from nuclear power generation are relatively low compared to the fossil fuels. Although nuclear energy contributes to nearly 30 % of power production in 1990, the share of damage costs from nuclear electricity is only about 1.5 %.

6.8

Policy Case Studies

IER has applied the ExternE methodology together with ETSU in two policy oriented case studies on the assessment of benefits of an acidification strategy for the European Union, and on the costs and benefits of pollution abatement options for large combustion plants. The following sections summarise results from these case studies. 6.8.1

Benefits of an acidification strategy for the European Union

This case study applies the ExternE methodology to quantify the benefits of reducing emissions of SO2, NOx and NH3 in line with a proposed acidification strategy for the European Union. Benefits are assessed in terms of reduced damage to human health, building materials and crops. This work complements a study being conducted at IIASA (Amann et al, 1996), which has assessed the costs of various scenarios designed to meet policy related goals for protection of ecosystems against air pollution effects.

Scope of the analysis The starting point for the assessment is a study for DGXI by Amann et al (1996), the purpose of which is to investigate cost effective control of acidification and ground level ozone in Europe. Scenarios of emissions reduction for SO2, NOx and NH3, meeting different levels of policy objective with respect to critical loads attainment have been developed and costed in this work. The study has investigated 9 scenarios covering emissions of SO2, NOx and NH3 in the year 2010, of which the following 5 are of most interest: Reference - emission levels permitted under current legislation and under agreed commission proposals, such as Auto-Oil. Emissions everywhere apart from Moldova and sea areas fall, compared to 1990 emissions.

143

The ExternE National Implementation

45%, 50%, 55% GAP - emission levels successively reduced to close the ‘gap’ between 1990 critical loads exceedance and full protection. These scenarios are based on a least cost solution assuming that only EU Member States take action. The only exception is for 55% gap closure where emissions are also reduced in the Baltic Sea - otherwise 55% is unattainable. With the partial exception of this scenario it is assumed that all non-EU countries keep their emissions at the level of the reference scenario. Maximum feasible reduction, realistic (MFR-real) - assumes full application of feasible technical abatement measures, and the extension of such application to all European countries. Benefits due to avoided impacts on human health, crops and materials resulting from the implementation of these emission reduction strategies are quantified following the standard ExternE methodology. A preliminary version of the ‘multi-source’ EcoSense model was used to quantify impacts from complex European-wide emission scenarios following a detailed bottom-up approach.

Results Estimates of the annual total avoided damage costs (avoided in comparison to the reference scenario) are 16 000 Mill. ECU for the 45% gap-closure scenario, 24 000 Mill. ECU for the 50% gap-closure scenario, 31 000 Mill. ECU for the 55% gap-closure scenario, and 89 000 Mill. ECU for the maximum feasible reduction scenario. (These results are based on the ‘old’ approach of valuing each ‘additional’ death with the full Value of Statistical Life, but only acute mortality was taken into account. Valuation of chronic mortality following the Value of Life Years Lost approach leads to very similar results). The largest reductions in damages are found, not surprisingly, in the countries with the largest populations, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Avoided damages also tend to be larger in central states because of the reduction in emissions in neighbouring areas. In contrast, for some countries on the fringes of the EU, most notably Finland, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal benefits are modest, reflecting less significant emission reductions in several of these countries, the distance of these countries from emission reductions made elsewhere, and, in the case of Ireland and Portugal their position in Europe with respect to the prevailing wind direction. Finland and Greece benefit particularly from the reduction in emissions under the Maximum Feasible Reduction scenario because of emission reductions in countries outside the EU. In both countries estimated benefits increase by a factor in excess of 10 between the 55%GAP and MFR-real scenarios.

Comparison of costs and quantified benefits An overall comparison of costs and benefits indicates that estimated benefits of moving from the REFERENCE scenario to scenarios implementing more stringent abatement measures, substantially exceed costs at the European level. However, there appears to be no additional net benefit of moving from the 55%GAP scenario to MFR-real. Our assessment predicts net benefits of 18 ECU billion for both. However, the level of ecosystem protection increases from 55%GAP to MFR-real, leading to greater, but unmonetised, ecosystem benefits. In addition, extension of emissions reduction to eastern European countries will lead to a disproportionate increase in benefits outside of the assessment area, particularly in view of the predominant south-westerly winds in Europe. Figure 6.4 shows that under some scenarios some countries are predicted to experience a net cost (noting uncertainties in the analysis and exclusion of certain benefits affecting ecological and cultural resources). Only for Ireland is this predicted under all scenarios. Countries identified as showing a net loss tend to be on the fringes of Europe.

144

Results for Germany

45% G A P

50% G A P

55% G A P

M FR -real

K ey: -98 to -26 E C U /person -26 to 0 EC U /person 0 to 25 EC U /person 26 to 50 EC U /person 51 to 112 EC U /person

Figure 6.4 Net per-capita benefits in each EU Member State for each scenario

Conclusions This case study demonstrates that the ExternE methodology and the multi-source EcoSense model can be applied to provide sophisticated and detailed analysis of pan-European emission scenarios, in addition to assessment of individual plant, upon which previous work in the ExternE Project has concentrated. Effects of primary and secondary pollutants arising from emissions of SO2, NOx and NH3 have been quantified for health, materials and crops. A major advantage of this approach is that it is able to take account of geographical variation in damages with respect to the source of emissions and the location of damage receptors.

145

The ExternE National Implementation

6.8.2

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pollution Abatement Options for Large Combustion Plants

Scope of the analysis This case study applies ExternE Project results for pollution damage assessment using impact pathway analysis to consider the costs and benefits of measures to reduce the emission of air pollutants from large combustion plant. The starting point for the cost assessment is the report by ERM (1996), produced for DGXI of the European Commission. This provides a cost analysis of various measures for SO2, NOx and TSP reduction, and recommends a number of options as Best Available Technology. Damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted are calculated for a German and UK reference site (Lauffen and West Burton) following the standard ExternE approach by using the EcoSense model. Estimates of external costs include impacts on human health, crops, and materials.

Cost-benefit analysis The analysis is concerned with the control of emissions of SO2, NOx and primary TSP. Costs and benefits can be grouped as 5 types; 1. 2. 3. 4.

Private costs for construction, operation and maintenance of emissions abatement plant. External benefits arising from a reduction in emissions of air pollution. External costs arising from transfer of pollutants from flue gas to land and water. External costs from construction, maintenance and operation of emissions abatement plant, and from the supply of operational materials (e.g. limestone, ammonia, bag filters). 5. External costs associated with reduced efficiency of a facility, due to energy demand of emissions abatement technologies. In order for an abatement technology to be considered worthwhile it is necessary for benefits to exceed costs. Comparison of the private costs with the estimated damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted suggests that the abatement measures reviewed by ERM (1996) are justified for both UK and German plant. However, the externality estimates are subject to significant uncertainty. To take into account these uncertainties, we rank the results for each impact of the three pollutants in terms of the confidence attached to each (see e.g. Figure 6.5). For the German plant emissions control of the types defined in ERM (1996) is justified without reference to mortality effects. In fact for SO2 it is only effects on materials and crops that need to be included before the lower end of the range of private costs is passed. For the UK plant, where overall damages are lower because of the location of the power plant site close to the North Sea, the combined effect of damage to materials and crops (where appropriate) and acute morbidity are sufficient to take results for all three pollutants past the lower end of the range for the private costs of abatement, and also past the upper end of the range for particulates.

Conclusions The conclusion of this case study is that strict emissions controls for SO2, NOx and particulates from Large Combustion Plant are justified. In many cases this can be justified without consideration of mortality effects. No assessment has been possible on the exact level of abatement that can be justified on the basis of our analysis. Costs inevitably rise as any technology is pushed to a higher level of abatement. The source of data used for private costs of emissions abatement (ERM, 1996) provides no insight on this issue.

146

Results for Germany

Abatement Costs versus Damage Costs SO2 6000

Mortality

ECU/t

Morbidity

5000

Material damage Crop losses

4000 3000 2000 1000

max. min.

0 D

Abatement costs

UK

Damage costs

Figure 6.5 Comparison of abatement costs and damage costs per tonne of SO2 emitted from a coal fired power plant in Germany and the UK

6.9

Conclusions

Germany has been among those countries that started their National Implementation Project within the second phase of ExternE already, and continued work in ExternE phase 3, so that the German team had the opportunity to follow methodological discussions and developments and the process of standardisation over a long time. During the first phase of the German Implementation project, activities were focused on the detailed analysis of reference fuel cycles, including coal, lignite, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind and photovoltaic, and on the identification of specific issues related to the evaluation of externalities in a German contexts. While results from this phase of the project were presented in a detailed report, the present report summarises again the approach and provides an update of results. The major methodological developments since ExternE phase 2 are related to the quantification and valuation of mortality. As there is a growing evidence of ‘chronic’ mortality impacts from long term exposure to fine particles, this endpoint is included now in our estimates. However, we have learned that the effect of concern is the reduction of life expectancy rather than ‘additional’ deaths which we tried to measure before. To take into account this better understanding of the actual impact, for monetary valuation we now apply the concept of Value of Life Years Lost (instead of the Value of Statistical Life) that was developed within the ExternE-Core group. By incidence, the valuation of years of life lost leads to results that are very similar to the ‘old’ approach of valuing cases of acute mortality only with the Value of Statistical Life. In the second Phase of the German Implementation study, the list of fuel cycles covered was completed by estimating external costs from combined heat and power production from biomass. These results, together with the updated results of the other fuel cycles, provide a comprehensive set of external cost data for a wide range of technologies operated in Germany. External cost estimates are calculated following a standardised methodology that is widely accepted now on the international level, and similar data sets are produced in all member states of the European Union. Although there are significant remaining uncertainties in some areas, our results indicate that external costs of some fuel cycles are high enough to affect energy policy decisions.

147

The ExternE National Implementation

Besides of analysing external costs from the biomass fuel cycle, the work in the second phase of the German Implementation project was focused on the development of the EcoSense software, and on the application of the ExternE methodology in a more policy oriented context. EcoSense Version 2.0 was successfully used by teams in all EU countries. The use of a common database and a set of standardised air quality and impact assessment models has very much simplified the assessment of external costs resulting from airborne pollutants and supported the generation of comparable external cost data in all EU countries. Although the detailed bottom-up impact pathway analysis which attempts to calculate external costs from a single power plant with a specific technology at a specific sites corresponds to the requirements of economic theory, we have learned that decision makers often need information on a more aggregated level to be used in a more general type of policy analysis. To address these needs, we have used a preliminary ‘multi-source’ version of the EcoSense model to calculate aggregated damage costs from the German power sector, and to estimate environmental benefits resulting from the implementation of European emission reduction strategies. The possibility of carrying out a type of cost-benefit analysis for environmental policy measures is certainly a promising field of application for the ExternE methodology, and first results created an increasing interest of policy makers. Although further research is required to reduce the existing uncertainties, this report provides a comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts and resulting external costs from electricity generation in Germany, and we believe that results give helpful support to the integration of environmental aspects into energy policy.

148

Results for Germany

References Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., Gyarfas, F., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z. and Schopp, W. (1996) Cost-effective control of acidification and ground-level ozone. Interim report to the European Commission, DGXI. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. Bauer, F. et al. (1994) Einsatz von Bio-Festbrennstoffen in der Wärmeersatzanlage (WEA) Lübbenau. Proceedings, DGMK-Fachbereichstagung ‘Energetische und stoffliche Nutzung von Reststoffen und nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, Velen, April 1994 Baumann, A.; Hill, R.: CEC/US Joint Study on Fuel Cycle Costs, Photovoltaics, Position paper, Newcastle Photovoltaics Applications Centre, University of Northumbria, Newcastle/UK, March 1994 Bleijenberg, A. N.: Windenergie en vogels. Oversicht en beleidsoverwegingen, Centrum voor energiebesparing en schone technologie, 1988 BMU (1992):Umweltpolitik. Bericht der Bundesregierung an den Deutschen Bundestag über Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelstung im Jahr 1990. Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Bonn. BMWI (1996): Energie Daten ‘96. Bundesminsiterium für Wirtschaft Bobik, M.: Zirkulierende Wirbelschichtfeuerung mit Holz und Klärschlamm als Brennstoff. BWK 43 (1991) 7/8, 368-372 Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL) (eds.) (1993) Dioxinemissionen von Holzfeuerungen. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 208, Bern Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Unfallverhütungsbericht Arbeit. Bonn

Sozialordnung

(BMA)

(several

years)

Arbeitssicherheit

-

Bundesministerium für Verkehr (BMV) (ed.) (1992) Verkehr in Zahlen. Bonn CEPN (1995): European Commission, DG XII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE. Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’, Project, Report No 5 Nuclear. EUR 16524 EN. Clarke, A.: Windfarm Location and Environmental Impact, NATTA Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment, Energy and Environment Research Unit, Faculty of Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, 1988 Doka, G., Nussbaumer, Th. (1994) Lachgas-Emissionen von Kleinfeuerungen. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 208, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Zürich EMEP/CORINAIR (1996): Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook. A joint EMEP/CORINAIR Production. Prepared by the EMEP Task Force on Emission Inventories. Edited by G. McInnes. European Environment Agency. Environmental Resources Management (ERM), European Commission (1995) BAT Assessment. ERM (1996) Revision of the EC Emission Limit Values for New Large Combustion Installations (>50MWth). Report to DGXI of the European Commission.

149

The ExternE National Implementation

European Commission (1995a) EUR 16521 - EXTERNE: Externalities of Energy - Vol. 2: Methodology. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg European Commission (1995b) EUR 16522 - EXTERNE: Externalities of Energy - Vol. 3: Coal & Lignite. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995a). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 1, Summary. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995b). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 2, Methodology. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995c). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 3, Coal and Lignite Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995d). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 4, Oil and Gas Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995e). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 5, Nuclear Fuel Cycle. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995f). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report 6, Wind and Hydro Fuel Cycles. European Commission, DGXI (1997) Economic Evaluation of the Draft Incineration Directive. Report produced for the European Commission DG XI. Contract Number B4 3040/95/001047/MAR/B1.Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1998). Externalities of Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Updated Methodology Report (in prep.).

Eyre, N. (1994) : CEC Project on the External Costs of Fuel Cycles - The Environmental Costs of Wind Energy; Fritsche, U. et al. (1994) Umwelanalyse integrierter Energie-, Stoff- und Transportsysteme. Gesamt-EmissionsModell Integrierter Systeme (GEMIS) - Version 2.1. Studie im Auftrag des Hessischen Ministeriumes für Umwelt, Energie und Bundesangelegenheiten, Darmstadt Fritsche, U., Leuchtner, J., Matthes, F.C., Rausch, L. and Simon, K.-H. (1992). Gesamt-Emissions-Model Intergrierter Systeme (GEMIS) Version 2.0. OKO-Institutt Buro Darmstadt, Bunsenstr. 14, D-6100 Darmstadt. An English version is distributed under the name TEMIS. Frühwald, A., Thoroe, C., Dreiner, K. et al. (1993) Verwertung von Holz als umweltfreundlichem Energieträger - Eine Nutzen-Kosten-Untersuchung. Arbeitsbericht des Instituts für Ökonomie 93/5, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, Hamburg Gernhardt, D., Mohr, M., Ziolek, A., Unger, H. (1994) Thermisch verwertbares Restholz der holzbe- und verarbeitenden Betriebe im VEW-Versorgungsgebiet. Studie im Auftrag der Vereinigten Elektrizitätswerke Westfalen (VEW), Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Institut für Energietechnik, Bochum Good, J., Nussbaumer, Th. (1994) SNCR-Verfahren zur Stickoxidminderung bei der Holzfeuerung. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Energiewirtschaft, Zürich

150

Results for Germany

GRS (1989): Deutsche Risikostudie Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, GRS-72.

Kernkraftwerke

Phase

B.

Gesellschaft

für

Hagedorn, G.; Hellriegel E.: Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft, München; Forschungszentrum Jülich; Umweltvorsorgeprüfung bei Forschungsvorhaben - Am Beispiel von Photovoltaik - Band 5: Umweltrelevante Stoffströme bei der Herstellung verschiedener Solarzellen; BMFT-Vorhaben 426-3590-PLI 14120, Juni 1992 Hartmann, H., Strehler, A. (1995) Die Stellung der Biomasse im Vergleich zu anderen erneuerbaren Energieträgern aus ökologischer, ökonomischer und technischer Sicht. Schriftenreihe „Nachwachsende Rohstoffe“ 3, Landwirtschafts-Verlag, München Heijungs, R., et al (1992). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Part 1. Guide. Part 2. Backgrounds. Centre of Environmental Science, Garenmarkt 1, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands. Hirsekorn, R.-P., Nies, A., Rausch, H., Storck, R. (1991): Performance Assessment of Confinements for MediumLevel and Alpha-Contaminated Waste, PACOMA Project Rock Salt Option, GSF-Bericht 12/91, GSFForschunszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, Neuherberg. Hofbauer, H., Linsmeyer, Th., Zschetzsche, A. (1994) Characterization of biomass fuels and ashes. Institute of Chemical Engineering, Fuel Technology and Environmental Technology, TU Wien Hohmeyer, O, (1988). Social Costs of Energy Consumption. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Hurley, F., Donnan, P. (1997) EXTERNE Maintenance and Transport - The ‘Classical’ Pollutants: PM, SO2, NO2, O3, CO - An Update of Exposure-Response (E-R) functions for the Acute and Chronic Public Health Effects of Air Pollution. IOM, Edinburgh

ICRP (1991): 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 21, No. 1-3, Pergamonn Press, Oxford 1991. Institut für Solare Energieversorgungstechnik (ISET) (1995): Assessment of the External Costs of the Photovoltaic and Wind Energy Life Cycle - National Implementation in Germany. Final Report prepared for the Commission of the European Union DG XII, JOULE, JOU2-CT-0264, Kassel Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1995) Climate Change 1994 - Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios. Reports of Working Group I and III. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996a) Climate Change 1995 - The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996b) Climate Change 1995 - Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996c) Climate Change 1995 - Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the

151

The ExternE National Implementation

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.J. Houghton, L.G. Meiro Filho, B.A. Callander et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Jones, A., Mansfield, P., Haywood, S., Nisbet, A., Hasemann, I., Steinhauer, C., Erhardt, J. (1993): PC COSYMA: An Accident Consequence Assessment Package For Use on a PC, Commission of the European Communities, EUR 14916 PREPRINT. Jones, H.E., Howson, G. Rosengren-Brinck, U., Hornung. M. (1997) Review of the effects of air pollutants on agricultural crops, forestry and natural vegetation. ITE Project T07074f5, ITE, Grange-over-Sands Kaltschmitt, M. (1994) Energiepotentiale der Biomasse. In: Brenndörfer, M., Dreiner, K., Kaltschmitt, M., Sauer, N.: Energetische Nutzung der Biomasse - Potentiale, Technik, Kosten. Arbeitspapier 199, KTBLSchriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup, pp. 9 - 56 Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A. (eds.) (1997) Ganzheitliche ökologische Bilanzierung nachwachsender Energieträger. Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden

Keßler G (1994) Sicherheitsanforderungen an zukünftige LWR-Anlagen. In: Sammlung der Vorträge zum Statusbericht des Projektes Nukleare Sicherheitsforschung (PSF) vom 23. März 1994 im Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe. KfK 5326, Mai 1994. Koukios, E.G., et al.: External Costs of Fuel Cycles - The Case of Biomass in Greece - Final Report. Report to the CEC-DGXII, Athens : NTUA, 1995 Krewitt, W. (1996): Quantifizierung und Vergleich Stromerzeugungssysteme. Forschungsbericht des Instituts Energeianwendung, Band 33, Universität Stuttgart.

der Gesundheitsrisiken verschiedener für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle

Krewitt, W., Lorenzoni, A., Pirilä, P.: Allocation of environmental damage from combined heat and power production between electricity and heat - Proposal for an EXTERNE guideline. May 1996 Krewitt, W., Mayerhofer, P., Friedrich, F., Raptis, F., Rennings, K., Diekmann, J., (1995): ExternE - German National Implementation. Final report prepared for the EU DG XII JOULE Programme, Contract JOU2-CT0264. Krewitt, W., Pirilä, P., Lorenzoni, A. (1996): Allocation of environmental damage from combined heat and power production between electricity and heat. ExternE working paper. Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V., Leskinen, A., Hanssen, O.-J., Ronning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (1995). LCA-NORDIC Technical Report No. 10: Impact Assessment. TemaNord 1995:503, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Michaelis, H., Salander, C. (1995): Handbuch Kernenergie.VWEW Verlag, Frankfurt. Norddeutsche Naturschutzakademie (NNA) (1990): Biologisch-ökologische Begleituntersuchungen zum Bau und Betrieb von Windkraftanlagen, Endbericht, NNA-Berichte, Sonderheft, Schneverdingen North Atlantic Treaty Organisation/Committee on Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS) (1988) International Toxicity Equivalency Factor Method of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Pilot study on international information exchange on dioxins and related compounds, Report No. 176 Nuno Rebeiro da Silva et al.: Assessment of the Externalities of Biomass Fuel Cycles in Portugal. „EXTERNE Project“, Report to the CEC-DGXII, Lisbon : CEEETA, 1995

152

Results for Germany

Nussbaumer, Th. (1989) Schadstoffbildung bei der Verbrennung von Holz. Forschungsbericht Nr. 6, Laboratorium für Energiesysteme, ETH Zürich, Juris Druck+Verlag, Zürich Nussbaumer, Th. et al. (1994) Emissionsarme Altholznutzung in 1 bis 10 MW Anlagen. Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft, Eidgenössische Drucksachen und Materialzentrale EDMZ, Zürich Obermeier, A. (1995) Personal communication. IER Obernberger, I. (1994) Mengen, Charakteristik und Zusammensetzung von Aschen aus Biomasseheizwerken. Proceedings, Symposium „Sekundärrohstoffe Holzasche“, Institut für Verfahrenstechnik, TU Graz Obernberger, I. et al. (1995) Beurteilung der Umweltverträglichkeit des Einsatzes von Einjahresganzpflanzen und Stroh zur Fernwärmeerzeugung. Institut für Verfahrenstechnik, TU Graz OECD (1992). Proceedings of an OECD Workshop on Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Systems. Paris, 21-22 May, 1992. Pilkington, A., Hurley, F. (1997) Cancer Risk Estimates. Working Paper for EXTERNE Project, IOM, Edinburgh Rabl, A., Eyre, N. (1997): An Estimate of regional and global O3 Damage from Precursor NOx and VOC Emissions. ExternE working paper. Raptis, F., Kaspar, F., Sachau, J. (1995): Assessment of the External Costs of the Photovolatic and Wind Energy Life Cycle. ExternE - National Implementation in Germany. Final report prepared for the EU DG XII JOULE Programme, Contract JOU2-CT-0264. Rennings, K. (1995): Economic Valuation of Fuel Cycle Externalities. Progress Report ExternE - National Implementation in Germany. ZEW, Mannheim. Sandnes, H., (1993) EMEP/MSC-W Report 1/93,DET NORSKE METEOROLOGISKE INSTITUTT, Technical Report no. 109. Schiffer, H.-W. (1991): Energiemarkt Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln. Stanzel, W. et al. (1995) Emissionsfaktoren und energietechnische Parameter für die Erstellung von Energieund Emissionsbilanzen im Bereich Fernwärmeversorgung. Institut für Energieforschung, Graz Strehler, A., Gessner, B. (1991) Zusammenstellung relevanter Verfahrensdaten bei Ernte, Aufbereitung und bei der energetischen Umsetzung von Biomasse. In: Wintzer, D. et al.: Technikfolgenabschätzung Nachwachsender Rohstoffe - Materialband 31. Landwirtschafts-verlag, Münster Suttor, W. (ed.) (1995) Praxis Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung. C.F. Müller Verlag, Heidelberg UBA (Umweltbundesamt): Luftreinhaltung '88 - Tendenzen - Probleme - Lösungen. Materialien zum vierten Immissionsschutzbericht der Bundesregierung an den Deutschen Bundestag, Berlin : E. Schmidt Verlag, 1989 UBA (Umweltbundesamt): Emissionen der Treibhausgase Distickstoffoxid und Methan in Deutschland. UBABerichte 9/93, Berlin : Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1993 UNSCEAR (1993): Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR Report to the General Assembly. United Nations. New York, 1993. Vetter, A. et al. (1995) Untersuchungen zum Einfluß der Brennstoffart und -qualität auf die Zusammensetzung der Reststoffe und deren Verwertung am Strohheizwerk Schkölen zur Sicherung der Umweltverträglichkeit. Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Jena

153

The ExternE National Implementation

Vitovec, W. (1991) N2O-Emissionen aus pyrogenen Quellen in Österreich. Dissertation TU Wien, Wien Weber, R. et al. (1995) Untersuchungen zum Einfluß der biogenen Brennstoffe und -qualität sowie der Fahrweise der Anlage auf die gas- und partikelförmigen Emissionen des Strohheizwerkes Schkölen zur Bewertung der Umweltverträglichkeit. Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Jena Wehowsky, P., Leidemann, W., Lezuo, A., Seifritz, W., Fischedick, M., Herrmann, D., Pfeiffer, T., Fahl, U., Voß, A. (1994): Strom- und wärmeerzeugende Anlagen auf fossiler und nuklearer Grundlage, IKARUS - ein Entwicklungsvorhaben des Forschungszentrums Jülich im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Forschung und Technologie, Nr. 4-06(2).

Wiese A, Marheineke T, Krewitt W, Voß A (1995): Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung von Stromerzeugungssystemen. Jahrestagung "Entsorgung - Wiederverwertung - Beseitigung" des Fachverbandes für Strahlenschutz, September 1995, Wolfenbüttel. Wilken, M., Kolenda, J., Gass, H. (1993) Ermittlung und Verminderung der Emissionen von halogenierten Dioxinen und Furanen aus thermischen Prozessen - Holzfeuerungsanlagen . Ingenieurgemeinschaft Technischer Umweltschutz GmbH, Studie im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamts, Berlin Winkelman, J.E: Onderzoek naar de mogelijke involved van wind turbines op vogels, Energiespectrum, 1988 Wurst, F. et al. (1991) Untersuchungen zur Emission von polychlorierten Dioxinen und Furanen bei der Holzverbrennung. Forschungsgesellschaft Technischer Umweltschutz (FTU), Projekt-Nr. 82, Wien

154

7. RESULTS FOR DENMARK Prepared by Risø National Laboratory

7.1

Introduction

Denmark is a small country placed in the Northern of Europe. It comprises the peninsula of Jutland, the islands of Zealand, Funen, Lolland, Falster and Bornholm, and 401 minor islands. The North Sea to the west and the Baltic Sea to the east border the country. Denmark borders on Germany to the south, this being its only land frontier. Denmark covers a total area of 43,094 km2 and has a total population of 5.2 millions inhabitants. Although the energy consumption has been stable during the last 20 years, there have been large displacement in the type of fuel used as well as patterns of consumption. Increased co-production of electricity and heat, and conversion of fuels from oil and coal to natural gas and renewable energy, has begun to make a clear impact on the Danish energy supply sector. Consumption of coal has fallen at power stations and district heating plants as well as in the primary and secondary production sectors. Conversion from oil to natural gas and district heating means that oil consumption has been falling year after year. During the last two years, however, oil consumption has increased mostly because of the use of Orimulsion for CHP production. Also there has been an increasing consumption of oil in the transportation and production sectors. Since 1989 consumption of natural gas has gone up by 5 PJ a year and sales to district heating plants, small-scale CHP plants and households have risen. On the other hand, there has been little or no change in consumption of natural gas in industry and other manufacturing enterprises during recent years. Consumption of renewable energy has grown considerably since the beginning of the 1980s. After two years of stagnation consumption again rose in 1995 and renewable energy covers now 7.8% of the total energy demand. The three power plant technologies, which have been analysed in the project are an offshore wind farm, a decentralised CHP plant based on natural gas and a decentralised CHP plant based on biogas. All of the three kinds of plants are important in the Danish Energy Plan, and therefore during the next years these plants will become more and more common in Denmark. For aggregation, however, it has been necessary to include a wind farm on land. CHP production based on natural gas is becoming more and more common. In 1994 69% of the total district heating production was based on CHP plants. 20% of these are decentralised plants based on natural gas or waste combustion. By the beginning of 1996, a total capacity of about 1300 MWel decentralised CHP plants had been established. In 1986 a political decision was made between the Government and the electric utilities concerning future expansion of the electricity supply in Denmark. The agreement included a decision to establish decentralised CHP plants based on Danish energy sources with a total electric capacity of 450 MW before the end of 1995. According to the decision the expansion of decentralised combined heat and power must be based on Danish energy sources such as natural gas, waste or biofuels (straw, wood or biogas). Coal and oil may be used only as peak load or spare load fuel.

163

The ExternE National Implementation

Although only 10 out of 260 plants are combined-cycle plants, this technology covers more than one-third of the electricity capacity. The combined-cycle technology seems in this way to be an important technology in the future. Therefore a combined-cycle CHP plant has been chosen as a case study for the natural gas fuel cycle. Biogas is produced in different kinds of plants in Denmark, among others individual plants, smaller farmer plants and collective plants. The biogas is used for CHP production. Today about 20 collective biogas plants are operating in larger scale, half of which are demonstration plants. The plants demonstrate the possibilities for reaching environmental and agricultural advantages together with an energy production based on biogas. The plants have today a very stable biogas production. One of the larger collective biogas plants has been chosen as a case study in the project. Presently there is a large production of slurry in the Danish agriculture. But the production of organic waste in the industry is limited. The bulk of the slurry is produced at large conventional farms with specialised cattle, dairy or pig farming. The specialisation in the Danish agricultural sector means that slurry has to be exchanged between farmers to fulfil the national regulation on harmonisation, i.e. not more than one cow to one ha of land. The legislation on harmonisation is a national environmental policy for reducing nitrate leaching on agricultural lands in Denmark, which is the main focus on environmental impacts of slurry production today in Denmark. Wind power produced about 5% of the total electricity production. Ultimo 1996, app. 825 MW wind power has been installed. It is the intention to extend the wind power to 1700 MW by the year 2005, of which 310 MW will be offshore. There is a large amount of unused wind resources in Denmark as well on land as offshore. On land, however, areas with good wind conditions are limited due to the size of the country, its relatively high population density, and the disposal of areas for forestry, bird protection areas, and industry. For all these reasons Denmark constructed the world’s first offshore wind farm in 1991, and today two such wind farms are in operation.

7.2

The natural gas fuel cycle

7.2.1

Definition of the natural gas fuel cycle

The technology analysed for this fuel cycle is a combined cycle CHP plant. The power plant has an electricity capacity of 77 MW and a heat capacity of 75 MJ/s. The natural gas fuel chain for Denmark is shown in Figure 7.1.

164

Results for Denmark

Gas exploration

Extraction of gas

Transmission offshore

Gas treatment

Transmission onshore

Storage

Power generation

Energy transmission

Waste disposal

Figure 7.1 The natural gas fuel chain for Denmark The stages are described in the following table.

165

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 7.1 Definition of the natural gas fuel cycle Stage 1. Gas exploration

Parameter Initiation Methodology

1984 Seismic exploration

Value

Location Distance to Jutland Annual production (1995) CO2 emissions

North Sea 300 km 5x109 m3 73 g/kWhel, 16.6 g/kWhheat

Mode of transport Material Treatment

Pipeline Carbon Steel Pressurised, condensed and depressurised to 140 bar Dried by triethylenglycole Expansion to 80 bar

Mode of transport Material Treatment CO2 emissions

Buried pipelines Carbon Steel Regulation to 16 or 40 bars Addition of tetrehydrotiophen 4.8 g/kWhel, 1.1 g/kWhheat

Site Type Storage volume

Stenlille Aquifer 300x106 m3

Fuel Technology Location Installed power Efficiency Gas consumption Full load hours Lifetime Pollution control Air emissions CO2 TSP SO2 NOx CO Flue gas volume Flue gas temperature Height of stack

Natural gas Combined cycle CHP Hillerød 77 MWel, 75 MJ/sheat 44.4% el, 87.7% total 78x106 Nm3 /yr 3650 h/yr 25 years Specific low NOx turbine

2. Extraction of gas

3. Transmission offshore and gas treatment

4. Transmission onshore and gas treatment

6. Storage

7. Power generation

460 g/kWhel, 105 g/kWhheat 0.03 mg/kWhel, 0.008 mg/kWhheat 2.2 mg/kWhel, 0.6 mg/kWhheat 624 mg/kWhel, 169 mg/kWhheat 148 mg/kWhel, 40 mg/kWhheat 500,200 Nm3/h 374 K 35 m

8. Energy transmission

9. Waste disposal

166

electricity transmission district heating transmission Products

50-kV connection to consumers Heat transmission system at a length of 31 km to 7 municipal district heating systems. Domestic waste from the gas rig, construction vessels Oily wastes from supply and construction vessels Operational waste from construction activities Drilling fluids Material from pipelines/ decommissioning of plant

Results for Denmark

7.2.2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

From the natural gas fuel cycle the amount of atmospheric emissions as SO2, NOx and particulates are much smaller than for the coal fuel-cycle. The amount of SO2 emitted during power generation is close to zero, but there are still large quantities of NOx emitted. In relation to power generation and extraction, flaring, transmission and distribution processes., CO2 and other greenhouse gases are emitted to the atmosphere. Occupational and public accidents may occur in all stages of the natural gas fuel cycle, but the accidents in the offshore phase are given an especially high priority, as these are accidents specific to the natural gas fuel-cycle. Accidents in all stages, however, are considered. In Denmark two large storage sites for natural gas are established. In one of the sites the natural gas is stored in an aquifer, while the other storage site is in salt caverns. The sites are located close to built-up areas and from the residents in the area there has been very much anxiety concerning leakage from the storage site. Another storage site is about to be established, but the residents in the area have deferred the decision about the site until now. Based on this the impacts specific to gas storage have been given high priority. Hillerød CHP plant is located very close to a main road and is visible for quite a distance from the road. The environment around the CHP plant is open land and wood, making the plant much more dominating. Based on this the visual intrusion is given high priority. The following impacts are identified as impacts given high priority: • Global warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the whole fuel cycle • Effects of atmospheric pollution in relation to power generation and transportation • Occupational and public accidents in relation to the whole fuel cycle • Emissions to the marine environment in relation to the gas platforms • Impacts specific to the physical presence of gas storage • Visual intrusion of the CHP plant and transmission lines As Hillerød plant is a CHP plant producing heat as well as electricity, damages will have to be allocated to heat as well as electricity. The allocation of damages to heat and electricity will be based on exergy. As electricity generation contributes to 78% of the annual exergy production 78% of the damages should be allocated to electricity and 22% to heat. 7.2.3

Summary and interpretation of results

The total impacts and damages which have been assessed in relation to the Hillerød CHP plant are shown in Table 7.2.

167

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 7.2 Damages in relation to the natural gas fuel cycle for Hillerød CHP plant

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx, CO NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Visual impacts Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health Occupational health Ecological effects Marine environment Land use changes Natural gas storage Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high

mECU/kWhel

mECU/kWhheat

σg

2.81 (18.69) 2 e-4 (7 e-4) 0 2.55 (9.44) 0.26 (9.25) 0.82 0.36 0.46 ng ng 0.22 0 0.22 nq 0.04 25e-4

0.79 (5.15) 1 e-4 (4 e-4) 0 0.72 (2.66) 0.07 (2.49) 0.21 0.09 0.12 ng ng 0.06 0 0.06 nq 0.01 7e-4

B

1.75 8.27 21.14 63.88

0.40 1.89 4.82 14.58

nq 0.17 ng ng 0 1.0

nq 0.05 ng ng 0 0.28

0.30 1.43 3.66 11.06

0.07 0.32 0.84 2.52

B

A A B

B C C

A

C C

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant Table 7.3 Damage costs for the natural gas fuel cycle for Hillerød CHP plant

Power generation Other fuel cycle stages Subtotal

mECU/kWhel 5.64-67.77 1.47-12.23 7.11-80.00

mECU/kWhheat 1.47-15.65 0.40-2.85 1.87-18.50

σg A-C B-C B-C

Table 7.3 shows that about 80% of the damages from the natural gas fuel cycle for Hillerød CHP plant are related to the power generation stage. The damages are due to the emissions emitted in the power generation phase. In the mid 1% estimate 82% of the damages are related to CO2 emissions, while 98% of the damages

168

Results for Denmark

related to other emissions are due to NOx. This result points out the importance of trying to reduce the emissions of NOx in the burning of natural gas. However, this has already been done to a certain extent in the case of Hillerød. Table 7.4 shows the damage costs per pollutant. Table 7.4 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) CO2

ECU / t of pollutant 4,728 (15,770) 6,666 (23,333) 1500 3.8-18-46-139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach.

7.3

The biogas fuel cycle

7.3.1

Definition of the biogas fuel cycle

The technology analysed for this fuel cycle is a large joint biogas plant in Denmark, Ribe Biogas Plant (RBP). RBP is one of the 19 large joint biogas plants in the country and produces biogas on slurry from 79 farms. The biogas is used in Ribe-Nørremark Combined Heat and Power (R-NCHP) Plant. The power plant has an electricity capacity of 993 kW and a heat capacity of 1814 kJ/s. In Figure 7.2 the fuel cycle is illustrated schematically.

169

The ExternE National Implementation

Animal breeding

Collection

Transport

Biogas production Transportation of fermented biomass

Storage of fermented biomass

Biogas transmission

Energy production

Transportation of fermented biomass

Decommissioning

Spreading of fermented biomass

Disposal

Figure 7.2 The biogas fuel cycle The stages are described in the following table.

170

Results for Denmark

Table 7.5 Definition of the biogas fuel cycle Stage 1. Animal breeding / food processing

2. Pumping transportation

Parameter

Value

Production of slurry for biogas plant Production of industrial organic waste for biogas plant

App. 330 tonnes/day App. 80 tonnes/day

Location Distance to biogas plant

Ribe/Esbjerg/Tønder Slurry app.11 km / industrial organic waste app 30 km Trucks full load 18 tonnes or 28 tonnes per transport 150,000 tonnes of biomass

and

Mode of transportation Annual transportation (1995) Annual fuel consumption Annual transportation distance (biomass only) Air emissions CO2 TSP SO2 NOx

51 g/kWhel, 14.3 g/kWhheat 36 mg/kWhel, 10 mg/kWhheat 64 mg/kWhel, 18 mg/kWhheat 670 mg/kWhel, 190 mg/kWhheat

Site Material Daily production Site Type Year of construction

Ribe Steel and concrete 12,000 m3 Ribe Nørremark Thermophilic digestion 1990

Mode of transmission Material Treatment

Buried pipelines 2 km Carbon Steel Dried and regulated to 300 mbar

Fuel Technology Location Installed power Efficiency Gas consumption Full load hours Lifetime Pollution control Air emissions CO2 CH4 TSP SO2 NOx CO Flue gas volume Flue gas temperature Height of stack Annual electricity production

Biogas (1995: coal, 1997 natural gas as backup) Gas engine (1995: Caterpiller, 1997: Jenbacker) Ribe Nørremark 1 MWel, 5 MWheat (1995, Including backup capacity) 34% el, 83% total 4.4*106 Nm3 /yr 7000 h/yr 15 years None

153 m3 210,000 km

3. Biogas production

4. Biogas transmission

5. Power generation

0 g/ kWhel, 0 g/ kWhheat 3.6 g/kWhel, 1.0 g/kWhheat 0.015 mg/kWhel, 0.004 mg/kWhheat 75 mg/kWhel, 21 mg/kWhheat 1350 mg/kWhel, 350 mg/kWhheat 1350 mg/kWhel, 350 mg/kWhheat 6500 Nm3/h 392 K 50 m 6,970 MWh (gross)

171

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage 6. Storage of biomass at biogas plant

7. Pumping and transportation of biomass 8. Energy transmission

Parameter Annual heat production

Value 12,100 MWh (gross)

Site Air emissions CH4

Ribe

Similar to pumping and transportation above

Included in “pumping and transportation” above

Electricity transmission District heating transmission

50-kV connection to consumers Heat transmission system at a length of 2-5 km to Ribe Nørremark.

Site Number of sites Storage capacity Cleaning equipment

App. 11 km from the biogas plant in Ribe 26 storage tanks 1-2,000 m3 of biomass each Layer of porous leca stones to avoid emission of NH3

Site

Up to 15 km from the biogas plant on agricultural fields

Products

Operational waste from construction activities Material from pipelines/ decommissioning of plant The fermented biomass is not regarded as waste

3,9 g/ kWhel, 1.1 g/ kWhheat

9. Storage of biomass

10. Spreading of biomass

11. Waste disposal

7.3.2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The biogas fuel cycle may be divided into four major groups where environmental impacts are similar, as follows: 1. Collection and transportation of slurry, industrial organic waste and digested biomass (primary emissions) 2. Production and transmission of biogas, storage and spreading of digested biomass (primary emissions) 3. Production of electricity and heat (primary emissions) 4. Production, construction and decommissioning of the biogas plant, biomass storage tanks, transmission lines and CHP plant (secondary emissions) Analysing these four groups the following impacts are identified as impacts with high priority: • Global warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the whole fuel cycle • Effects of atmospheric pollution in relation to power generation and transportation • Occupational and public accidents in relation to the whole fuel cycle • Effects of emissions to soil in relation to spreading of biomass As Ribe-Nørremark biogas plant is a CHP plant producing heat as well as electricity, damages will have to be allocated to heat as well as electricity. The allocation of damages to heat and electricity will be based on exergy. As electricity generation contributes to 68% of the annual exergy production 68% of the damages should be allocated to electricity and 32% to heat.

172

Results for Denmark

7.3.3

Summary and interpretation of results

In the following tables the total damage from the biogas fuel cycle is shown. The largest damage is due to impacts on human health from emission of NOx, SO2 and to some extent TSP. The road damages are second, producing almost the same damage as the impact from the combustion process on human health. Other significant contributions come from damages due to public road accidents as well as accidents in the working environment due to production of the materials and technologies. Table 7.6 Damages in relation to the biogas fuel cycle for Ribe Biogas Plant (power generation)

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx NOx (via ozone) Accidents Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Emission to soil Land use changes Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high

mECU/kWhel

mECU/kWhheat

σg

7.15 (49.12) 6 e-5 (3 e-4) 0.18 (0.78) 6.39 (27.71) 0.58 (20.63) 1.86 0.83 1.03 ng 0.49 25 e-4 0.49 ng 0.06 ng ng

2.05 (13.89) 2 e-5 (9 e-5) 0.06 (0.26) 1.83 (7.94) 0.16 (5.69) 0.53 0.24 0.29 ng 0.14 16 e-4 0.14 ng 0.01 ng ng

B

0.30 1.42 3.63 10.97

0.17 0.81 2.06 6.22

B

A B

B

C

Table 7.7 Damages in relation to the biogas fuel cycle for Ribe Biogas Plant (other fuel cycles)

OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Transportation of biomass Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Materials

mECU/kWhel

mECU/kWhheat

σg

3.45 (23.70) 2 e-3 (9 e-3) 0.19 (0.82) 2.98 (12.92) 0.28 (9.96) 0.89 0.40 0.49 0.83 0.82 0.24 16 e-4 0.24 0.05

0.97 (6.71) 5 e-4 (2 e-3) 0.05 (0.22) 0.84 (3.64) 0.08 (2.85) 0.25 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.07 4 e-4 0.07 0.01

B

B

A A B

B

173

The ExternE National Implementation

Road damage Global warming

mECU/kWhel 0.61

mECU/kWhheat 0.17

-0.63 -2.99 -7.63 -23.06

-0.26 -1.24 -3.16 -9.56

σg C

low mid 3% mid 1% high

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

Table 7.8 Damage costs of the biogas fuel cycle for Ribe Biogas Plant

Power generation Other fuel cycle stages Subtotal

mECU/kWhel 9.86-20.53 6.26-(-16.17) 16.12-4.36

mECU/kWhheat 2.90-8.95 1.67-(-7.63) 4.57-1.32

σg A-C B-C B-C

Table 7.8 shows a benefit from other fuel cycles in the biogas fuel cycle for Ribe-Nørremark as a result of avoided greenhouse gas emissions. The benefit is larger the larger the value is that has been used for monetisation. Table 7.9 shows the damage costs per pollutant. Table 7.9 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) CO2

ECU / t of pollutant 4,400 (13,290) 4,830 (19,020) 4,990 (17,900) 1,500 3.8-18-46-139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach Transportation plays a central role in the biogas fuel cycle, especially for joint biogas plants. The damages from transportation account for more than 30% of the overall damages, due to the emission of NOx during transportation. A reduction in transportation distance will therefore change the impacts from the biogas fuel cycle. Another important issue is the emission of unburned carbon at the CHP plant. The biogas is burnt in a gas boiler instead of a gas turbine resulting in an incomplete combustion of the gas resulting in large C externalities. The use of gas turbines in biogas plants decreases therefore the external costs considerably.

174

Results for Denmark

7.4

The wind fuel cycles, offshore and on land

7.4.1

Definition of the wind fuel cycle

Wind is a natural energy source, occurring directly at the point of use. Therefore, there is no fuel cycle with fuel extraction, fuel transportation and processing in connection with a wind farm. The wind fuel cycle consists only of the presence of the wind turbines, their operation and connection to the electric grid. Characteristic for the wind fuel cycle is the lack of pollution connected directly to the wind turbine. However, there is chemical pollution connected to the manufacturing of materials for the turbine itself and the materials used for the electrical transmission equipment. In order to include this chemical pollution the wind turbines are considered from a life cycle analysis (LCA) point of view. The life cycle has the following stages, as shown in Figure 7.3.

Resource extraction

Resource transportation

Materials processing

Component manufacture

Component transportation

Turbine construction

Turbine operation

Decommissioning

Turbine product disposal

Figure 7.3 Life cycle of the wind turbine fuel cycle The wind farm analysed in the case study is an offshore wind farm consisting of 10 500 kW turbines with a total capacity of 5 MW. For aggregation it has been necessary also to include a case study for an ordinary wind farm on land. The wind farm that have been chosen is a wind farm consisting of 18 500 kW turbines with a total capacity of 9 MW. The details of the technologies assessed are shown in the following table. Table 7.10 Definition of the wind fuel cycles

175

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage 1. Turbine construction

Parameter

Value, off-shore

Location Type Number of turbines Distance between turbines Distance between rows Characteristics Rated power Rotor diameter Rotor speed Rated wind speed Tower height Weight Composition of turbines Steel Aluminium Copper Sand Glass Plast Others Composition of fundaments Reinforced iron Concrete Sea cables Copper Lead Steel PEX

Roskilde Vestas V39 10 200 m 400 m

Location Power generation Lifetime Noise level

Tunø Knob 12,500 MWh 20 years 13.6 dB (A)

Value, on land Roskilde Vestas V39 18 188 m 580 m

500 kW 39 m 33 rpm 16 m/s 40.5 m 57 t

500 kW 39 m 33 rpm 16 m/s 40.5 m 57 t

527 t 14 t 3.5 t 21 t 11 t 20 t 8t

949 t 25 t 6.3 t 38 t 20 t 36 t 14.5 t

240 t 5650 t

216 t 5085 t

25.8 t 33.6 t 39 t 5.4 t

2. Turbine operation

7.4.2

Fjaldene 19,800 MWh 20 years 13.6 dB (A)

Discussion of burdens and impacts

Noise from the wind farm is a burden to the residents and other people in the area close to the wind farm. As Tunø Knob wind farm is located at sea 3 km from land the noise effect is negligible. Still, as noise is the most discussed burden in relation to wind energy this burden is given high priority. Also in the case of Fjaldene wind farm the assessment of noise is quite important. Visual intrusion is a burden for residents, visitors, travellers and others near the wind farm. The region of Tunø Knob is a popular one for summer residents and visual intrusion is therefore a burden that has caused a lot of discussion. The visual burden has been given a high priority. There are no atmospheric emissions related to power production using wind turbines. However the production of materials for the wind turbines will cause atmospheric emissions. Coal and natural gas, causing emissions of SO2, NOx, CO and particulates will mostly produce the materials. The motion of the turbines may cause death, injury or disturbance of birds close to the wind farm. Tunø Knob is located in an area between two larger Ramsar areas with resting eiders at the islet and large passages of birds over the islet. Therefore the effect of the blade rotation is given a high priority.

176

Results for Denmark

For the offshore wind farm in this study the following impacts will be assessed as externalities for the full life cycle of the wind turbines: • Noise from the turbines • Visual amenity of the wind farms • Atmospheric emissions related to material production • Accidents • Impacts on birds and shells • Impacts on fish • Interference with electromagnetic communication systems The same impacts are assessed as externalities for the wind farm on land except impacts on fish and interference with electromagnetic communication systems, which are considered irrelevant for the land-based wind farm. 7.4.3

Summary and interpretation of results

The total impacts and damages which have been assessed in relation to Tunø Knob offshore wind farm and Fjaldene wind farm on land are shown in Table 7.11.

177

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 7.11 Damages in relation to Tunø Knob offshore wind farm and Fjaldene wind farm on land

POWER GENERATION Public health (accidents) Occupational health Noise Visual impacts Impacts on birds Impacts on fish Interference with electromagnetic communication systems OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Material production and manufacture Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2

NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high

Tunø Knob mECU/kWh

Fjaldene mECU/kWh

σg

8.9 e-3 ng 4 e-3 0 0 0 0

15.7 e-3 ng 0.02 0.17 0 nq

A A B A A A A

0.39 (2.59) 6 e-3 (0.02) 0.12 (0.61) 0.24 (0.89) 0.03(1.07) 0.15 0.05 0.06 7.1 e-3 0.02 0.03 2 e-4 0.03 ng 0.01

0.17 (1.36) 4.8 e-3 (0.02) 0.09 (0.46) 0.05 (0.17) 0.02 (0.71) 0.12 0.08 0.04 2.3 e-3 0.03 0.02 3 e-4 0.02 iq 8 e-3

B

0.08 0.40 1.01 3.06

0.06 0.26 0.67 2.02

B

A A B

B C

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant Table 7.12 Total damages of Tunø Knob and Fjaldene wind fuel cycles

Power generation Other fuel cycle stages Subtotal

Tunø Knob mECU/kWh 0.01 0.66-3.64 0.67-3.65

Fjaldene mECU/kWh 0.19 0.40-2.36 0.59-2.55

σg A-B B-C B-C

Table 7.12 shows that nearly all the damages from an offshore wind farm are related to the production of the materials for the wind farm. The damages are mostly related to the emissions of CO2 and to some extent NOx and SO2. For Fjaldene wind farm on land 35% of the damages are damages related to the power generation stage using the low value for CO2.

178

Results for Denmark

7.5

Aggregation

7.5.1

Aggregation methods

For aggregation, the electricity production and combined electricity and heat production are divided into categories, following the plants for which damage costs have been estimated in the Danish implementation. The specification is shown in Table 7.13. District heating plants are not included in the figures for aggregation. Oil is used mainly as start-up for the coal power plants and therefore emissions from oil consumption are included in the emissions from the coal power plants. Table 7.13 Power plants used for aggregation

Power plants

Large combined power plants CHP plants Wind power Biogas CHP plants Total

Fuel

Coal & oil Natural gas Wind Biogas

Fuel consumption (PJ) 262.61 35.59 4.23 0.69 303.12

NOx (ton)

SO2 (ton)

CO2 (kton)

103,300 5027 69 108,396

184,700 11 0 184,711

24,800 2026 26,826

The plants shown in Table 7.13 will be used for aggregation in order to estimate the damage costs for the Danish energy production. In this way the damages costs are estimated for 82% of the Danish energy production or 90% of the country’s electricity production and combined electricity and heat production. The regional scale damages are derived by aggregating from the power plant categories shown in Table 7.13. The regional scale damages are those related to SO2, NOx and PM10 emissions. PM10 emissions are not measured in Denmark. For the natural gas fuel cycle and for the biogas fuel cycle the damages related to PM10 emissions are negligible compared with the total damages. For the coal fuel cycle the damages related to PM10 emissions account for about 3% of the total damages. Based on these observations it seems reliable to ignore the damages related to PM10. For each damage category, the marginal damage value in mECU/kWh, is converted to a specific damage value in ECU/t for the specific plants. The national emissions are divided into those related to: CHP production based on natural gas, large condense power plants based on coal, large combined power plants based on coal and CHP production based on biogas, as shown in Table 7.13. The specific damage values in ECU/t for each pollutant for the specific plants should finally be multiplied by the emissions related to the plant categories. This assumes that the reference power plant values are transferable within the country. For low stacks there may be significant site sensitivity, but for high stacks the sensitivity is small, as the range of these pollutants exceeds the size of all European countries. For occupational health the damages are related to the reference fuel extraction (mECU/t of fuel extracted). Total damages for power generation for that specific fuel are calculated in ECU/year by multiplying by annual fuel use (in kt). For wind power the external cost per kWh will be multiplied by the total wind energy generated per year. For the wind fuel cycle a model for transferring the costs of wind noise has been developed as part of the ExternE Aggregation task. However, this method requires information on population density, source and background noise level, which are data not easily available. Instead, the external cost of noise from the landbased wind farm is used and multiplied by the total wind energy generated (MWh/year) to give the aggregated damages in ECU/year. The same will be the case for visual damages. Global damages are site-independent and will be estimated in the same way as regional damages. In the implementation phase the greenhouse gases have already been estimated as GWP.

179

The ExternE National Implementation

7.5.2

Results

Aggregation has been carried out for coal and oil together (as oil is mostly used for starting up on coal-fired plants), for natural gas, for wind and for biogas. These fuels cover totally 89.4% of the fuels in the energy sector, excluding district heating. The total damage for natural gas energy production in Denmark is estimated to be between 45 and 319 millions ECU per year. Regional damages relate to atmospheric emissions, especially NOx and CO2. The damages due to SO2 have been neglected, as this emission is so small that it is very close to the background level. Using the mid 1% estimate (129 millions ECU) NOx damages are aggregated to 24 millions ECU, ozone damages to 7.5 millions ECU and CO2 damages to 93 millions ECU. Local damages sum up to 5 millions ECU per year, mainly due to gas storage. The total coal fuel cycle has not been carried out for Denmark. Estimates for the emissions of a typical coal-fired plant have been made using EcoSense in connection to the wind fuel cycle. These estimates are used for aggregation of power plants based on coal. The regional damages in the coal cycle are attached to NOx, SO2 and CO2. The total damage for the Danish energy sector for coal is thus 1415 to 4768 millions ECU. Using the mid 1% estimate (2462 millions ECU) CO2 accounts for nearly half of the damages related to coal combustion. For SO2 the total damage comes to 778 millions ECU, for NOx 388 millions ECU, ozone 155 millions ECU and for CO2 1141 millions ECU. Figures for the total emission of particulates and CO are unavailable and the damages for these emissions are therefore not included. The damages related to coal power stations in Denmark are therefore too small. Also the local damages are not included. In 1995 the amount of electricity produced by wind power in Denmark was 1180 GWh. Using the abovementioned figures the damage costs related to the total electricity production based on wind power are 690-3002 kECU/year. In the mid 1% estimate 17% of the damages relate to the power generation phase, while 83 % relate to the production of the wind turbines. The total aggregated damages are 762 kECU including damage from transportation assuming a similar transportation pattern at the other biogas plants. The total aggregated damage is calculated only based on the NOx emissions, ozone, accidents and road damages. This means that the positive effect of CO2 emissions has not been taken into account. 66% of the damages are related to NOx and ozone emissions. Aggregating the occupation and public damages the total damage will be 91.6 kECU. Aggregated road damages will lead to a total road damage of 86,9 kECU. No total value for SO2 emissions has been available, but assuming similar emissions at the other biogas plants the damage would be 80 kECU per year. The results of the aggregation for the energy sector in Denmark are shown in Table 7.14. The aggregated damages in kWh are only related to the power generation stage.

180

Results for Denmark

Table 7.14 Summary of aggregation results

SUMMARY OF AGGREGATION RESULTS GWh/year 70,825 9,965 3,140 1,180 5,575 3,950 195 58 85,305 ECU/t of pollutant SO2 NOx CO2 Coal & oil 4216 3755 3.8-139 Natural gas 4728 3.8-139 Wind Biogas 4400 4830 3.8-139 ECU/year ECU/year Aggregated damages using different CO2 ECU/year monetisation values (ECU/t CO2 ) (3.8) (18) (46) Coal & oil 1415 mill. 1767 mill. 2462 mill. Natural gas 45 mill. 72 mill. 129 mill. Wind 0.69 mill. 0.92 mill. 1.4 mill. Biogas 0.76 mill. 0.76 mill. 0.76 mill. TOTAL 1461 mill. 1841 mill. 2593 mill. ENERGY MIX Coal Natural gas Oil Wind Orimulsion Biomass /waste Biogas Other renewables Total for aggregation Damages by pollutant

% 75% 10% 3% 1.2% 6% 4.2% 0.2% 0.1% 89.4% Ozone 1500 1500 1500 ECU/year (139) 4768 mill. 319 mill. 3.0 mill. 0.76 mill. 5091 mill.

The table shows a total damage of 1461-5091 millions ECU for the energy sector per year depending on the monetisation value used for CO2. Coal and oil accounts for close to 95% of the total, although these fuels only cover 87% of the total amount of fuels that have been aggregated. The damage costs for natural gas are much smaller than for coal, primarily because there are no SO2 emissions. The estimates for the coal fuel cycle are based on a fired plant equipped with desulphurisation plant as well as de-NOx burners. For plants without this equipment the damage costs would be much higher.

7.6

Conclusions

The overall conclusion of the different fuel cycles is that the external costs related to the wind fuel cycle are very small, while the biogas fuel cycle causes the largest damages on a local and regional level. These damages, however, may be reduced by change of combustion technology. Including global warming the damages related to the natural gas fuel cycle are much larger for the natural gas fuel cycle than for the biogas fuel cycle. The atmospheric emissions are the dominant damages for all the fuel cycles. For the life cycle of wind the atmospheric emissions are related only to the production of materials for the wind turbines, while the atmospheric emissions for biogas and natural gas are related to power production. For biogas a smaller fraction of the emissions is related to transportation of biomass. The monetisation of impacts due to the wind fuel cycle point at atmospheric emissions from the production of the wind turbines as a major impact. Public accidents as well as occupational health play a minor but still significant role, whereas the impact from noise and visual amenity is very small for the offshore wind farm, but larger for the land-based one.

181

The ExternE National Implementation

Impacts from the natural gas fuel cycle relate mainly to emissions directly from the combustion process. Large effects are also due to the risk from gas storage, and there are minor effects on occupational health. Other impacts assessed are negligible. For the biogas fuel cycle the largest impacts are due to emissions from the combustion process and predominantly the release of NOx. Gas engines typically have a higher emission of NOx than gas turbines. It should here be emphasised that it is not reasonable to compare the biogas fuel cycle and natural gas fuel cycle directly. Gas engines are preferred for smaller energy demands in local areas, and the biogas engine should rather be compared with another gas engine running on natural gas, taking the energy system advantages and disadvantages into account. The technologies assessed for the individual fuel cycles are state-of-the-art technologies, equipped with environmental devices. In the case of the natural gas fuel cycle, for example, even though the gas turbine is equipped with a specific technology for reducing the NOx emission, 98% of the externalities estimated are related to NOx emissions. If older technologies are considered the externality per kWh may rise to quite high values. For the biogas fuel cycle the externalities are estimated to be rather high if not the avoided CO2 emissions were taken into account. The reason for this is that gas is burnt in a gas boiler instead of a gas turbine resulting in an incomplete combustion of the gas resulting in large NOx externalities. The use of gas turbines in biogas plants will therefore decrease the external costs considerably. This illustrates the uncertainty in using external costs estimated for one specific plant to be used as a number for externalities in energy policy. It has to be reminded that the methodology has still a large number of uncertainties. All these uncertainties affect the individual fuel cycles examined. For the aggregation of results to the whole electricity sector, more problems arise, such as the transferability of results from one site to another, or the accounting of effects for which there is a threshold. Indeed, differences in the damages per t of pollutant emitted between different sites are quite large, so the direct transfer of results from one site to another is not reasonable.

182

8. RESULTS FOR SPAIN Prepared by CIEMAT

8.1

Introduction

The Spanish national implementation covers five fuel cycles : coal, natural gas, biomass co-fired with lignites, wind, and waste incineration. Coal and wind were already assessed within the JOULE II Programme, and the results have been updated according to the latest improvements of the methodology. In addition, a preliminary aggregation of the damages caused by the whole Spanish electricity system has been undertaken, as well as a study on the introduction of externalities into an electricity dispatching model, and its consequences for the Spanish generation system. The selection of the fuel cycles assessed is justified on the present and future Spanish energy system characteristics. For the last years, the Spanish energy system has been characterised by the use of low quality national coal (because of the importance of mining as support of local economies in some areas), high dependence of fossil fuels, a nuclear moratorium, a variable participation of hydro, the development of the infrastructure for natural gas transport, and an important increase of cogeneration and renewables (although this growth is not enough to reach a significant share of the energy system). Spanish primary energy consumption is based mainly on oil products, and to a lesser extent on coal. Oil is used mainly for transport, while coal is used for electricity generation. Of this primary energy, the major part is imported, as Spain is scarce in energy natural resources. Only one third of the energy supply corresponds to domestic energy production, while the rest is imported. The per capita electricity consumption in Spain is around 3,900 kWh/yr. In order to fulfil this demand, a total power of 47,117 MW is installed, with a total electricity production of 167 TWh. Electricity comes mainly from nuclear, hydro, and national coal. Their relative contribution depends on the climate, since this determines the contribution of hydro. All these facts result in the following objectives for the Spanish energy policy towards year 2,000 : Improvement in energy efficiency ; Promotion of indigenous energy resources ; Increased share of natural gas for cogeneration, combined cycles, and repowering ; Increased share of renewable energies through promotion schemes ; No increment of nuclear power generating capacity ; Increased use of national coal, with optimisation of existing plants, and introduction of cleaner generation technologies ; Promotion of rational use of oil, replacement by natural gas ; and liberalisation of the oil, gas, and electricity markets. This has conditioned the selection of the fuel cycles covered in this study. These fuel cycles have been selected according to their representativeness for the future Spanish energy system, so that the use of results for planning purposes would be rather straightforward. Therefore, the fuel cycles assessed are: national coal burnt with clean technology, natural gas, biomass co-fired with lignites, wind, and waste incineration. The choice of “future” fuel cycles has also determined that most of the fuel cycles assessed are based on hypothetical power plants, since the existing ones are based mostly on “old” technologies. These existing power plants have been assessed for the aggregation exercise, although the assessment of their external effects has been simplified.

185

The ExternE National Implementation

As shown previously, national coal is expected to be used more in the following years, due to its advantages for energy security, and for maintaining the mining industry and all its related activities. However, clean technologies have to be used, in order to comply with the national and international environmental standards. Natural gas is expected to have the largest increase for electricity generation, both in new power plants, or for repowering already existing ones. The gas pipeline built from Algeria will ensure a reliable and large supply to most regions of Spain. One possibility that has been mentioned, and the one we assess here, is the utilisation of the infrastructure of non-completed nuclear power plants for commissioning gas power plants. In this case, the site chosen has been Valdecaballeros, where two nuclear groups remain uncompleted. This location is the same chosen for siting the coal fuel cycle, which might also be an alternative fuel for this plant. Renewables are being strongly promoted, and so their contribution to the energy balance should be increased significantly. Among them, the largest contributors are expected to be biomass and wind. The most promising biomass energy sources are forest residues and energy crops. Of these, forest residues are the easiest to use in the near future, so these have been the ones chosen for the study. In the fuel cycle assessed, biomass will be co-fired with lignites, as this has been identified as an efficient way of improving the environmental performance of the latter, while improving the energy yield of biomass. The other renewable energy source assessed is wind. Spain is one the European countries where wind has a larger development, with projects for installing 2,500 MW in the next years. This is due both to the favourable wind conditions and to the economic incentives established by the Government. The wind farm assessed is sited in Galicia, where most of the wind power will be installed. The last fuel cycle selected has been waste incineration. This energy source has very little relevance for the national energy balance. However, the siting of waste incineration plants has become a hot issue in Spain, due to their possible impacts on human health. Therefore, it was considered that the assessment of the externalities of waste incineration would be very helpful for the current debate on them, as the results might be introduced into planning processes for future plants. Although further research is needed to improve the reliability of results, this is the first comprehensive assessment of the externalities of electricity in Spain, and so it represents a first step towards the incorporation of environmental aspects into energy policy.

8.2

Coal fuel cycle

8.2.1

Definition of the coal fuel cycle

This fuel cycle was assessed in the first stage of the participation of CIEMAT within the ExternE Project. It has now been updated, according to the latest information. The reference technology for this fuel cycle is a hypothetical 1050 MW power plant, which would be installed in Valdecaballeros, in South-western Spain. This hypothetical plant would be based on 1990 technology, with FGD, ESP, and low NOx burners. Coal would come from Puertollano coal mines, some 200 km away from the site. The stages of this fuel cycle are shown in the following diagram.

186

Results for Spain

Plant construction

Coal extraction

Fuel transport

Power generation

ELECTRICITY

Waste disposal Limestone extraction

Limestone transport Plant dismantling

Figure 8.1 Stages of the coal fuel cycle A summary of the technology is shown in the following table. Table 8.1 Definition of the coal fuel cycle Stage 1. Coal mining

Parameter

Value

Location Type of mine Calorific value of coal Mine air quality control Control of mine methane emissions Mine waste disposal site Composition of coal Water Ashes Carbon Oxygen Sulphur Hydrogen Chlorine Nitrogen

Puertollano, Spain Open cast 18.2 MJ/kg not specified none

Distance to power station Mode of transport Number of trainloads

200 km Rail 4,200 per year

Processes adopted

Sink and float

mine dump 11.8% 31.54% 46.43% 5.77% 1.1% 2.96% 0.06% 1.0%

2. Coal transport

3. Coal cleaning

187

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter Value Adv. chemical treatment not used Biological S removal not used Waste streams liquid effluent gypsum

nq nq

4. Limestone extraction Location Annual production

Ciudad Real, Spain 262,500 t

Distance to power station Mode of transport Number of loads

50 km Road 5,880 per year

Fuel Type of plant Location Installed power Efficiency Load factor Lifetime Pollution control

Coal Pulverised fuel Valdecaballeros, Spain 1050 MW 33.1 % 82% 150,000 full load hours

5. Limestone transport

6. Power generation

ESP low NOx burners FGD recirculation of cooling water Stack parameters height diameter flue gas volume flue gas temperature Material demands coal limestone cooling water boiler feed water FGD water

99.8% 50% 90% nq 343 m 12 m 1.017e7 Nm3/h 443ºK 4.2 Mt per year 262,500 t per year 77 m3 per day 5 m3 per day 2684 m3 per day

7. Transmission Length of new lines

0 km

8. Transport of waste Site Distance to power station Mode of transport Number of loads

various 50 km Road 52,970 per year

9. Waste disposal Type of facility

Landfill

10. Construction of power plant Material demands concrete steel other materials

188

532,600 t 191,800 t 6,800 t

Results for Spain

8.2.2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The major burdens identified for this fuel cycle are the atmospheric emissions of pollutants from the mining and power generation stage, liquid effluents and solid wastes from mining and power generation, and occupational accidents from the mining stage. Most of the pollutants come from the power generation stage, except for the particulate emissions, which are also very high for the coal extraction and transport stages, in which large amounts of fugitive dust are released. Table 8.2 Atmospheric emissions of the coal fuel cycle (in g/MWh)

1. Coal mining 2. Coal transport 4. Limestone extraction 5. Limestone transport 6. Power generation 8. Waste transport TOTAL nd : not determined

PM10 588 262 22.8 8.0 301 98 1279

SO2 0.8 3.5 nd 0.1 1180 2.3 1187

NOx 10.5 3.7 28.1 34 1702 40 1819

CO2 3513 5085 nd 179 1,015,000 2160 1,025,937

CO 6.3 nd nd nd nd nd 6.3

HC 1.1 nd nd nd nd nd 1.1

The impacts considered most relevant are those caused by atmospheric emissions from the power generation stage on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming. Although PM10 emissions from the mining stage are really large, it is expected that their impact will not be too high, since they are emitted near the ground level, and so they are quickly deposited. Thus, they probably affect only mine workers, and this effect is already included in the occupational accidents and diseases. Liquid effluents both from the mining and power generation are expected to have significant effects. However, their quantification is not yet possible. Accounting for all this, the priority impacts to be assessed are : Public health, Occupational health, Crops, Ecosystems, Materials, and Global warming. 8.2.3

Summary and interpretation of results

The summary of the externalities assessed for the coal fuel cycle is shown below. Table 8.3 Damages of the coal fuel cycle

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Major accidents Crops

mECU/kWh

σg

21.4 (79.8) 2.0 (7.4) 6.6 (27.4) 12.1 (44.3) 0.70

B

2.6 1.3 nq 0.14 nq 0.62

A B A A B

189

The ExternE National Implementation

of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Noise Visual impacts Global warming

mECU/kWh 1.8e-2 0.60 ng 0.12 nq nq

σg

B B

C low 3.9 mid 3% 18.3 mid 1% 46.7 upper 141.1 OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health 0.70 A Occupational health 2.41 A Ecological effects nq B Road damages nq A Global warming C low 0.04 mid 3% 0.20 mid 1% 0.50 upper 1.5 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

Table 8.4 Sub-total damages of the coal fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

mECU/kWh 33.2 (91.6) 47.8 (106.2) 76.5 (134.9) 171.9 (230.3)

Table 8.5 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) CO2

ECU / t of pollutant 6384 (24008) 8020 (26939) 7507 (25775) 1500 3.8 - 139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. The damages of the coal fuel cycle are quite high, even though the technology considered includes most types of environmental protection systems, and the site chosen is not highly populated. Even though CO2 damages dominate the results at their higher estimate, damages excluding global warming are still high, about 30 mECU/kWh, which is the same magnitude as private costs. If global warming damages are included, then damages reach really high values, more than thrice of the private costs. Therefore, it may be seen that even environmentally-advanced, standard technologies for coal combustion are not clean enough if they are to compete with gas or renewable energies. Changes to fluidised-bed combustion or

190

Results for Spain

gasification cycles are required to lower the damages to reasonable terms, both by improving conversion efficiency (and thus reducing CO2 emissions) and by reducing pollutant emission rates. Of the impacts, it has to be noted that the largest correspond to global warming, and to human health effects of nitrates, both of which are indeed uncertain. More research on these topics would produce better estimates of the total damages of this fuel cycle. As for the impacts of the upstream stages of the fuel cycle, the most significant one is occupational accidents, although this figure may possibly be overestimated, as this impact might be internalised to a certain extent. In spite of these possible overestimations, it has to be reminded that some impacts which might prove to be significant have not been assessed, such as the impact of liquid effluents from the mine, or the impacts of waste disposal.

8.3

Natural gas fuel cycle

8.3.1

Definition of the natural gas fuel cycle

The technology analysed for this fuel cycle will be CCGT (combined cycle, gas turbine). The fuel used will be Algerian natural gas, and the power plant will have an installed power of 624 MW, working an average of 7,500 hours per year. The stages of the technology are shown in the following diagram.

Construction

Construction

Construction

Operation

Operation

Operation

Dismantling

PRODUCTION

ELECTRICITY

Dismantling

TRANSPORT

POWER GENERATION

Figure 8.2 Stages of the fuel cycle These stages are described in the following table.

191

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 8.6 Definition of the gas fuel cycle Stage 1. Gas extraction

Parameter

Value

Location Gas field production Composition of gas

Hassi R'Mel, Algeria 3.7.107 m3/day

Methane Ethane Propane Butane Nitrogen Carbon dioxide Hydrogen sulphide

91.2% 7.4% 0.8% 0.1% 0.5% 38 MJ/kg

Heating value 2. Gas transport Mode of transport Pipeline length Pipeline diameter Gas volume transported Gas leakages

Pipeline 1595 km 48'' 1,100,000 Nm3/h 0.2% of transported volume 1

Number of compressor stations Compression station location Tanger, Algeria installed power 25 MW gas consumption 3,500 m3/h Air emissions NOx 40 kg/yr CH4 12,554 t/yr CO2 26,124 t/yr Labour 260 workers 2a. Construction of pipeline Material demands steel

600,000 t

Labour Construction period

8,000 workers 16 months

Fuel

Natural gas (+ oil as backup fuel) Combined cycle Valdecaballeros, Spain 624 MW 52% 31.6 Nm3/s 7500 h/yr 30 years

3. Power generation

Technology Location Installed power Efficiency Gas consumption Full load hours Lifetime Pollution control low NOx burners Size of the plant land area required cooling system reservoir volume

192

30 ha water reservoir 554 Hm3

Results for Spain

Stage

Parameter stack height stack diameter Labour Air emissions

Value 100 m 8m 100 workers

flue gas volume flue gas temperature CO2 TSP SO2 NOx Waste products filter sands boiler acid wastes decarbonation sludges water make up sludges mineral oils

3,200,000 Nm3/h 363 ºK 401 g/kWh negligible 33.2 mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3 80 t/yr 48 t/yr 2,000 t/yr 250t/yr 34 t/yr

3a. Construction of power plant Material demands concrete steel cladding & roofing Labour Construction period 8.3.2

20,000 t 6,000 t 20,000 t 600 workers 2 years

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The gas fuel cycle is rather clean compared to other fossil fuel cycles. Due to the nature of the fuel, the only major burdens are the atmospheric emissions caused by the power generation, and, to a lesser extent, solid wastes from power generation, and the risk of accidents along the pipeline. However, this latter is almost negligible. Atmospheric emissions are produced in all stages of the fuel cycle. Gas flaring and venting occur during the gas extraction and transport. Also during the transport stage, atmospheric emissions are produced in the compression stations, due to the gas consumption. Table 8.7 Atmospheric emissions of the gas fuel cycle (g/MWh)

1. Gas extraction 2. Gas transport 3. Power generation TOTAL nd : not determined

PM10 nd nd nd nd

SO2 nd nd 171 171

NOx nd 8.6e-4 259 259

CO2 nd 563 401,000 401,563

CH4 nd 271 nd 271

Due to the relatively low emissions of the natural gas fuel cycle, almost all the impacts will be concentrated on global warming, public health effects, and on the effects of SO2 and NOx on crops, ecosystems, and materials. The priority impacts that will be assessed are: Public health, Occupational health, Crops, Ecosystems, Materials, and Global warming.

193

The ExternE National Implementation

8.3.3

Summary and interpretation of results

Table 8.8 Damages of the natural gas fuel cycle mECU/kWh σg POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) 2.86 (10.8) B of which TSP ng SO2 0.95 (4.0) NOx 1.8 (6.7) NOx (via ozone) 0.11 Morbidity 0.54 of which TSP, SO2, NOx 0.35 A NOx (via ozone) 0.19 B Accidents nq A Occupational health 3.2e-2 A Major accidents nq Crops 9.4e-2 B of which SO2 2.8e-3 NOx (via ozone) 9.1e-2 Ecosystems ng B Materials 1.8e-2 B Noise nq Visual impacts nq Global warming C low 1.5 mid 3% 7.2 mid 1% 18.5 upper 55.7 OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health 1.8e-4 A Outside EU 8.6e-5 Inside EU 8.9e-5 Occupational health 1.7e-2 A Outside EU 1.4e-2 Inside EU 3.3e-3 Ecological effects nq B Road damages nq A Global warming C low 2.4e-2 mid 3% 1.2e-1 mid 1% 3.0e-1 upper 9.0e-1 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

194

Results for Spain

Table 8.9 Sub-total damages of the gas fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

mECU/kWh 5.1 (13.0) 10.9 (18.8) 22.4 (30.3) 60.2 (68.1)

Table 8.10 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) CO2

ECU / t of pollutant 6392 (24163) 7849 (26796) 1500 3.8 - 139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. As might be expected, damages from the gas fuel cycle are rather low, mainly due to the low pollutant emission rates. In addition, it has to be noted that the site chosen for this power plant is a sparsely populated one. However, these damages are only low if global warming damages are excluded, or if they are kept at their lowest range. When the upper estimate for these damages is considered, damages reach 60 mECU/kWh, what is higher than the private costs of gas-generated electricity. Even in this case, damages are lower than for coal or oil, mostly due to the higher conversion efficiencies of gas fuel cycles, and therefore, their lower CO2 specific emission rates. The impacts of upstream stages are also quite small, in spite of the long distance from which gas is transported. This might be explained by the relatively good conditions in which this transport is made, the pipeline being finished very recently. Would the gas come from other source with worse engineering practices, or by ship instead of pipeline, it is expected that the damages of the upstream stages would be larger.

8.4

Biomass/lignites fuel cycle

8.4.1

Definition of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle

The assessment of this fuel cycle will be based on a hypothetical 20 MW CFBC power plant, which would be installed near Soria, in North-eastern Spain. The co-combustion of biomass and lignites has been considered an interesting option because of the environmental advantages that it may present, as well as for the use of domestic energy sources. The fuel contribution will be of 40% of forest residues, and 60% of black lignites. The extraction, transport and power generation stages have been analyzed, and are shown in the following diagram.

195

The ExternE National Implementation

Plant construction Forest residues collection Power generation

Fuel transport

ELECTRICITY

Lignite extraction Waste disposal

Plant dismantling Limestone extraction and transport

Figure 8.3 Stages of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle A summary of the technology is shown in the following table. Table 8.11 Definition of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle Stage 1. Forest residues collection

Parameter

Value

Location Type Composition of biomass Ashes Carbon Oxygen Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphur Heating value Alternative use of biomass

Soria Pine chips 3.03% 51.28% 40.34% 4.69% 0.51% 0.15% 4678 kcal/kg Open-air burning

2. Lignite extraction Location Type of mine Mine reserves Composition of lignite

Teruel Open-cast 300 Mt Ashes Carbon Oxygen Sulphur Hydrogen Nitrogen

Heating value

196

28.21% 48.76% 10.07% 9.86% 2.2% 0.9% 4773 kcal/kg

Results for Spain

Stage

Parameter Labour Air emissions of mining

Value 35 workers TSP NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 CO VOC

47.31 t/yr 2.94 t/yr 0.34 t/yr 160 t/yr 52 t/yr 121 t/yr 0.30 t/yr

Biomass Lignite

25 km 200 km

3. Fuel transport Distance to power plant

Mode of transport Total distance travelled Air emissions

Road 1,090,000 km/yr TSP NOx SO2 CO2 VOC CO

0.46 t/yr 5.40 t/yr 0.39 t/yr 292 t/yr 1.40 t/yr 6.42 t/yr

Labour

14 workers

Location Distance to power station Avg. distance travelled Composition of limestone

Soria 25 km 90,000 km/yr

4. Limestone extraction and transport

CaCO3 MgCO3 Ashes

93% 5% 2%

TSP NOx SO2 CO2 VOC CO CH4

31.58 t/yr 2.4 t/yr 0.26 t/yr 131 t/yr 0.35 t/yr 1.33 t/yr 34.7 t/yr

Air emissions

Labour

20 workers

Fuel Technology

Biomass / Lignites Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (CFBC) Almazán, Spain 22.3 MW 20 MW 29% 7500 h/yr 150,000 MWh/yr 25 years

5. Power generation

Location Installed power Net power Efficiency Full load hours Electricity generated Lifetime Pollution control ESP Limestone in bed

99.8% effective

197

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter Value Size of the plant land area required 3 ha cooling system cooling towers stack height 40 m stack diameter 1.6 m Material demands pine chips 40,875 t/yr lignite 61,460 t/yr limestone 40,000 t/yr cooling water 272,715 m3/yr boiler feed water 4,404 m3/yr Labour 25 workers Air emissions flue gas volume 113,472 Nm3/h flue gas temperature 423 ºK CO2 794 g/kWh TSP 40 mg/Nm3 SO2 141 mg/Nm3 NOx 70 mg/Nm3 CO 211 mg/Nm3 Solid emissions bottom ash 3,022 t/yr fly ash 16,830 t/yr

5a. Construction of power plant Material demands concrete steel cladding & roofing

35,000 t 10,000 t 5,000 t

Labour Construction period

225 workers 2 years

Site Distance to power station Mode of transport

Almazán landfill 2 km Road

6. Waste disposal

8.4.2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

As for other fuel cycles based on combustion, the major burdens of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle arise from the power generation stage, from the atmospheric emissions generated in it. Lignite extraction also produces significant burdens such as atmospheric emissions and occupational accidents. No burdens have been taken into account from the forest residues collection, since it has been considered that this activity would have taken place even if this fuel cycle were not implemented.

Table 8.12 Atmospheric emissions of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle (g/MWh)

2. Lignite extraction 3. Fuel transport 4. Limestone extraction and transport 5. Power generation

198

PM10 315 3.1 211

SO2 2.3 2.6 1.7

NOx 2.0 36 16

CO2 1067 1947 873

CO 347 nd 231

VOC 2.4 9.3 2.3

230

800

400

794,147

nd

nd

Results for Spain

TOTAL nd : not determined

759

807

472

798,034

578

14

Due to the relatively low density of the fuels used, the amount of km to be travelled (1,090,000 km/yr) by road is also an important burden of this fuel cycle. For the assessment of this fuel cycle, both the impacts of the biomass and lignites fuel cycle will have to be taken into account. The expected major impact is that caused by the atmospheric emissions of the generation stage on human health, crops, ecosystems, materials and global warming. Regarding the latter, the previous CO2 fixation by biomass will be considered. Another important impact of the cycle is that caused by the washing of lignites on water quality, although this one is quite difficult to assess. Biomass transport is also expected to cause road damages, which will be also estimated. Other impacts, such as noise, or visual impact, due to their local nature, are not expected to be significant. So, the priority impacts that will be assessed are: Public health, Occupational health, Crops, Ecosystems, Materials, Road damages, and Global warming. 8.4.3

Summary and interpretation of results

Table 8.13 Damages of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx, CO NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Major accidents Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Noise Visual impacts Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% upper OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health Occupational health Ecological effects Road damages

mECU/kWh

σg

10.7 (41.4) 1.7 (6.3) 5.4 (22.4) 3.4 (12.5) 0.17 1.6 1.4 0.27 nq 0.17 nq 0.15 1.4e-2 0.14 ng 7.5e-2 nq nq

B

A B A A B

B B

C 3.0 14.3 36.5 111.4 0.20 0.76 nq 0.34

A A B A

199

The ExternE National Implementation

mECU/kWh Global warming

σg C

low 6.2e-2 mid 3% 0.29 mid 1% 0.75 upper 2.23 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant Table 8.14 Sub-total damages of the biomass/lignites fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

mECU/kWh 17.2 (47.9) 28.7 (59.4) 51.6 (82.3) 127.2 (157.9)

Table 8.15 Damages by pollutant ECU / t of pollutant SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) 7113 (28363) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) 9600 (32350) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) 8348 (28174) NOx (via ozone) 1500 CO2 3.8 - 139 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. As may be seen, damages per t of pollutant emitted are higher for this site than for the one chosen for the coal fuel cycle. However, damages per kWh are lower. This is explained by the lower emission factors produced by both the technology and the fuel mix chosen. In spite of the very high sulphur content of the lignites used, the participation of biomass reduces significantly the damages caused by SO2 emissions. The CO2-neutral character of biomass also contributes to lower net CO2 emissions. Both reductions produced damages which are lower than, for example, those of the coal fuel cycle assessed previously, which used good-quality coal, and modern technologies. Results show, then, the advantages of co-firing biomass with lignites. It seems then that biomass could have a significant role in energy generation if electricity generation from lignites, and at the same time, pollution reduction is attempted. This would only be true, however, if biomass fuels are exploited on a sustainable way, and if they are transported from short distances, so that the biomass fuel cycle would retain its carbon-neutral character, and pollutant emissions of the fuel cycle are kept small.

8.5

Wind fuel cycle

8.5.1

Definition of the wind fuel cycle

The fuel cycle is characterised by all stages of processing energy, from fuel extraction, to distribution to consumers. However, the wind fuel cycle appears different, as it has only two stages, generation and distribution. This requires a different treatment compared to other fuel cycles. In those, no life cycle analysis is carried out, as the main impacts result from the operational stage, and thus, not considering the rest of the cycle does not

200

Results for Spain

remarkably affect results. However, for wind energy, impacts are distributed along the entire life cycle, and not accounting for stages other than operation would lead to a large underestimation of impacts. For example, atmospheric emissions appear not in the operational stage, but in the construction of the turbines, and are likely to be of the same magnitude as impacts more characteristic of the wind fuel cycle, such as noise and visual amenity. Therefore, the stages to be considered are the following:

Resource extraction

Turbine manufacturing

Turbine operation

Decommissioning

Product disposal

Figure 8.4 Stages of the wind fuel cycle These stages will be condensed into two: turbine construction and turbine operation. The rest are assumed to produce negligible impacts when compared to these. The wind farm that will be assessed is a 3 MW wind farm located in Camariñas, in the North-western corner of Spain. The wind farm has 20 MADE AE/20 wind turbines in operation, plus other three turbines for experimentation purposes. The details of the technology assessed are shown in the following table. Table 8.16 Definition of the wind fuel cycle Stage 1. Turbine construction

Parameter

Value

Location Medina del Campo, ES Type MADE AE/20 Nº of wind turbines 20 Characteristics of turbines Rated power 150 kW Rotor diameter 20 m Rotor speed 46 rpm Rated wind speed 14 m/s Tower height 21/28 m Weight 16.3 t

201

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter Composition of turbines Glass fibre Copper Steel Concrete

Value 26.6 t 3.7 t 321 t 352 t

2. Turbine operation Location Power generation Capacity factor Lifetime Noise level at the nacelle O& M staff Yearly maintenance staff 8.5.2

Cabo Vilano, ES 5,270 MWh 0.3 20 years 105 dB 2 2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

First of all, it has to be noted that wind energy should be considered a low-impact technology, and so it is quite difficult to point at any of its burdens as a significant one. Noise is always identified as a major burden of wind energy, although in this case, it is not expected to be significant, as the wind farm is far from population centres. This is also the reason why the physical presence of the wind farm is not an important burden for this case. This physical presence should not be a burden neither for bird population, which seem to have got used to the wind farm. The only major burden which might be identified is the amount of km travelled by the O&M staff, which is quite high, and might produce road accidents to a certain extent. The impacts expected to be produced by the wind fuel cycle are then those caused by the atmospheric emissions due to turbine manufacturing on global warming, human health, ecosystems, etc., plus the noise and visual impacts of the turbine operation. Most of these impacts will be assessed, except for impacts on birds, or electromagnetic interferences, which are expected to be not significant. Impacts on birds have been found to be negligible, according to the Environmental Impact Analysis carried out for the wind farm. The resident bird species seem to have got used to the farm, and there is no migratory route crossing it. As for electromagnetic interferences, the area affected is confined to a very small region (less than 1 km2) around the wind turbines. Its effect is considered negligible. 8.5.3

Summary and interpretation of results

Table 8.17 Damages of the wind fuel cycle

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx

202

mECU/kWh

σg

ng

B

Results for Spain

mECU/kWh

σg

NOx (via ozone) Morbidity ng of which TSP, SO2, NOx, CO A NOx (via ozone) B Accidents ng A Occupational health 0.95 A Major accidents nq Crops ng B of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems ng B Materials ng B Noise 8e-3 Visual impacts ng Global warming C low ng mid 3% ng mid 1% ng upper ng OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health 0.57 A Occupational health 0.16 A Ecological effects ng B Road damages nq A Global warming C low 2.0e-2 mid 3% 9.3e-2 mid 1% 2.4e-1 upper 7.2e-1 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

Table 8.18 Sub-total damages of the wind fuel cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

mECU/kWh 1.7 (1.7) 1.8 (1.8) 1.9 (1.9) 2.4 (2.4)

Damages of the wind fuel cycle are really small, as might be expected. Indeed, the largest damages correspond to occupational accidents, which should be internalised to a certain extent. Those impacts most characteristic of this fuel cycle, such as noise or visual amenity, are quite small in this case, due to the good siting of this wind farm, far from population centres and from ecologically-sensitive areas. These damages could be greater for wind farms installed nearer to population centres, or on migratory routes, such as those in Tarifa. Therefore, great care should be taken for the future wind energy deployment in Spain. Indeed, given the local nature of the impacts of the wind fuel cycle, it may be shown that most of the impacts may be corrected from the planning stage.

203

The ExternE National Implementation

8.6

Waste incineration

8.6.1

Definition of the waste incineration cycle

The waste incineration process to be analyzed will be based on a real MSW plant located in Mataró, near Barcelona. The plant has an integral treatment of residues, that is, there is a recycling and composting stage, and the refuse is then burnt for electricity production. It has an installed power of 11.6 MW, producing some 65,000 MWh of electricity per year. The amount of residues treated by the plant is 170,000 t, of which 86% are incinerated. The stages of the treatment process are shown in the following diagram.

PLANT CONSTRUCTION

Recycling

Cardboard Glass Plastic Non-ferrous metals Magnetic scrap PVC

14% RESIDUES

MSW transport

Composting

Compost ELECTRICITY

86%

Incineration Transport

PLANT DISMANTLING

Ash

Figure 8.5 Stages of the waste incineration process Each of these stages is characterised in the following table.

Table 8.19 Definition of the waste incineration cycle Stage 1. MSW transport

Parameter MSW weight MSW composition Organic matter Paper and cardboard Glass, wood and metals Plastic and fibre Distance to power plant Mode of transport Total distance travelled

204

Value 170,000 t/yr 45% 20% 10% 25% 20 km Road 1,380,000 km/yr

Results for Spain

Stage

Parameter Air emissions

Value TSP NOx CO2 HC CO

0.12 t/yr 1.46 t/yr 946 t/yr 0.69 t/yr 8.58 t/yr

Labour

115 workers

Location Combustion technology Net power Full load hours Electricity generated Lifetime Pollution control

Mataró, Spain Travelling grate 11.6 MW 5600 h/yr 65,000 MWh/yr 20 years

2. Waste treatment

ESP 99% effective Limestone semi-humid scrubber 99% effective Size of the plant land area required 2 ha cooling system air coolers stack height 45 m stack diameter 2m Material demands MSW 170,000 t/yr limestone 1,754 t/yr water 2,800 m3/yr Labour 52 workers Air emissions flue gas volume 75,122 Nm3/h flue gas temperature 413 ºK CO2 850 g/kWh TSP 14.65 mg/Nm3 SO2 47.72 mg/Nm3 200 mg/Nm3 NOx CO 50.2 mg/Nm3 VOC 8.59 mg/Nm3 HF 0.54 mg/Nm3 HCl 6.44 mg/Nm3 Pb+Cr+Cu+Mn+Ni+As 0.88 mg/Nm3 Cd+Hg 0.017 mg/Nm3 PCDD/F 1.82 ng/Nm3 Solid emissions bottom ash 110 t/day fly ash 22 t/day Compost 13,000 t/yr Recycled materials cardboard 1,600 t/yr glass 1,100 t/yr scrap 1,600 t/yr aluminium 20 t/yr plastics 610 t/yr

205

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter

Value PVC

100 t/yr

concrete steel cladding & roofing

25,000 t 9,000 t 500 t

2a. Construction of power plant Material demands

Labour Construction period

90 workers 2 years

Site

Landfill (fly ash) Treatment plant (bottom ash) 60,000 km/yr Road 5 workers

3. Ash transport

Distance travelled Mode of transport Labour 8.6.2

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The most important burdens of the waste incineration cycle are the atmospheric emissions generated by the power generation stage. Of important concern within these emissions are the dioxins and furans ones, whose effect on human health is still in dispute. Table 8.20 Atmospheric emissions of the waste incineration cycle (g/MWh)

1. MSW transport 2. Waste treatment 3. Ash transport TOTAL nd : not determined

PM10 1.8 95 0.2 97

SO2 nd 309 nd 309

NOx 23 1294 0.9 1318

CO2 14,554 850,000 633 865,000

CO 132 325 6 463

HC 10.6 nd 0.5 11

VOC nd 57 nd 57

HCl nd 42 nd 42

PCDD/F nd 1.5e-5 nd 1.5e-5

The amount of km travelled (1,440,000 per year) is also an important burden of this cycle, due to the impact on roads, and on road accidents. Liquid effluents have not been determined, although they are not expected to be significant. As for solid waste generation, only ash production is significant, with some 40,000 t produced yearly. The main impacts that are expected to be produced because of the MSW fuel cycle are those produced by the atmospheric emissions of the generation stage. Of special concern are effects on public health caused by dioxins and furans. The effects of ozone, because of NOx and VOCs emissions, the high insolation of the area, and its urban characteristics are also expected to be significant. However, no ozone dispersion model is available now. The effects of acid pollutants on ecosystems and materials will be also assessed. The effect on crops is not expected to be too large, because of the low SO2 emissions. A specific impact of this cycle is that caused by road traffic, which is very heavy due to the low density of the fuel. The global warming effects of CO2 will also be considered, as well as the workers and public accidents along the cycle. Other impacts such as noise or visual impact will not be assessed due to their local nature.

206

Results for Spain

So, the priority impacts that will be assessed are: Public health, Occupational health, Crops, Ecosystems, Materials, Road traffic, and Global warming. 8.6.3

Summary and interpretation of results

Table 8.21 Damages of the waste incineration cycle σg POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- YOLL (VSL) 16.3 (60.9) B of which TSP 1.7 (6.2) SO2 2.4 (11.4) NOx 11.7 (42.8) NOx (via ozone) 0.53 NMVOC (via ozone) 0.23 Morbidity 3.2 of which TSP, SO2, NOx, CO 2.2 A NOx (via ozone) 0.95 B NMVOC (via ozone) 0.41 B PCDD/F ng B Accidents ng A Occupational health 0.72 A Major accidents nq Crops 0.45 B of which SO2 4.1e-3 NOx (via ozone) 0.45 NMVOC (via ozone) 0.17 B Ecosystems ng B Materials 9.8e-2 B Noise nq Visual impacts nq Global warming C low 3.2 mid 3% 15.3 mid 1% 39.1 upper 118.2 OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health 0.52 A Occupational health nq A Ecological effects nq B Road damages 1.0 A Global warming C low 5.8e-2 mid 3% 2.7e1 mid 1% 7.0e-1 upper 2.1 *Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant mECU/kWh

207

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 8.22 Sub-total damages of the waste incineration cycle

YOLL (VSL)

low mid 3% mid 1% upper

mECU/kWh 25.6 (70.2) 37.9 (82.5) 62.1 (106.7) 142.6 (187.2)

Table 8.23 Damages by pollutant

SO2 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx *- YOLL (VSL) PM10 *- YOLL (VSL) NOx (via ozone) VOC (via ozone) CO2

ECU / t of pollutant 9001 (38142) 10198 (34224) 20250 (67711) 1500 930 3.8 - 139

*Yoll= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. The damages of this fuel cycle are rather large (even excluding global warming), mostly due to the site in which it is located, very near to a large population centre. This explains the large damages per t of pollutant emitted. However, it is not really sensible to consider the change of the location, since MSW plants are usually installed near, or inside, large cities. Therefore, since the damages per t of pollutant will be high for most cases, the only way of reducing the damages caused by atmospheric emissions of waste incineration is to reduce emission factors, by improving the environmental performance of the technology. Technology is also responsible for the high damages caused by global warming. If better conversion technologies were used, with higher efficiencies, global warming damages might be reduced. It has to be noted that here MSW have not been considered as renewable, that is, carbon neutral, what is sometimes the case. An important remark to be made is that the effect of dioxins is quite small, contrary to what might be expected according to public concern. These would be the conclusions of the assessment of waste incineration as an energy source. However, that should not be the only point of view. Since MSW should be disposed of anyway, a comparison with the damages caused by alternative disposal schemes should be carried out, so that the net effects might be ascertained.

8.7

Aggregation

8.7.1

Aggregation methods

Two major problems exist for a reasonable aggregation of the external costs of the Spanish electricity sector. The first one is the large amount of electricity generated by nuclear and hydro. The second one is the unavailability of a multi-source EcoSense version for estimating the impacts of atmospheric pollution. Both introduce a large degree of uncertainty in the analysis. Nuclear and hydro fuel cycles have not been deeply studied yet, specially nuclear. Several issues remain to be cleared for this fuel cycle, some of which are expected within the Core Project. However, the implementation of these latest improvements to the existing results, for their use in aggregation, is not available yet.

208

Results for Spain

For hydro, the major problem is that most of its impacts are those on local environment and population, and that makes the transferability of results really difficult. As far as the nuclear impact is concerned, the nuclear cycle is different, plant characteristics are not the same, and the sites cannot be compared with the references already estimated. Risk aversion might also be characteristic of the Spanish situation. Therefore, the reliability of the damage transfer to Spanish conditions is not expected to be high. This is further aggravated by the already mentioned fact that most of Spanish electricity comes from these sources. However, since some values are needed to carry out the aggregation, those figures obtained in previous implementations of these fuel cycles will be used. The second problem is the unavailability of a multi-source version of EcoSense software for Spain. This has forced us to use a simpler aggregation method for the damages of atmospheric pollution. The simple method proposed by the Core Project recommended to extrapolate damages per t of pollutant emitted by any plant in the country. However, the research undertaken has demonstrated that the location is really significant for the quantification of the damages. In fact, for three different Spanish plants sited less than 150 km apart from each other, we have obtained damages per t of pollutant emitted which vary around 20%. This may be due, among other reasons, to the background pollutant emissions, which affect results to a significant extent. Therefore, more than one power plant has been analyzed. The assessment has been carried out with EcoSense software. The problem here resides in that the atmospheric dispersion models included in EcoSense are not well suited to the complex Spanish topography, and therefore the accuracy of the results is not expected to be too high. The not consideration of complex topography by EcoSense has determined the selection of the representative locations. This selection has been done based only on a geographical basis, without taking into account the site characteristics, which, in some cases, might prove to be really significant, or the local meteorological conditions. Hence, one real plant has been selected for each region in which power plants exist, so that their results might be then extrapolated to the rest of power plants in that area. The power plants selected have been: Puentes de García Rodríguez, Teruel, Aboño, Compostilla, Pasajes, Puertollano, Litoral de Almería, Los Barrios, Colón, and Foix. Since results have been obtained per t of pollutant emitted, they are only dependent on the location of the power plant. Fuel type and technology are introduced in the analysis by the pollutant emission factor, which depends on these two factors. Technological data introduced in EcoSense have been obtained from the Ministry of Industry, and from the fuel consumption and composition provided by electric utilities. These emission factors have been calculated based on the fuel composition, according to estequiometric relationships. Results have then been checked with real emission factors for some of the plants, for which some information was available. By linking the damages per t of pollutant emitted with the emission factors, the damage per kWh generated has been calculated. This damage has then been multiplied by the electricity generation of each power plant in 1996, to obtain the total damages produced for this year. It has to be noted that only the generation stage of the fossil fuel cycles has been assessed. Although the ExternE methodology recommends to address all stages, this would have complicated too much the assessment, without providing substantial changes in the results, due to the very high percentage of total fuel cycle damages caused by the generation stage. However, for some fuel cycles, this simplification may introduce some uncertainties. Only health damages have been included in the analysis. This has been done in order to make it simpler, once considering that, for all cases assessed, health damages make up for more than 99% of the total damages estimated, excluding global warming. These health damages have been estimated based on the YOLL approach,

209

The ExternE National Implementation

since it is the one preferred by the methodology. Only damages caused by TSP, SO2 and NOx have been considered, since ozone damages are much smaller. Regarding global warming, its assessment has been carried out separately, due to the uncertainty lied to it. Damages have been quantified for the whole Spanish electricity sector, based on the total CO2 emissions. The results obtained using these aggregation methods are shown in the next section. 8.7.2

Results

As has been mentioned, the results presented here should only be regarded as approximate, indicative figures. Besides from the uncertainty lied to the externality assessment process, several uncertainty sources have been introduced in the aggregation procedure, such as the extrapolation of results from one location to another, the determination of emission factors, or the direct extrapolation of nuclear and hydro externalities. Anyway, it is expected that these results may provide a useful indication of the external costs of the electricity generation system in Spain, so that they may be used for a better environmental management of this system. As mentioned before, the values for nuclear and hydro fuel cycles have been extrapolated directly from European values (the one for nuclear corresponding to a 0% discount rate, which may be more reasonable due to the long-term nature of the impacts), and so the results for these electricity sources should be regarded with caution. All these figures are shown in Table 8.24. Table 8.24 Externalities of the Spanish electricity system Power group Aboño1 Aboño2 Lada3 Lada4 Soto1 Soto2 Soto3 Narcea1 Narcea2 Narcea3 Anllares Compostilla1 Compostilla2 Compostilla3 Compostilla4 Compostilla5 La Robla1 La Robla2 Guardo1 Guardo2 Puertollano Puentenuevo NATIONAL COAL Pasajes Litoral Los Barrios

210

Damages in mECU/kWh NOx TSP TOTAL 30.23 2.45 76.02 29.41 2.45 75.90 32.68 3.67 90.18 31.05 3.06 84.44 25.33 3.06 73.13 32.68 3.67 90.18 30.23 3.06 82.23 28.60 3.06 81.99 31.05 3.06 86.54 30.23 3.06 84.32 26.22 2.93 74.49 25.56 2.93 73.25 26.22 2.93 74.49 26.22 2.93 74.49 26.22 2.93 74.49 26.22 2.93 74.49 25.56 2.93 73.25 25.56 2.93 73.83 24.91 2.44 69.20 24.91 2.44 69.20 29.47 3.89 82.34 30.23 3.89 83.73 78.20 33.54 30.19 1.08 64.81 19.80 15.34 0.51 35.65 14.76 11.63 0.44 26.84

SO2 43.34 44.04 53.83 50.33 44.74 53.83 48.93 50.33 52.43 51.03 45.35 44.76 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 44.76 45.35 41.86 41.86 48.98 49.61

GWh/yr Damages in kECU per year electricity Mid % 2788 211945 3.5% 3804 288733 4.7% 757 68268 1.1% 2401 202741 3.3% 0 0 0.0% 1902 171526 2.8% 2327 191338 3.1% 0 0 0.0% 384 33230 0.5% 2265 190990 3.1% 2586 192622 3.1% 1008 73836 1.2% 105 7821 0.1% 2213 164838 2.7% 2588 192771 3.1% 2588 192771 3.1% 1296 94931 1.6% 1947 143749 2.3% 0 0 0.0% 1843 127535 2.1% 1187 97735 1.6% 1925 161180 2.6% 35914 2808558 45.9% 1570 101753 1.7% 4328 154285 2.5% 4430 118881 1.9%

Results for Spain

Power group

Damages in mECU/kWh NOx TSP TOTAL IMPORTED COAL 36.30 Serchs 134.84 13.02 2.05 149.92 Escatrón 28.31 15.43 3.42 47.16 Teruel1 164.64 13.50 2.05 180.20 Teruel2 165.38 13.50 2.05 180.94 Teruel3 165.38 13.99 2.05 181.42 Escucha 204.87 14.47 2.05 221.39 BLACK LIGNITES 175.35 Puentes1 87.77 9.04 2.63 99.44 Puentes2 91.32 8.46 2.63 102.41 Puentes3 87.77 9.34 2.63 99.74 Puentes4 87.77 9.04 2.63 99.44 Meirama 118.21 7.59 2.63 128.42 BROWN LIGNITES 106.75 San Adrián2 42.98 14.37 1.62 58.97 Algeciras1 21.51 7.44 0.88 29.84 Algeciras2 21.51 7.44 0.88 29.84 Escombreras1 28.85 9.82 1.02 39.68 Escombreras2 28.85 9.82 1.02 39.68 Escombreras3 28.85 9.82 1.02 39.68 Escombreras4 28.85 9.82 1.02 39.68 Escombreras5 28.85 9.82 1.02 39.68 Aceca1 32.44 12.09 1.30 45.83 Aceca2 32.44 12.09 1.30 45.83 Sabón1 25.87 4.67 1.05 31.59 Sabón2 25.87 4.67 1.05 31.59 Castellón1 42.98 14.37 1.62 58.97 Castellón2 42.98 14.37 1.62 58.97 Badalona1 42.98 14.37 1.62 58.97 Badalona2 42.98 14.37 1.62 58.97 Colón1 24.58 9.20 1.09 34.87 Colón2 24.58 9.20 1.09 34.87 Colón3 24.58 9.20 1.09 34.87 FUEL 38.83 Besós1 0.00 14.37 0.00 14.37 Besós2 0.00 14.37 0.00 14.37 Foix 0.00 14.37 0.00 14.37 San Adrián 1 0.00 14.37 0.00 14.37 San Adrián 3 0.00 14.37 0.00 14.37 Elcogas 0.00 3.02 0.00 3.02 GAS 10.22 Asco1 2 Asco2 2 Almaraz1 2 Almaraz2 2 Cofrentes 8 Vandellós 2 Garoña 8 Trillo 2 J.Cabrera 2 NUCLEAR 3.18 TOTAL HYDRO 2 TOTAL ELECTRICITY SYSTEM 37.94 SO2

GWh/yr Damages in kECU per year electricity Mid % 10328 374919 6.1% 476 71360 1.2% 492 23205 0.4% 2601 468692 7.7% 2594 469363 7.7% 2594 470614 7.7% 702 155416 2.5% 9459 1658649 27.1% 2077 206545 3.4% 1081 110707 1.8% 1978 197277 3.2% 2095 208335 3.4% 2262 290497 4.7% 9493 1013361 16.5% 0 0 0.0% 39 1164 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 88 4033 0.1% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 67 2336 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 194 7533 0.1% 0 0 0.0% 123 1768 0.0% 180 2587 0.0% 161 2314 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 268 810 0.0% 732 7479 0.1% 7577 15154 0.2% 5667 11334 0.2% 5671 11342 0.2% 7581 15162 0.2% 7402 59216 1.0% 7507 15014 0.2% 3121 24968 0.4% 7971 15942 0.3% 1196 2392 0.0% 53693 170524 2.8% 41619 83238 1.4% 161432 6124261 100.0%

211

The ExternE National Implementation

The final result is affected, as all the results calculated within this report, by an uncertainty factor. For the damages considered here, that is, health damages, the corresponding uncertainty factor is a B, that is, a σg ranging from 4 to 6. Given that most of the damage is caused by chronic mortality, for which the σg is 4, we will use this value to illustrate the confidence intervals which might be expected for these results. Confidence interval of 68% : 1,531,065 to 24,497,044 kECU Confidence interval of 95% : 382,766 to 97,988,176 kECU As may be seen, the average total figure obtained is rather large, up to more than 106 million Ptas, that is, more than 1% of the Spanish GDP in 1994, or around 47% of the electricity sector turnover in 1996. It has to be reminded that these results do not include global warming damages, which are presented in the following table, aggregated for the whole electricity sector. Table 8.25 Global warming damages CO2 emissions in kt

Damage in ECU per t

70,345

3.8 18 46 139

Total damages in 1996 (kECU per year) 267,311 1,266,210 3,235,870 9,777,955

These figures range from 4.36% to 160% of the mid-estimates for TSP, SO2, and NOx damages. This broad range shows the difficulty of dealing with CO2 effects for the policy case study presented in the next chapter.

8.8

Policy case study

8.8.1

Objectives and description of the policy case study

The objective of this case study is to include the results obtained from the ExternE Project in a particular aspect of the decision making process. Therefore, the externalities of the energy generation obtained within this project could be used in an economic task such as operation and planning of the electric power systems of an EU country. For the Spanish case, it is being developed a production cost model to simulate and optimise the operation of the system under medium term analysis. The integration of the external costs among the different generation technologies in the model, and to evaluate the system performance under social costs minimisation criterion, are the main objectives of this policy case study. The electricity network model is being developed by the Institute for Research in Technology (IIT) of the "Universidad Pontificia Comillas" of Madrid. The model will be of the operational type and not a planning tool. The aim of the program will be to provide the minimum variable cost for the exploitation of the Spanish electricity network, subject to operating constraints such as generation and fuel consumption limits. It is being designed to represent yearly operation of the Spanish electric power system, and it would be used for medium term economic planning. The Spanish electricity system is composed of hydroelectric, nuclear and thermal units. These last units are mainly coal plants, which consume national and imported coal. National coal has compulsory consumption quota set by the Government, which is one of the constraints of the system. Each one of these areas of electricity production has a different contribution to the domestic production. Their share may vary depending on the hydro inflows per year, fuel imports policy or other yearly constraints.

212

Results for Spain

All the electricity production units of the country that exceed a certain capacity are included in the program. At the moment, only the internal costs of the system are taken into account to perform the economic central dispatch of the overall generation units of the Spanish electric power. The integration of external costs in the model may vary in a significant way the decision process. The external cost associated to each plant can be introduced as another defining parameter for the system. The ExternE Project provides site and technology specific studies, so each unit would have its associated external cost expressed in terms of mECU/kWh. This cost has been calculated for the aggregation exercise, for each of the power plants of the Spanish electricity network. It has to be reminded, however, that the figures provided by this exercise are still preliminary. Even more for nuclear and hydro units, for which results have been extrapolated directly from previous ExternE assessments in other countries. Therefore, the results obtained should be regarded with caution. To quantify the total external costs of the power generation in the operation of the Spanish system in 1996, 5 dispatch strategies have been studied: • Current centralised dispatch, with optimisation of the standard variable costs, with and without domestic coal constraints due to energy policies (A.1 and A.2). • Minimisation of the standard variable costs, including the environmental externalities, with and without domestic coal constraints due to energy policies (B.1 and B.2). • Minimisation of the standard variable costs, including the 30% of the environmental externalities, with and without domestic coal constraints due to energy policies (C.1 and C.2). Strategies A.1 and A.2 consist in operating the system being the objective function the minimisation of the standard variable costs of operation (objective function #1) with the operation, reliability and environmental constraints described. This case is the reference case for the later comparison with the other strategies. Strategies B.1 and B.2 have both the objective function (#2) of minimisation of the social costs of the system operation but B.1 includes the constraints of minimum consumption of domestic coal due to energy policies and B.2 does not. In cases C.1 and C.2 the formulation is similar to cases B being the only difference that cases C only consider the 30% of the externalities calculated for the Spanish power system. The interest of these strategies is because this is the percentage estimate that can affect the Spanish system, being a first approximation for the external costs generated by the power system in Spain. In all cases the values for the externalities are held in mECU by ton of emitted pollutant, except in the nuclear and hydro technologies where the values are in mECU per kWh generated. The results obtained are shown in the following tables. Table 8.26 Operation results in 1996 of the Spanish power system

1996 Total direct variable costs (million ptas.) Total external costs

Case A.1

Case A.2

Case B.1

Case C.1

Case C.2

Case B.2

335,478

315,957

364,851

352,212

354,989

366,240

1,314,709

803,580

1,170,439

358,711

69,891

206,732

213

The ExternE National Implementation

1996

Case A.1

Case A.2

Case B.1

TOTAL SOCIAL COSTS NET GENERATION (GWh) hydro nuclear brown lignite black lignite anthracite imported coal total COAL fuel-oil natural gas

1,650,187

1,118,537

1,535,290

710,923

424,880

572,972

30,352 51,133 8,957 8,780 33,575 10,436 61,747 0 893

30,135 51,133 7,332 966 39,837 10,490 58,625 2,805 893

29,451 51,133 8,588 8,760 27,677 0 45,024 14,334 2,895

29,253 51,133 10,283 8,772 27,694 4,417 51,166 9,254 1,794

29,253 51,133 0 0 6,957 8,834 15,791 34,721 11,657

31,293 51,133 0 0 3,083 8,583 11,667 38,988 12,388

142,196

142,196

142,196

142,196

142,196

142,196

1,930

1,619

643

360

359

3,274

1,105

678

1,058

1,079

175

166

EMISSIONS of NOX (kt)

219

214

164

177

70

59

EMISSIONS of TSP (kt)

23.7

20

19.8

21

2.6

1.7

EMISSIONS of CO2 (kt)

77,016

77,616

73,359

74,557

49,623

48,178

NET GENERATION (GWh) Pumping consumption EMISSIONS of SO2 (kt)

Case C.1

Case C.2

Case B.2

Table 8.27 Coal consumption among the different cases (kt)

brown lignite black lignite anthracite imported coal total COAL

A.1 9,635 4,092 13,720 9,566 36,552

A.2 6,208 0 7,999 16,373 30,580

B.1 9,635 4,092 13,720 3,338 30,785

B.2 0 0 0 4,038 4,038

C.1 9,635 4,092 13,720 5,826 33,273

C.2 0 0 0 5,523 5,523

As a general conclusion, it has to be remarked the significant change in the electricity dispatching system when externalities are introduced. Lignites, due to their high sulphur content, disappear from the system, and the contribution of national coal is greatly reduced. However, here it has to be noted that this result, that is, the minimisation of social costs, is only achieved if other constraints are removed from the dispatching model. Of these, the major one is the compulsory consumption of national coal. As may be seen, if this constraint is not removed, the change induced by the introduction of externalities into the system is the elimination of imported

214

Results for Spain

coal, which is indeed cleaner than national coal. This change is very small indeed, since the contribution of imported coal is quite small. In fact, it may be said that, if the constraint is not removed, the introduction of externalities into the dispatching system produces hardly any change, as may be observed from cases A.1, B.1, and C.1. When it is eliminated, external costs are greatly reduced, even if their minimisation is not an objective. This may be seen in case A.2., where the constraint is removed but externalities are not included. In this case, external costs are reduced, simply by the change from national coal and lignites to imported coal. However, eliminating the constraint by itself does not minimise social costs, externalities have to be included, as shown in cases B.2 and C.2. In these cases, national coal is completely eliminated, being substituted by fuel-oil and gas. Nevertheless, it has to be reminded that here only environmental externalities have been assessed. National coal and lignites have also several advantages, such as their contribution to energy security, and their support of local economies in mining regions. Therefore, in order to decide whether the constraint mentioned above is justified or not, a full analysis of these aspects should be carried out.

8.9

Conclusions

The major conclusion of this study may be that, in spite of the uncertainties underlying the analysis, a large set of externalities for electricity generation has been calculated, and therefore, a first attempt towards the integration of environmental aspects into energy policy may be carried out, taking into account all the limitations which will be explained later. And it has to be noted that, although they are considered sub-totals, that is, that there are still a number of impacts to be quantified in monetary terms, the figures obtained are already significant, specially if global warming damages are taken into account. Moreover, it has to be reminded that the technologies assessed for individual fuel cycles are state-of-the-art technologies, equipped with environmental devices. In the case of the coal fuel cycle, for example, even though the power plant is equipped with ESP, FGD, or low NOx burners, the externalities estimated are almost as large as the private generation cost. If the full range for global warming damages is considered, damages are almost thrice the private costs. If older technologies are considered, such as those assessed for the aggregation exercise, the externality per kWh rises to quite high values, up to 4 times the private cost, in the case of high-sulphur lignites (even if global warming damages are not included). Therefore, it might be concluded that the external costs of some fuel cycles are high enough to affect energy policy decisions. However, here it has to be reminded that the methodology has still a large number of uncertainties. These uncertainties create some difficulties for using the results directly for policy-making. Several aspects should be improved, mainly the estimation of global warming damages. Atmospheric dispersion models, which, at least for the Spanish case, should account for the complex topographic conditions are also a controversial aspect. An important issue which should also be studied is the relationship between atmospheric pollution and chronic mortality. Regarding global warming damages, its range of estimated results is so broad that it dominates the results for fossil fuel cycles. This produces that, when the higher estimate for global warming damages is considered, fossil fuels cannot compete with nuclear, or renewables. Therefore, the high estimates for global warming benefit to a large extent these energy sources.

215

The ExternE National Implementation

Considering that chronic mortality is, by large, the major externality, besides from global warming damages, of fossil fuel cycles, the fact that there is only one exposure-response function for its estimation, and that this function comes from the US, without being checked in Europe, adds a lot of uncertainty to the final results. The valuation of human life is also a significant factor affecting the results, as it determines the human health externality, which, as said before, is the major one. Controversy still exists around this issue, and, in spite of the modifications introduced in the valuation of life by the Core Project, the values assigned are still contested outside the project. All these uncertainties affect the individual fuel cycles examined. For the aggregation of results to the whole electricity sector, more problems arise, such as the transferability of results from one site to another, or the accounting of effects for which there is a threshold. Indeed, differences in the damages per t of pollutant emitted between different sites are quite large, so the direct transfer of results from one site to another is not reasonable. In the case of nuclear or hydro, this transferability is even more difficult. Hence, it is recommended to use the results provided by this report only as background information. This background information might be very useful for establishing economic incentives, such as environmental taxes, or subsidies for renewable energies, or for energy planning measures. However, as said before, results should not be used directly, until the methodology is refined. For what results may be used directly, though, is for planning processes where the quantitative results are not so relevant. This is the case, for example, of the optimisation of plant site selection, or for choosing among different energy alternatives. As may be seen in this report, it is clear that gas is a much cleaner energy source than coal, and that the mix of biomass with lignites results in less environmental damages than those of lignites alone. As might be expected, renewable energies such as wind are the cleanest energy sources. Another possible use of these results is the analysis of the costs and benefits of the implementation of environmentally friendly technologies. Results show that fluidised-bed combustion, or FGD, reduce pollutant emissions, and so reduce environmental damages. As far as the more certain damages avoided compensate the costs of the implementation, the installation of these devices will be justified. Although further research is required to refine the methodology, and thus, to produce more precise results, removing the existing uncertainties, this report is the first comprehensive attempt to estimate the externalities of electricity generation in Spain. Hence, it is believed that it will contribute to a large extent to the integration of environmental aspects into energy policy.

216

9. RESULTS FOR FINLAND Prepared by VTT.

9.1

Introduction

9.1.1

Description of the Finnish energy sector

Some of the most particular characteristics of the Finnish energy system are the importance of energy intensive industries, significant energy use for space heating due to the harsh cold climate, and long transport distances because of the sparse population. Consequently, the total per capita energy requirements are larger than in most other countries in Europe. The domestic energy resources are limited to hydro and wind power, nuclear power, peat, and renewable fuels. All of the oil, coal, and natural gas requirements are covered by imports, and some electricity is imported as well.

The Finnish electricity supply system includes almost 400 power stations with a total generation capacity of about 14 000 MW (1996). Small hydro or CHP plants are greatest in number, but the largest 10 plants (including four nuclear plant units) account for about 40% of the total capacity. Excluding the nuclear plants, the largest power plant is the Meri-Pori station commissioned in the end of 1993. The plant has a net capacity of 560 MWe, and a net electric efficiency of 41–42%.

100% 90%

Per cent of total primary energy (1994)

The total primary energy requirements were in Finland about 1250 PJ both in the year 1994 and 1995. This corresponds to about 240 GJ per capita, while the average total primary energy consumption in the European Union was about 150 GJ per capita in 1994. The structure of the total primary energy supply in 1994 is shown in Figure 9.1, both for Finland and the average of EU. The most significant difference in the structure of consumption is in the use of biomass. While the average share of biomass in the EU countries is only about 3%, in Finland the share was over 15% in the year 1994. Additionally, peat is an important indigenous energy source, with a 5% share of the total energy consumption in 1994. On the other hand, the share of both natural gas and oil products is in Finland considerably smaller than the average over EU.

Other 80%

Coal/peat 70%

Oil

60% 50%

Natural gas

40%

Biomass

30%

Nuclear

20%

Hydro/wind etc.

10% 0% FIN

EU

Figure 9.1 Structure of total primary energy consumption in Finland and EU.

The total net supply of electricity was in the year 1995 about 69 TWh. The structure of the electricity supply is presented in Figure 9.2 by energy source both for Finland and the European Union as a whole. In general, the differences between Finland and the average of EU countries are relatively small. However, the scale of biomass use for electricity generation is particularly large in Finland compared to other EU countries. In 1994 biomass accounted for about 10% of the total output of electricity generation, while in the average within EU was only about 1%. The share of peat based electricity

221

The ExternE National Implementation

generation was in 1994 about 7.5%. Oil has at present only a very small role in the Finnish electricity generation system.

On per capita terms, the consumption of electricity was in Finland about 13.5 MWh in 1994, which was more than double compared to the average within EU (5.8 MWh). As to the structure of consumption, particularly the industrial use of electricity is very large in Finland compared to the average within EU. In this respect Finland is much more similar to Sweden and Norway than to the EU average, although in those two countries the industrial consumption is on a yet higher level.

Per cent of total electricity generation (1994)

The structure of the electricity supply and consumption is illustrated in Figure 9.3 by type of generation and by main consumption category. An important feature of the Finnish system is the large share of CHP in the overall electricity supply. District heat CHP accounted for over 16%, and industrial CHP about 14% of the total generation in 1995. Consequently, the average efficiency of fuel based electricity generation is in Finland considerably higher than the average within the European Union. For the year 1994, the average efficiency has been estimated as about 57% (Lehtilä et al. 1997).

100% 90% 80%

Other

70%

Coal/peat

60%

Oil 50%

Natural gas 40%

Biomass

30%

Nuclear

20%

Hydro/wind

10% 0% FIN

EU

Concerning only the electricity generation based on nonnuclear fuels, the share of CHP has been well over 50% Figure 9.2 Structure of total electricity generation according to energy source in Finland and the between 1985–1995. In the year 1994 the share was 52%, European Union. which was the lowest figure during the ten-year period. Because of anticipated increases in electricity demand, the share of fuel based generation is expected to rise in the future. The condensing power plants are mainly based on pulverised coal combustion, with a total capacity of about 2.2 GWe (end of 1995). The remaining public utility condensing plants are fuelled by peat (about 310 MWe), natural gas (about 260 MWe), and oil (about 260 MWe). Electricity generation in district CHP plants is mainly based on coal (43% in 1995), natural gas (30%), and peat (19%). Biomass accounts for about 4% of the electricity output. Within the industrial CHP generation, however, biomass is by far the largest primary energy source with a share of about 60% of the total electricity output in 1995. Natural gas accounts at present for about 15% of industrial electricity generation., while oil, coal, peat and process gases each have a share of 4–9%. Solid fuel fired plants both in district and industrial CHP generation are increasingly based on fluidised bed combustion. New solid plants employ almost exclusively the FBC technology, and many older pulverised coal and peat fired plants have been converted into FBC plants. Industrial plants fuelled with waste liquors from pulping, however, need to employ a special recovery boiler technology due to the process chemical residues to be recovered from the fuel.

222

Results for Finland

The amount of sulphur emissions from power production has been steadily decreased after the year 1980 and the amount of nitrogen and particulate emissions after 1990. The total sulphur emissions attributable to electricity generation were in 1990 about 54 kt(SO2) and nitrogen emissions about 38 kt(NO2) (Järvinen 1997). The corresponding amount of particulate emissions were roughly 10 kt in 1990. In these estimates the allocation of emissions from CHP to electricity and heat is based on efficiency factors that are somewhat lower for electricity than for heat to reflect the trade-offs between CHP and pure heat generation. The specific emissions have significantly decreased during the past decade as the total volume of power production has been increased. The estimated average sulphur emissions from power production were in 1990 in Finland about 1.0 g(SO2)/kWh(e), while the average among the present EU-15 countries was about 3.3 g/kWh (Järvinen 1997). Corresponding estimates of nitrogen oxide emissions are 0.73 g(NO2)/kWh(e) for Finland and 1.2 g/kWh for EU-15. Within the next ten years the difference in specific emissions between Finland and the average over EU is expected to be preserved for sulphur emissions, but significantly decreased for nitrogen emissions. 9.1.2

Justification of the selection of fuel cycles

An important objective in the National Implementation Project was to select fuel cycles, which in some sense would be characteristic for the energy sector of Finland. In addition this would hopefully justify the aggregation of the of the case studies to the total energy sector level. However, the ExternE methodology is aimed at the marginal approach, which means that the marginal impacts of new energy production capacity are of main interest. The selected fuel cycles represent therefore such technology, which would be utilised in power plants introduced at present and in near future in Finland. The selected fuel cycles were coal, peat and wood derived biomass, which together are responsible for about 40 100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

Industrial CHP

60%

60%

Space and water heating

Industrial condensing

50%

50%

Households

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

Other manufacturing

10%

10%

Forest industries

0%

0%

Net imports District CHP

Public condensing & GT

Losses

Hydro & wind Nuclear

Supply

Other

Public and commercial

Consumption

Figure 9.3 Structure of electricity supply and consumption in Finland in the year 1995.

223

The ExternE National Implementation

% of total electricity generation in Finland (see Fig. above). Independently from this project, an assessment of hydro power cycle and using the ExternE methodology was performed by Imatran Voima Power Corporation[], and is not reported here. Imatran Voima has also implemented the methodology to the wood biomass fuel cycle. A characteristic feature of Finnish energy sector is the significance of CHP as described above, which was also taken into a account in the selection. In 1994 about 20 % of electricity used in Finland was generated by coal. The Meri-Pori power station which has been chosen as a reference plant for the coal fuel cycle accounted for about 22 % of coal fuelled generation in 1994. Meri-Pori should be one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power stations in the world. This condensing power plant was chosen because of its importance in Finnish power generation. Two other coal-fired power stations of the same type are being planned, which improves the representativeness of this choice. The power plants of the two other fuel cycles are of CHP type. Peat is an indigenous energy resource in Finland representing in 1995 5 % of the primary energy demand of Finland and about 9 % of electricity was generated by peat. The Rauhalahti plant (located in the city of Jyväskylä), representing the peat cycle, is quite typical in Finnish energy production: a cogeneration plant producing electricity, district heat for the city and process steam for a paper mill. The plant of the biomass cycle (located in the small city of Forssa) is new, introduced in autumn 1996. It is one of the first district heat and electricity producing plant, which can solely use wood biomass as fuel. Finland has in principal large potentials in the utilisation renewable energy resources especially wood based biofuels. Consequently this plant might present a typical example of future energy technology in Finland. The aggregation of this case to the whole bioenergy based power production is still problematic. Most of Finnish bioenergy is generated in forest industries as a part of their production processes, and the results of the Forssa plant cannot be generalised directly to these processes.

9.2 9.2.1

Coal fuel cycle Definition of the coal fuel cycle

Meri-Pori power plant producing 560 MWe electricity is located on the island Tahkoluoto within the city of Pori on the west coast of Finland. Meri-Pori power plant was introduced into commercial operation in the beginning of 1994 as one of the world's cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants with a condensing turbine. Its pulverised coal boiler is Finland's largest power plant boiler to date.

224

Results for Finland

1. Coal mining È

4. Supply of materials for air pollution abatement a) limestone extraction b) ammonia production c) bag filters È 5. Transport of pollution abatement materials Ë

3. Coal cleaning È 2. Coal transport Ì 6. Power generation Ë

Ì 8. Transport of waste È 9. Waste disposal

7. Power transmission Not considered: 10. Construction of facilities 11. Demolition of facilities

Figure 9.4 Stages of the coal fuel cycle. The flue gas cleaning ratio and the efficiency of this electricity generating power plant is notably better than those of other similar plants in Finland. The power station is equipped with the most modern gas cleaning facilities. Particles are separated from flue gas by a 99.5 % effective electrostatic precipitator that is located before the wet flue gas desulphurisation plant. About 90 % of the sulphur dioxide is removed by the desulphurisation plant. The nitrogen oxides emissions formed in the boiler are reduced by 80 % with the help of the low-NOx burners and phased combustion and the catalytic denitrification system installed in the flue gas duct of the boiler. Coal imported to Finland is extracted mostly in Poland, but also in Russia, the Republic of South Africa, Australia and Indonesia. Poland is taken as the reference case for this study. The stages of the coal fuel cycle is shown in Figure 9.4. A summary of the technology is shown in Table 9.1. Table 9.1 Definition of the coal fuel cycle Stage 1. Coal mining

Parameter Location(s) Type of mine Calorific value of coal Mine air quality control Control of mine methane emissions Mine waste disposal site Composition of coal water ash carbon oxygen hydrogen sulphur nitrogen chlorine

Quantity Upper Silesia, Poland Underground 25.2 MJ/kg not specified none

Source of data, comments

Design value of plant

not specified 8-9% 12 - 14 % 74 % not specified not specified 0.6 - 0.7 % not specified not specified

Ekono (1996)

225

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

2. Coal transport

Parameter trace elements Air emissions CO2 CH4 SO2 NOx TSP

Quantity not specified

Distance to power station Mode of transport

1450 km Rail - 550 km Ship - 900 km 2600 t 45000 t 460 27

Rail load Ship load Nr of rail loads per yr Nr of ship loads per yr Air emissions (includes also transport of stages 5 & 8) CO2 SO2 NOx TSP combustion fugitive dust

Ekono (1996) 59,900 t/yr 10,200 t/yr 532 t/yr 104 t/yr 56 t/yr

12,500 t/yr 50 t/yr 270 t/yr 19 t/yr 1400 t/yr

Processes adopted

5. Transport of pollution abatement materials Distance to power station 5a. Limestone Mode of transport Lorry load Number of lorries per yr 6. Power generation

Fuel Type of plant Name Location Geographical latitude Geographical longitude Power generation gross sent out Efficiency Load factor

226

Doyle (1989) Default value for av. vessel size

Ekono (1996)

washing plant: dense medium, magn.separati on; jigs 4. Extraction, production of pollution abatement materials Location Tytyri, 4a. Limestone Virkkala Annual production 3. Coal cleaning

Source of data, comments

200 km Lorry 35 t 997 coal pulverised fuel Meri-Pori Pori, Tahkoluoto 61.63° 21.41° 590 MW 560 MW 43.1 % (HHV basis) 74 %

Meri-Pori (1997)

Results for Finland

Stage

Parameter Lifetime Pollution control ESPs low NOx burners phased combust. SCR(sel.cat.red.) desulphurisation Stack parameters height diameter flue gas volume flue gas temp.

Quantity ? 99.5% effective 70 % reduction

90 % reduction (double-stack) Imatran Voima Ltd (1995) 156 m Koski (1996) 2 × 3.7 m 1656000 Nm3/h 393 K

Material demands coal limestone cooling water Air emissions CO2 N2O CH4 SO2 NOx TSP 10. Construction of facilities

770 kg/MWhe 17 g/MWhe 41 g/MWhe 670 g/MWhe 530 g/MWhe 150 g/MWhe not quantified

11. Demolition of facilities

not quantified

9.2.2

Source of data, comments

1,195,000 t/yr 34,800 t/yr 14.5 m3/s

Imatran Voima (1995) 2,802,000 t/yr 60 t/yr 150 t/yr 2400 t/yr 1900 t/yr 540 t/yr

Discussion of burdens and impacts

According to previous studies of the ExternE project (1995) and the experiences of the National Implementation projects on the go the most important impacts of the coal fuel cycle are those caused by atmospheric emissions, especially from the power generation stage. Liquid effluents from mining in Poland seem to have serious environmental impacts but their quantification could not be performed in this project. Applying the ExternE methodology the human health impacts seem to dominate those directed to other recipients. Occupational health impacts in Polish mines seems to be one of the important ones of the whole coal fuel cycle. Because of lack of quantitative information on mining and its environmental impacts in Poland the last two impact groups could not be assessed in this study. The main tool for calculating the dispersion and air chemical reactions of the basic pollutants TSP, SO2 and NOx — and the consequent impacts and damages — was the EcoSense 2.0 model. Because the computational grid of the model does not cover areas east of Finland, all the air emission impacts, for example, in Russia are missing in the basic model results. This would lead to an underestimation of impacts and damages especially in the Finnish national implementation. Consequently, there was a need to extend the model data base with Russian data. It was decided to take into account at least the Russian health impacts, because they seemed to be so important. The population of North West Russia, i.e. the city of St. Petersburg and the regions of Leningrad, Karelia and Murmansk (totally about 8.4 million people) were added to the most eastern gridcells of the model. The air emissions (TSP, SO2, NOx) of the other stages were also calculated with EcoSense by assuming that all these pollutants (e.g. from transport) were also assumed to emit through the power plant stack.

227

The ExternE National Implementation

9.2.3

Summary and interpretation of results

The summary of the externalities assessed for the coal fuel cycle is shown in Table 9.2. The estimated total health damages are summarised in

Table 9.3 and the damages per amount of pollutant are given in Table 9.4. Table 9.2 Damages of the coal fuel cycle (North West Russian population included). mECU/kWh

σg

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- VOLY (VSL) 1.9 (6.3) B of which TSP 0.20 (0.7) SO2 0.85 (3.1) NOx 0.62 (2.3) NOx (via ozone) 0.2 Morbidity 0.6 of which TSP, SO2, NOx 0.2 A NOx (via ozone) 0.4 B Accidents nq A Occupational health nq A Crops 0.2 B of which SO2 0.003 NOx (via ozone) 0.2 Ecosystems iq B Materials 0.03 B Monuments nq Noise ng Visual impacts nq Global warming C low 2.9 mid 3% 14 mid 1% 36 high 108 OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health Outside EU** 0.5 (1.4) B Inside EU*** 0.03 B Occupational health A Outside EU**** 1.2 Inside EU nq Ecological effects nq B Road damages nq A Global warming C low 0.32 mid 3% 1.5 mid 1% 3.9 high 12 *VOLY= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. VSL only applied fatal accidents. **air emissions of fuel production and transport ***road accidents in Finland due to transport of ash, gypsum and limestone. ****mine accidents in Poland ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant

228

Results for Finland

Table 9.3 Total health damages of coal fuel cycle (North West Russian population included).

mECU/kWh low nd mid 4.2* (9.6**) upper nd *VOLY= mortality impacts of airborne emissions based on ‘value of life year’ approach, mortal accidents based on ‘value of statistical life’ (VSL) approach **VSL= all mortal impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach nd = not determined VOLY (VSL)

Table 9.4 Total quantified damages per tonne of pollutant (North West Russian population included, no ecosystems).

ECU / t of pollutant SO2 *- VOLY (VSL) 1486 (4841) NOx *- VOLY (VSL) 1310 (4416) TSP *- VOLY (VSL) 1555 (5242) NOx (via ozone) 1500 CO2 3.8 - 139 *VOLY= mortality impacts of airborne emissions based on ‘value of life year’ approach, VSL = mortality impacts of airborne emissions based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach The power generation stage is responsible for the major part of the health damages of the coal fuel cycle: its share seems to be 72 % using the VSL principle and 59 % using VOLY. Only VSL approach was applied to the accidents, so that damage comparisons inside the whole coal cycle cannot be done using YOLL. An important damage factor of the Finnish coal cycle are the mine accidents in Poland. It comprises about 13 % of all the health damages (using VSL) but is exposed on a relatively small number of people, the Polish miners. An open question is further if this damage is internalised in the costs of coal mining or not. No monetary measures could not yet be developed in the ExternE project for ecosystem damages. Only the impacts on ecosystems were quantified in the form of increase in land area where the critical load of acidity was exceeded. It should be remembered that all the land areas east from Finland are here excluded. The valuation of the material damages is based on the database of EcoSense which includes the surface areas of different kinds of building materials and their monetary values. The building materials are exposed by the acid deposit, which causes the damages. Road damages caused by transport were not assessed in the Finnish implementation. The estimates of global warming are an order of magnitude more uncertain. Although the emissions of greenhouse gases and their global warming potentials (GWPs) are well-known, the knowledge of the true impacts and damages of GW is still poor. The approximation that also the pollutant from other stages emit through the stack probably underestimates slightly the impacts of the emissions, which in reality occur in more densely populated areas and closer to the ground.

229

The ExternE National Implementation

The sensitivity of the damage estimates to this additional population of 8.4 million people was also investigated. After adding the Russian population the damages of SO2 and TSP were increased by 17 % and the damages of NOx by 31 %. This indicates clearly how the impacts of NOx emissions reach further away than the other two pollutant components. The emission factors of the Meri-Pori plant used in the EcoSense model may overestimate the real emissions. According to the air protection declaration of the year 1994, for example, the TSP emissions might be 1/5 of the emission standards, which were used in EcoSense runs. Respectively, the NOx emissions could be about 30 % lower than given. The summarised results of coal fuel cycle including the global warming damage estimates are illustrated in the following figures.

230

Results for Finland

mECU/kWh 1000 1.2E+02 100 10

4.2E+00

3.3E+00

1 2.3E-01 0.1

4.0E-02

0.01 Global warming low

Global warming high

Human health VOLY

Crops

Materials

NOT QUANTIFIED

Ecosystems

Figure 9.5 Total damages of coal fuel cycle by impact category.

mECU/kWh 1000 1.1E+02 100 10

3.0E+00 1.2E+00

1

1.2E+00

9.5E-01

8.3E-01 2.6E-01

0.1 0.01 SO2

NOx

TSP

O3

CO2 low

CO2 high

Accidents Occup. health

Figure 9.6 Total damages of coal fuel cycle by burden category.

231

The ExternE National Implementation

mECU/kWh

140 120 100 Global warming

80

VSL (additional impact)

60

Health impacts

40 20 0 low

mid 3%

mid 1%

high

Figure 9.7 Comparison of different GW damage estimates and health damage estimates for coal fuel cycle.

CO2 N2O Power gen. Oth. 3% 1%

CH4 Oth. 7%

CO2 Power gen. 89 %

Figure 9.8 Share of the different GHG emissions in the global warming impact of the coal fuel cycle.

232

Results for Finland

9.3

Peat fuel cycle

9.3.1

Definition of the peat fuel cycle

The plant is situated in the city of Jyväskylä in Middle Finland. The peat-fired Rauhalahti cogeneration plant produces electricity, heat and steam: 87 MWe (83 MWe sent out) electricity, 125 MWh district heat, and 45 MWs process steam for a paper mill. The power plant was commissioned in 1986 to burn pulverised peat, but entered into bubbling fluidised bed burning boiler in 1993.

1. Peatland ditching, preparation È 2. Peat production, peat stockpiling

Ì 6. Peatland restoration (rewetting)

È 3. Peat transportation to power plant Ì

4. Heat, steam and power generation Ë

Ì

5. Heat, steam and power transmission

7. Transport of waste È 8. Waste disposal Figure 9.9 Stages of the peat fuel cycle.

The main fuel is milled peat, but the new combustion technique enables the utilisation of wood fuels such as sawing waste, chips and bark alongside peat. Crushed coal and oil can also be burnt in the boiler. The thermal power of the boiler is 295 MW. The plant uses over one million cubic metres of milled peat per year. In year 1995 the fuel consisted approximately of milled peat 84 %, wood 13 %, oil 2 % and coal 1%. The flue gases of the power plant go through the electrostatic precipitator, which separates over 90 % from the ash. The fluidised bed boiler reduces the nitrogen oxide emissions formed during the combustion by over a third. The wood fuels form very little sulphur emissions and decrease the amount of carbon dioxides in the air. In the environmental point of view the tree binds coal while growing and it has to be taken into account when calculating impacts of wood chain. The stages of the peat fuel cycle are shown in Figure 9.9. A summarised description of the fuel cycle is given in Table 9.5. Table 9.5 Definition of the peat fuel cycle. Stage 1. Peatland ditching, preparation

Parameter Location(s) Type of peatland Time of preparation & ditching

Quantity Jyväskylä area, FI Natural peatland 3 - 6 years

Source of data, comments Mälkki, Frilander, Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Utilisation in Finland (to be published 1997)

Air emissions CO2 CH4

5700 t/yr -27 t/yr

Water emissions COD

44 t/yr

233

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter solids tot. N

2. Peat production

Type of peat Production method

Quantity 35 t/yr 3 t/yr Milled peat Tehoturve

Source of data, comments

Mälkki, Frilander, Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Utilisation in Finland (to be published 1997)

Air emissions CO2 CH4

52 000 t/yr -150 t/yr

Water emissions

3. Peat transportation

COD solids tot. N Distance to power station Mode of transport

140 t/yr 75 t/yr 10 t/yr 80 km Road - 100%

Mälkki, Frilander, Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Utilisation in Finland (to be published 1997)

Air emissions SO2 NOx CO2 4. Power generation

Fuels Type of plant Location Calorific value of peat Fuels used milled peat coal wood chips oil Thermal power Electricity gross sent out District heat Process steam Efficiency Lifetime Size of plant land area required height of stack diameter of stack Other characteristics flue gas temperature flue gas volume Full load hours Operating hours 1995 Emissions SO2 NOx TSP

234

3 t/yr 40 t/yr 2800 t/yr milled peat, wood residues, coal, oil fluidised bed combustion Jyväskylä, FI 10.1 MJ/kg

Rauhalahti Power Plant

347000 t/yr 1270 t/yr 63600 t/yr 280 t/yr 295 MW 87 MW 83 MW 125 MW 45 MW 86 % 40 years

130 m 3.5 m 395 K 410,400 Nm3/h 5655 hours/yr 8328 hours/yr 1320 t/yr 760 t/yr 86t/yr

calculated for ExternE Rauhalahti Power Plant

Results for Finland

Stage

Parameter

5. Heat, steam and power transmission

CO2 District heat transmission Steam transmission Power transmission

6. Peatland restoration

Time of assessed restoration Mode of restoration

Quantity 630 000 t/yr to the city to the local paper mill commercial power distribution network 100 years rewetting

Source of data, comments

Mälkki, Frilander, Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Utilisation in Finland (to be published 1997)

Air emissions CO2 CH4 7. Transport of waste 8. Waste disposal Transport of pollution abatement materials Construction of facilities Demolition of facilities Total life cycle of peat utilisation

Site Type of facility Service of electrostatic precipitator

Rauhalahti Power Plant Rauhalahti Power Plant

Not applied Not applied Mälkki, Frilander, Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Utilisation in Finland (to be published 1997)

Including stages 1-8 and fuel chains of diesel, oil, coal and wood chips Total emissions SO2 NOx TSP CO2 CH4 N2O

9.3.2

-34000 t/yr -360 t/yr Local Landfill not applied

1340 t/yr 820 t/yr 96 t/yr 660 000 t/yr -558 t/yr 24 t/yr

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The calculated results are based on net emissions. The background emissions of natural peatland are subtracted from the emissions of the utilisation stages. This results emissions caused by the energy production without the emissions which would arise in the reference case. For example, the methane emissions of the cycle are therefore negative. The major burdens of the peat fuel cycle arise from atmospheric emissions from the power generation stage. The major water emissions are caused by the peat production stage due to the long production time. Impacts on human health, crops, ecosystems, materials and global warming can be identified. The restoration stage of peatland after the utilisation is important, because the afforestation and the rewetting modes are sink of CO2 emissions. The restoration time of 100 years follows the afforestation mode, when the accumulation of CO2 emissions has expected to cease. In the rewetting mode the assessed time of 100 years is too short, because the intake of CO2 emissions continues for thousands of years. The CO2 emissions released during the peat production and energy conversion phases have been accumulated in the utilised amount of peatland over a period of about 2,000 years.

235

The ExternE National Implementation

The water emissions of the restoration phase are not available at this moment. The damages caused by emissions from fuel production and transportation have not been calculated by any model but to get an idea of the magnitude in proportion to damages caused by emissions from the power plant the production and transportation emissions have here been studied as if they had come from the stack of the power plant. Due to the relatively low energy density of peat, the burdens connected to transportation is also an important burden of this fuel cycle. Traffic accidents during peat transportation were also estimated. Impacts such as noise and visual impact are not expected to be significant and therefore not considered. 9.3.3

Summary and interpretation of results

The summary of the externalities of the peat fuel cycle is shown in Table 9.6. As the power plant produces both electricity, heat and steam, impacts and damages caused by electricity production is not unambiguous. The allocation has here been performed by applying exergy principle, which causes about twice as big impacts and damages to electricity than an allocation by energy principle. These two ways of allocation are compared in Table 9.7. The estimated total health damages are summarised in Table 9.8 and the damages per amount of pollutant are given in Table 9.9. Table 9.6 Damages of the peat fuel cycle (North West Russian population excluded) per kWh of electricity (allocation between electricity, heat and steam based on their exergy content).

POWER GENERATION Public health Mortality*- VOLY (VSL) of which TSP SO2 NOx NOx (via ozone) Morbidity of which TSP, SO2, NOx NOx (via ozone) Accidents Occupational health Crops of which SO2 NOx (via ozone) Ecosystems Materials Monuments Noise Visual impacts Global warming low mid 3% mid 1% high OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Public health Outside EU Inside EU (VSL)

236

mECU/kWh

σg

3.1 (10) 0.15 (0.54) 1.65 (6.0) 0.83 (3.0) 0.45 1.1 0.3 0.8 nq nq 0.4 0.007 0.4 iq 0.09 nq nq nq

B

A B A A B

B B

C 3.4 16 42 126

0.67 (0.96)

B B

Results for Finland

Occupational health A Outside EU Inside EU nq Ecological effects nq B Road damages nq A Global warming C low 0.13 mid 3% 0.63 mid 1% 1.6 high 4.9 *VOLY= mortality impacts based on ‘value of life year’ approach, VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach. ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant The superior damage is caused to human health. The approximation that the pollutant (due to combustion) from fuel production and transportation emit through the power plant stack probably underestimates slightly the impacts of the emissions, which in reality occur closer to the ground. The calculated results for the peat chain do not include figures for areas east of Finland. One can get an idea of the magnitude of the figures missing by looking at the Finnish coal chain, where Russian health impacts have been considered. The sensitivity of the damage estimates to this additional population of 8.4 million people was calculated to be relatively small in the coal chain. The damages of SO2 and TSP where increased by 17 % and the damages of NOx by 31 % and could be also used as an approximation for the peat cycle. Table 9.7 Rauhalahti peat fired power plant: allocation of impacts/damages (exergy principle applied in this ExternE NI study). Production per year GWh Electricity sent out District heat Process steam

469 707 254

Allocation principle Exergy % of impacts/ damages allocated 67.6 % 21.8 % 10.7 %

Energy % of impacts/ damages allocated 32.8 % 49.4 % 17.8 %

Table 9.8 Total health damages of peat fuel cycle (North West Russian population excluded).

VOLY (VSL)

low mid upper

mECU/kWh nq 4.9 (12.1 ) nq

Table 9.9 Total quantified damages of peat fuel cycle per tonne of pollutant (North West Russian population excluded, no ecosystems). ECU / t of pollutant SO2 *- VOLY (VSL) 1027 (3310) NOx *- VOLY (VSL) 856 (2886) TSP *- VOLY (VSL) 1340 (4528) NOx (via ozone) 1500 CO2 3.8 - 139 *VOLY= mortality impacts based on ‘years of life lost’ approach, (VSL= impacts evaluated based on ‘value of statistical life’ approach.)

237

The ExternE National Implementation

The summarised results of peat fuel cycle including the global warming damage estimates are illustrated in the following figures.

238

Results for Finland

mECU/kWh 1000 1.3E+02 100 10

4.9E+00

3.6E+00

1

4.2E-01 9.0E-02

0.1

NOT QUANTIFIED

0.01 Global warming low

Global warming high

Human health VOLY

Crops

Materials

Ecosystems

Figure 9.10 Total damages of peat fuel cycle by impact category.

mECU/kWh 1000 1.3E+02 100 10 2.0E+00

1.8E+00

1.0E+00

3.6E+00

1

4.4E-01 1.9E-01

0.1 0.01 SO2

NOx

TSP

O3

CO2 low

CO2 high

Accidents Occup. health

Figure 9.11 Total damages of peat fuel cycle by burden category.

239

The ExternE National Implementation

mECU/kWh

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Global warming VSL (additional impact) Health impacts

low

mid 3%

mid 1%

high

Figure 9.12 Comparison of different GW damage estimates and health damage estimates for peat fuel cycle.

Oth. CH4 Oth. N2O Oth. CO2 Power gen. CO2

1

-20 %

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 9.13 Share of the different GHG emissions in the global warming impact of the peat fuel cycle.

240

Results for Finland

9.4

Biomass fuel cycle

9.4.1

Definition of the biomass fuel cycle

The plant representing the biomass fuel cycle is a new plant located in the small city of Forssa. It began to operate in autumn 1996. The capacity of the CHP plant is 48 MWh heat and 17.2 MWe electricity. It is the first district heat and electricity producing plant of this size using solely wood biomass as fuel. Finland has in principal large potentials in the utilisation of renewable domestic energy resources especially bioenergy. The forests are the main potential source for bioenergy in Finland. Consequently this plant might present a typical example of future environmentally more acceptable energy technology in Finland. The fuel mix consists of saw dust, bark and wood waste. Almost 80 % of the fuel is produced as a by-product from saw mills. More than 10 % of the fuel is coming directly from forests (forest residues) and slightly less than 10 % consists of other kind of waste wood. The fuel chips coming directly from forestry land will be transported 0 - 50 km and other wood waste fuels up to about 100 km using empty transportation vehicles (return transport). The stages of the biomass fuel cycle are shown in Figure 9.14.

1. Wood derived fuel from forest or saw mill È

4. Supply of materials for air pollution abatement

2. Wood fuel transportation È

a) electrostatic precipitator È 5. Transport of pollution abatement materials

3. Storage and pre-treatment at power plat Ì

Ë 6. Heat and power generation

Ë

Ì

7. Heat and power transmission

8. Transport of waste È 9. Waste recirculation/disposal

Also to consider: 10. Construction of facilities 11. Demolition of facilities Figure 9.14 Stages of the biomass fuel cycle A summarised description of the fuel cycle is given in Table 9.10. Table 9.10 Definition of the biomass fuel cycle Stage 1. Wood fuel production Fuel chips from forestry Bark from saw mill Saw dust from saw mill Other wood waste

Parameter Fuel need

Quantity Total 260 GWh/yr

Source of data, comments Forssan Energia Oy 1996

50 000 m3 0.8 MWh/m3 185 000 m3 0.7 MWh/m3 130 000 m3 0.55 MWh/m3 99%

Stack height Stack diameter Flue gas volume flowrate Flue gas temperature

225 m 6.9 m 3.3 million Nm3/h 398 K

45,000 tonnes 16,000 tonnes 65,500 tonnes 280,000 tonnes

5. Power generation

6. Waste Disposal

Annual quantity of ash produced 100,000 to 200,000 m3 Exported to industry 58,000 m3 Capacity of ash lagoon 5.25 million m3

343

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

12.2.4

Parameter Number of truck movements Distance to ash lagoon

Value 18 per day 1 km

Discussion of burdens and impacts

The major burdens associated with the coal fuel cycle are: • Emissions of global warming gases. Emissions of carbon dioxide occur at all stages of the fuel cycle, and especially during the generation stage. In addition, emissions of smaller quantities of methane occur during the mining stage. • Emissions of precursors of tropospheric ozone. Nitrogen oxides are emitted at all stages of the fuel cycle, and especially during the generation stage. Other ozone precursors, including VOCs and methane, are emitted during the mining and transport stages. • Emissions of other atmospheric pollutants. The emission of particulate matter, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides during the generation stage, and to a lesser extent during the other fuel cycle stages, with the consequent ill effects on human health, is a very important burden. The effects of these atmospheric pollutants on crops, forests and agriculture have also been examined. • Occupational health. By far the most important of the occupational health burdens are deaths through accident and disease in the coal-mining industry, especially in developing countries. A certain level of occupational injury may be expected during construction of the power plant also. • Public health. The statistical increase in the number of road accidents due to increased traffic in the area of the power station may be considered to constitute a public health burden. • Environmental damage due to coal mining activities. The extraction of coal is very harmful to the environment, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the mine. Among the adverse environmental effects that can result are: subsidence, groundwater contamination, damage to habitats, the accumulation of mountains of waste and the generation of large amounts of dust. All of these burdens and the resulting impacts on the environment or on the public have been quantified, and where possible and appropriate, the impact has been valued. In the following section, these results are presented in summary form. 12.2.5

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Table 12.2 Summary of externalities for Coal Fuel Cycle

POWER GENERATION Public Health Mortality YOLL (VSL) Morbidity Total Of which: SO2 NOx (of which via ozone) TSP Agricultural via SO2

344

mECU/kWh

σg

29 (83) 5.8 35

B A

22 13 (3.7) 0.52 0.093

B

Results for Ireland

mECU/kWh via Ozone Forests Materials Sub-total Global Warming (illustrative restricted range) Global Warming (conservative 95% confidence interval) TOTAL (including Global Warming) OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES Global warming (illustrative restricted range) Global warming (conservative 95% confidence interval) Ozone Mining: Ecosystems Groundwater Contamination Subsidence Occupational Injury Occupational Health Construction: Occupational Injury Road Accidents TOTAL ALL STAGES (excl. Global Warming) TOTAL ALL STAGES (incl. Global Warming)

1.12 negl. 0.85 37 17 to 42 3.2 to 130 54 to 79 0.41 to 1.1 0.087 to 3.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 (0.6) 0.53 0.38 0.017 0.028 41 59 to 84

σg B B C

C B B B B A B A A

It may easily be seen that the impacts associated with the generation stage alone are very much greater than those from all other stages combined. Furthermore, within the generation stage, two types of impact in particular predominate. These are global warming and public health effects. Considering only the illustrative restricted range, the global warming damage resulting from the generation stage accounts for between 31% and 53% of the total damage from that stage. If we leave aside global warming, and consider separately the other types of damage, about whose magnitude we may be more certain, we find that the public health effects of atmospheric emissions from the generation stage amount to 85% of the total. Of the public health damages, which total 35 mECU/kWh, we find that the damage caused by particulates is relatively insignificant, at 0.52 mECU/kWh. This is because this pollutant’s harmful effects are confined to the local area around the plant, which is sparsely populated. Nitrogen oxides are more important, at 13 mECU/kWh, but the largest contribution to the total damage is sulphur dioxides, at 22 mECU/kWh. This is a direct result of the fact that the sulphur emissions of the Moneypoint plant are very high relative to similar plant elsewhere in Europe. Moneypoint is not fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. The value of total damages from the Moneypoint fuel cycle, and in particular from the generation stage, is best interpreted as resulting from a balance between the sparse population of the rural area around Moneypoint, and the high levels of sulphur dioxide emitted. These two facts tend to cancel each other and result in a figure that is neither particularly high nor particularly low by comparison with similar plant in other countries.

345

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 12.3 Damage per tonne of pollutant

CO2 NOx

Tonnes emitted per annum 5,700,000 19,600

SO2 TSP

49,300 1,200

Damage (ECU/tonne) 46 4,300 (of which 1,500 via ozone) 2,800 2,813

It may be seen from Table 12.3 that when ozone is included in the damage figure per tonne of NOx emitted, NOx is considerably more harmful than SO2. The installation of low-NOx burners during 1995 and 1996 which led to a decrease of around 50% in NOx emissions from the plant may therefore be seen to have been very beneficial. It should be noted, however, that the technology exists to reduce SO2 emissions to a much greater extent, by in excess of 95%.

12.3 Peat Fuel Cycle 12.3.1

Reference Site Description

The proposed site for the Europeat 1 facility is near the village of Clonbullogue, on the border of Counties Offaly and Kildare. This is a very rural and sparsely populated region of the East Midlands of Ireland. Primary land use in the area is peat production, and economic activities are mainly based on peat-related activities, including peat production, power production and peat processing. Other activities in the region include dairy farming. The choice of site is governed primarily by its location at the heart of the East Midlands group of bogs. Bord na Móna is in possession of around 45 million tonnes of recoverable peat reserves in this region. Of this total, around 10 million tonnes is committed to supply existing customers. Table 12.4 below shows how these reserves break down by location. These peatlands are served by Bord na Mona’s narrow-gauge railway, which will be used to carry peat to the power station. In addition there exist reserves of 8.6 million tonnes in outlying areas and 2.7 million tonnes in the hands of private producers, which will be transported to the site by road.

Table 12.4 Bord na Móna peat reserves in the Europeat 1 catchment area Location Derrygreenagh Ballydermot Timahoe Lullymore

Million tonnes of peat 19.9 8.6 4.8 2.6

The closure during the 1990s of the peat-fired power stations at Portarlington, Co Laois and Allenwood, Co. Kildare, as well as the briquetting factory at Lullymore, Co. Kildare, has resulted in a reduced demand for peat in the East Midlands region. The planned Europeat 1 plant will allow the use of some 30 million tonnes of peat from developed peatland over its lifetime. Major road and rail routes between Dublin and the cities of the south and west pass near to the site. The conurbation of Dublin lies within 50 km or so of the proposed plant, and ribbon development along the motorways has brought the commuter belt to within 20 km of the site. 12.3.2

Reference Plant Description

It is intended that the Europeat 1 plant will be commissioned in 2001, after a construction period of 3 years. It will be a condensing plant with a net electrical output of around 111 MW. It is assumed that the boiler will be of the bubbling fluidised bed type, allowing combustion with very high efficiency and reduced emissions.

346

Results for Ireland

The plant will run with a very high load factor, operating for some 7,500 hours per year. This will require a fuel input of around 1,000,000 tonnes of milled peat at 55% moisture content. Net conversion efficiency will be approximately 37%, yielding an annual electrical production of 825 GWh. No specific emissions abatement technologies will be installed, apart from electrostatic precipitators to remove dust from the exhaust. Nevertheless, the use of milled peat fuel in a fluidised bed combustion process is intrinsically favourable to low emissions output. Peat is a low-sulphur fuel, and reactions between the products of combustion and the mixture of ash and sand in the fluidised bed tends to further reduce the emissions of sulphur oxides. The formation by thermal means of nitrogen oxides is also low due to the relatively low combustion temperature. 12.3.3

Definition of the Peat Fuel Cycle

Fuel Cycle Stages The Peat Fuel Cycle consists of the following 7 fuel-cycle stages, as illustrated in Figure 12.4 below: 1. Peatland Preparation 2. Peat Production 3. Transport, Storage and Handling of Fuel 4. Construction of Power Plant 5. Transport of Personnel and Materials 6. Combustion of Peat and Generation of Electricity 7. Waste Disposal

1. Peatland Preparation

4. Other Transport

2. Peat Production

6. Electricity Generation

3. Peat Transport, Handling and Storage

7. Waste Disposal

5. Power Plant Construction

Figure 12.4 Stages of the Peat Fuel-Cycle

347

The ExternE National Implementation

Table 12.5 Characteristics of the peat fuel cycle Stage 1. Peatland preparation

Parameter

Value Bord na Mona peatlands in Counties Kildare, Offaly, Laois, Meath and Westmeath Area of peatland 14,800 ha Average depth of peat which can 1.6 m be harvested Density of peat resource in 190 kg/m3 drained peatland Annual yield of milled peat 225 tonnes/ha Moisture content of undrained ~95% peatland Moisture content of drained 82% peatland Production fields: length ~ 1 km width 11 m Duration of preparation work 3 years Labour required 420 man-years Emissions from undrained (mg/m2.yr) peatland: CO2 -19,000 (absorption) N2O 3.9 CH4 1,800 CO2 equivalent 87,000 (emission) Location

Emissions from drained peatland: CO2 N2O CH4 CO2 equivalent Runoff of silt

(mg/m2.yr) 240,000 (emission) 0 470 266,000 (emission) 5 m3/ha.yr

Restoration of peatland: Afforestation (Hardwood) Afforestation (Coniferous) Flooding Grassland

10% 40% 30% 20%

Production method Type of peat produced

PECO Milled peat

Depth of cut Number of harvests Final moisture content (average)

10 to 15 mm up to 12 per year 55%

Typical composition of peat Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Oxygen Sulphur Chlorine

(% of dry matter) 55.4 5.4 1.3 32.5 0.3 0.09

2. Peat Extraction

348

Results for Ireland

Stage

Parameter

Value

Ash Density GCV

5 290 kg/m3 7.7 MJ/kg

Emissions from machines CO2 SO2 NOx PM CO

(g/GJ peat) 400 0.6 7 1.4 3.5

Employment

250 (permanent) 250 (seasonal)

3. Transport, handling and Mode of Transport storage of peat Rail: Distance Unit Shipment Quantity Number of journeys

Rail (90%) Road (10%) 13 km (average) 80 tonnes 18,000 tonnes per week 225/week

Rail Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO VOCs

(g/tonne peat) 220 0.42 5.4 1.3 0.52

Road: Distance Unit shipment Quantity Number of journeys

15 km 22 tonnes 2,000 tonnes/week 90 per week

Road Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO VOCs PM

(g/tonne peat) 2,500 4.8 16 9.4 2.7 0.32

Peatland preparation and power station construction personnel Operational Personnel Ash disposal (rail) Emissions: CO2 NOx SO2 CO

5.4 million passenger-km

4. Transport of Personnel and Materials

1.9 million passenger-km/yr 240,000 tonne-km/yr (t/TWh) 540 3.2 1.0 20

349

The ExternE National Implementation

Stage

Parameter HCs Road accidents (/TWh) Road accident deaths (/TWh) Road accident injuries (/TWh)

5. Construction of Power Land use Plant Duration Average no of workers Earth movement Materials

Value 2.3 0.46 0.041 0.76 6 ha 3 years (1998 to 2001) 233 3.5 million m3 unknown

6. Power generation

7. Waste Disposal

350

Location Latitude Longitude Altitude

Clonbullogue, Co Offaly 53º 18’ N 7º 5’ W 30 m

Fuel Type of plant Power output Power output (net) Load factor Boiler capacity Average net efficiency Lifetime Date of commencement Fuel input

Milled Peat Bubbling Fluidised Bed 123 MW 111 MW 85% (7,500 hours) 141 tonnes/hr 36.7% 40 years 2001 1,060,000 tonnes (8.2 PJ)/yr

Steam temperature Steam pressure Condenser pressure Make-up water requirement

540 ºC 17 MPa 0.0035 MPa 100 to 150 l/s

Atmospheric emissions SO2 NOx TSP CO2 Emissions abatement TSP: precipitators Purge and waste water

g/kWh 2.4 3.33 0.25 2500 (=2.03 Mt/yr)

Stack height Stack diameter Flue gas volume flowrate Flue gas temperature

100 m 3.5 m 560,000 Nm3/h 398 K

->99% 30 MW). 17.5.3

Combustion plants

Power plants other than nuclear and hydro contribute as little as 7% of the Swedish electricity. Nevertheless, this is where the bulk of the emissions occur. With the planned nuclear phase-out programme, the combustion plants’ share of energy production is likely to increase. There are three main categories of combustion plants, which all can use a variety of fuels; municipal co-generation, industrial co-generation and condensing power plants.

530

Results for Sweden

Municipal co-generation accounts for around 3% of the electricity generation. Coal is the dominating fuel used for electricity generation in municipal co-generation plants, accounting for 47%. In industrial co-generation, also accounting for around 3% (4 TWh in 1994), fuels used are mainly industrial process remainders, usually forest residuals, or oil. Most of the installed capacity is in the paper and pulp industry. Condensing power plants are only used occasionally for peak load supply, primarily during cold winter days. Total fuel input for electricity production in combustion-type plants are reported in Table 17.15.

Table 17.15 Fuel input for electricity production in Sweden, TWh (Source: SOU, 1995) Fuel type Oil Natural gas Biomass Coal Total

industrial co- municipal cogeneration generation 2.6 1 0.5 0.5 2.4 0.2 0.2 4.1 5.7 5.8

condensate

gas turbine

Total

2

0.3

2

0.3

5.9 1 2.6 4.3 13.8

CO2 emissions from fossil electricity production are derived from this input: around 3.2 million tonnes annually. Particle emissions are not reported in national statistics, and they differ quite a lot from plant to plant. These damages are therefore not included in the estimates. Emissions of NOX and SO2 have had to be estimated as they are directly reported in the statistics. Traditionally, such estimations are based on concessions. However, with modern clean technologies, real emissions are often far below these concessions. National electricity emissions of SO2 and NOX have been estimated on the basis of average emissions per input of fuel according to SOU (1995), and then the amounts of different fuel types that are used for electricity production in Sweden. The damage costs in mECU/kWh for combustion are summarised in Table 17.16, for each of the energy systems. The damages do not include fuel extraction, production or transportation, as in the case studies, but only the combustion emissions of CO2, NOX and SO2. The total damages in ECU per year are estimated for CO2 at 12-447 million, for SO2 to 9 million and for NOX to 5 million in Swedish combustion plants. The total damages from these three pollutants then amount to around 50 million ECU/year. Total annual production in combustion plants was 9500 GWh, if we assume a mid estimate for CO2 damages, (46 ECU/tonne), this gives us an aggregate damage cost estimate of 17 mECU/kWh in the combustion phase. 15.6 of this is from CO2. 17.5.4

Wind

Installed capacity for wind power amounts to 40 MW, in 160 plants. The total wind electricity generated was 0.07 TWh in 1994. A number of tax reliefs and direct subsidies have reduced production costs to around 12-20 öre/kWh when conditions (winds) are favourable. Wind power can be used as a complement in local systems, to reduce distribution losses. However, great costs can be expected if wind power was a large part of the electricity system, due to the severe fluctuations in winds and the necessary adjustments in the hydro and nuclear operations. Externalities from wind power plants are highly site-specific. The main impacts are probably noise and visual amenities. If there is no one around, which is sometimes the case, these costs will be close to zero. Nevertheless,

531

The ExternE National Implementation

in many cases, wind farms are set up close to the residential areas, in which case these costs could be significant. Other potential impacts are impacts from air emissions in the construction phase, accidents, bird impacts and electromagnetic interference with communications. 17.5.5

Conclusions

The preliminary aggregation task has arrived at damage cost estimates to the different power generation systems as according to Table 17.16. However, the confidence in these numbers is yet quite low. In this number, the employed CO2 estimate was 46 ECU/tonne. The nuclear valuation is filled with gaps, and no specific Swedish study has been carried out. There is today no useful way of integrating the risk of major accidents in the operation or storage stages in the economic assessment. The hydro values are basically transferred from other studies, which invariably have failed to account for significant ecological risks and impacts. On the other hand, other hydro power impacts may be significantly over-valued, when set in the Swedish context. The ExternE project has concluded that transfer values is not an appropriate method for hydro power externalities. The combustion plant values are generalised based on the Swedish case studies and they are probably more accurate than the other studies. Nevertheless, the values on these fuel cycles exclude the pre-generation stages such as fuel extraction and transportation, which have proven to be quite significant, for instance in the case of the coal fuel cycle. Furthermore, CO2 damages, highly uncertain, strongly dominate the damages (