ARTICLE IN PRESS

Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Measurement of CO2, CO, SO2, and NO emissions from coal-based thermal power plants in India
N. Chakrabortya,Ã, I. Mukherjeea, A.K. Santraa, S. Chowdhurya, S. Chakrabortyb, S. Bhattacharyac, A.P. Mitrad, C. Sharmac
a

Department of Power Engineering, Jadavpur University, 2nd Campus, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700098, India b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India c Winrock International India, 1 Nav Jeevan Vihar, New Delhi 110057, India d National Physical Laboratory, Dr. KS Krishnan Road, New Delhi 110012, India Received 17 April 2007; received in revised form 30 July 2007; accepted 30 October 2007

Abstract Measurements of CO2 (direct GHG) and CO, SO2, NO (indirect GHGs) were conducted on-line at some of the coalbased thermal power plants in India. The objective of the study was three-fold: to quantify the measured emissions in terms of emission coefficient per kg of coal and per kWh of electricity, to calculate the total possible emission from Indian thermal power plants, and subsequently to compare them with some previous studies. Instrument IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer was used on-line to measure the emission rates of CO2, CO, SO2, and NO at 11 numbers of generating units of different ratings. Certain quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) techniques were also adopted to gather the data so as to avoid any ambiguity in subsequent data interpretation. For the betterment of data interpretation, the requisite statistical parameters (standard deviation and arithmetic mean) for the measured emissions have been also calculated. The emission coefficients determined for CO2, CO, SO2, and NO have been compared with their corresponding values as obtained in the studies conducted by other groups. The total emissions of CO2, CO, SO2, and NO calculated on the basis of the emission coefficients for the year 2003–2004 have been found to be 465.667, 1.583, 4.058, and 1.129 Tg, respectively. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thermal power plants; On-line measurement; Direct and indirect GHG; Emission coefficient

1. Introduction In relation to preparation of India’s National Communication (NATCOM) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +91 332 416 7854;

fax: +91 332 414 7121. E-mail address: chakraborty_niladri2004@yahoo.com (N. Chakraborty). 1352-2310/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.074

(UNFCCC) and to measure the amount of the direct (CO2) and indirect (CO, SO2, and NO) GHGs (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) from the coal-fed thermal power plants in India, a project work was undertaken. Measurements of these gases were carried out on-line using IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer at 11 numbers of generating units of varying ratings over a period of 2 years during 2003–2004 on different days.

1 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 634 636 657 647 541 552 558 556 628 601 516 509 488 480 488 486 471 476 449 484. 2004.5 MW) SO2 NO CO2 CO (%) (mg mÀ3) (mg mÀ3) (mg mÀ3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arithmetic meana 12:09 12:35 13:06 13:34 14:41 15:08 15:35 16:02 16:37 12. respectively.0 12. USA (Operation Manual of IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer). and organizations (Mittal and Sharma. 2002. The consistencies of measured values of the generating units were also checked (see Table 1). and 250 MW.6 12.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1074 N. 2004. The variations in emission of the different gases for the different units of the thermal power plants have been dealt elaborately with specific and pertinent reasonings in the successive paragraphs of Section 3.9 12. 67. The emission coefficients for different gases have been calculated for different category of generating units by applying statistical methods. Fresh air was drawn in by the in-built pump in the instrument from the normal atmosphere through the probe. Certain quality control measures as well as uncertainty reduction methods were adopted during the measurement process. With this it has been observed that generations of the plants under observation were almost equal to the rated generation capacity. Garg et al. 1998. and also during calculations to find out the emission coefficients. This is probably the first communication presented systematically by an Indian group on emissions only from thermal power plants which is based on measurements carried out on-line in a plant following standard experimental guidelines.. Ryerson et al. The calculations for the emission coefficients have been made on the actual generations during the time of measurement.49 40 a All the variations are within a range of 710% of the mean value. Chandra and Chandra. 1998.5...4 12. Gillani et al. 2. Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization) have confirmed the toxic potential of the measured gases particularly with respect to the increasing trend in temperature or in other words global warming and therein lies the importance of carrying out this project work to determine the amount of emissions of these gases particularly for a very fast developing economy like India. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 Table 1 Consistency check in the measurement process with an interval of about 30 min at a fixed load Serial no. 1992. scientists. The figures have been calculated based on repeatedly measured values following IPCC guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). obtained in the previous studies (Gurjar et al. Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization).2 12. 2003b...4 12.78 The installed electricity generation capacity of the different coal-fed units were 60. Chakraborty et al. Jorge et al. 2003. 210. Emission figure of CO has been considered as 40 mg mÀ3. Since the Indian power grids are well connected. the total estimated emission for CO2 has been compared with the study conducted by OSC (Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization).. Further. Experimental process The instrument used for measuring the direct and the indirect GHG emissions was the IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer made by IMR Inc. The emission coefficients have been compared with the values as 12. 2001.4 12. The age of the generating units varied from 5 to 20 years. It also purged out any gas/air present inside the instrument and finally . self-calibration started automatically.00. and most of the units were performing with a plant-load factor of almost equals to unity except for a particular plant where the plant-load factor varied between 0. The instrument was provided with necessary pump and an interconnecting flexible hose with fixed thermocouple sensing wire. The emission co-efficients for different gases were obtained for per kWh of electricity generated and per kg of coal utilized. 2001a.4 13.667 and 1. TERI.. and this has been reflected in plant-load factor of almost equals to unity in most of the cases. As soon as the instrument was switched on. power can be sold to any location in India. Time of measurement (h) Measured emission rate at generator unit S4U2 (installed capacity 67. Varshney and Aggarwal. Gurjar et al. Studies related to emission measurement and estimations from thermal power plants conducted by different researchers.

the following quality control measures were adopted: 1. The positions of the locations were maintained to be at sufficient distance from bends and obstructions in the flue ducts. It was observed that the emissions remain reasonably consistent in a plant throughout the time period of measurement. Other information on corresponding coal/oil inflow rates were also noted from control room. excess heat (range. range. 0–205 mg mÀ3). Statistical methods The estimation of the emission co-efficients of different gases has been categorized into four types depending upon the installed capacity of the plants. range.3. For each source. electricity generation records and all other relevant details related to the measurement were noted from the generator control room. 0–11440 mg mÀ3). Standard statistical methods were applied for data interpretation as per IPCC guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). nitrogen dioxide (NO2. 2. 0–2500 mg mÀ3). 0–999%). Chakraborty et al. calculations and conversion factors were checked for the purpose as per IPCC guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). nitric oxide (NO. To illustrate this. The instantaneous test results from the instrument indicated the following: (a) ambient atmospheric temperature (range. The relevant activity data and measured emission figures of this key source category have been properly recorded as per IPCC guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). range. À20 to 1200 1C).2. (Environment Acts Rules and Notifications. Calibration of the instrument IMR 2800P was carried out at a location at the footsteps of the stack since at such locations. range. carbon monoxide (CO. Measurements were conducted at accessible locations of the flue gas duct. 0–2680 mg mÀ3). oxygen (O2. 0–CO2 max. it can be assumed that the calibration of the instrument with reference to the atmospheric oxygen was acceptable. Quality assurance (QA)/quality control activity (QC) The experimental processes were undertaken following certain quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) protocol as formulated in the IPCC Good Practice Guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 1075 calibration with respect to the oxygen present in the atmosphere at 20. The standard deviation of the data set (the square root of the variance) has also been calculated for each category of power plant. range. 2. thus possible disturbances arising out of irregular turbulence (due to bends or obstructions) was avoided as per CPCB guidelines 3. (b) temperature of flue gas (range. This in turn helped reducing the uncertainty in the measurement process.9% value was done. range. data transcription and calculations were checked in respect of errors if any. At the time of measurement. 2. The emission coefficients have been obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean of data set as per IPCC guidelines (Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) for each category of plant. Calibration of the measuring instrument IMR 2800P was done before measurement at each generator unit. 0–999%) (Operation Manual of IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer). 1999). Measurements were taken repeatedly at regular time intervals to check consistency in emission values. 2. the possibility of mixing of the flue gas (emitting out of the stack at a considerable height) with the surrounding air was absolutely nil. a particular case where measurement was conducted over a period of 41 h in a thermal 2 . 4. 5. Consistency of emission measurement and uncertainty reduction Consistency of the measured emissions was checked to avoid uncertainty and also to ascertain if there is any variation in emission over the period of measurement or not.ARTICLE IN PRESS N. All the measurement. in percentage of volume). 6. So.9% of volume). In the present study. (c) composition of flue gas in respect of carbon dioxide (CO2. sulfur dioxide (SO2. À20 to 120 1C). and excess air (range. 0–20.1.

432 0.395 7.29 7. there were little variations in the measured figures (within 710% of mean value). The average emission coefficients for 60. 3. this variation may be due to minor variations in the quality of corresponding coal getting burnt in the furnace. better interpretations of results are possible for quantification of emissions. has not been calculated.911 0.644–3. the type of furnace technology and design of boiler.14 4.98b 15. as shown in Table 2.091 0.345 2. It was observed that the instantaneous emission rate of all the gases like CO2.5 MW and generating electricity at a constant rate of 67.824 0.400–0. which was measured in percentage of volume. However.120–5. All the generating units where measurements were carried out.488 1.819 0. their standard deviation values and range for each category of plant are given in Table 2.035 0. it can be considered that the operating performances of all the plant machineries are more or less smooth and constant. 210.5 210 1.550 0.572 1.18 3.143 13.99 1.49 0.198–24. It should be noted that.852–0.734 0. amount of excess air may also result in variations in the emission rates. Table 2 Average emission coefficient of different category of thermal power plant Plant (MW) 60 Emission coefficient Average value S.079 0.635 0. and NO were more or less constant over the time period (see Table 1). As data on other units are not available.720 3. Additionally. and Mahanadi Coalfields Limited.353 9. CO. Measurement was conducted at an interval of approximately 30 min and the unit of measurement was mg mÀ3 for all gases except for CO2.670 2.540–2. run with coal supplied from different collieries of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The coal is fed in pulverized form into the boiler furnace.140b 5. During this measurement process.197 10.210–6. These collieries are located in India. This process of checking consistency undoubtedly reduces uncertainty in the measurement process which ensures accuracy in measurement.559 1.99–2. the CO emission is high.208 11.083 0. a .500 0. other factors affecting combustion such as burner positioning.550 2. Apart from quality of coal.5.147–13. Range Average value S. respectively.D.244 1. b Due to oil support in these thermal power plants.98–4. and hence the rate of emission of gases will also remain more or less consistent.712–15. SO2.211 1.926 2.652–1.812 2.272 13.855 6.480–1.84–4. Range Average value Rangea Average value S.104 2.525 0.590 0. Airflow rate for two numbers of induced draught (ID) fans was also observed to be more or less constant at 90 m3 sÀ1. Chakraborty et al.235 0.49b 10.446 0.07b 9.055–0. However. though coal quality varied from plant to plant.565 0. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.116 0.263 67.12 0. But when a plant is operating smoothly.043–9.493 10.132 0. The emission coefficient for different gases has been calculated on the basis of actual measurement data.705 1.210 0.080–7.99 0.037–1. figure for S. With this. The standard deviations of such emission coefficients have also been calculated.85 1.918 4.091 0.77 4.763 1. Measurement was recorded in ‘milligram per cubic meter’ and ‘percentage of volume’ units (as applicable in the measuring instrument) and such figures were converted to total emission per hour of electricity generation for each generator unit.964 0. forced draught (FD) and ID fans have effect on the combustion efficiency resulting variation in emission coefficient of measured gases.028–1. and 250 MW category of plants have been calculated.969 0.224 0.23 0.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1076 N.460 2.161 0. Results The average emission coefficients.49–14.283–34.663 19.812–2.776–0.61 0.804 2. the combustion technology in all the plants is same which is based on pulverized coal burning.220 1.250–5.595 2. which has been reflected in the range of emission for CO. Range Emission per kg coal CO2 (kg) CO (g) SO2 (g) NO (g) Emission per unit (kWh) electricity CO2 (kg) CO (g) SO2 (g) NO (g) 1.932 0.29–22.670 0.70–15.521 3.353 12.370 250 This range was measured at only one thermal power plant.5 MW has been provided (see Table 1).27 3.079–0. sometimes imported coals with higher calorific value are mixed with Indian coals for better combustion. 67.481–2.D.540–1.182 0.835 0.088–0.445–8.D.530–11.220 1.510 5.590 1. However.910 1.927 0.320 0.243 8.295 1. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 power plant of generation capacity 67. coal supply rate was constant at 42 ton hÀ1.020 3.D.415 1.680 13.

32a 375.84 48508.97 34. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 1077 diesel oil is used as and when required to supplement the combustion system for maintaining a stable combustion process during continuous running of the plant.99 453.45 347.1 5. The emission rates of different gases are given in Table 3.63 3067. The possible reasons behind the varying emission rate of different gases in the different plants are discussed in the following paragraphs. S1U3.5 6.0 122.9 6.74 72821.07 2155. the CO emission is high.51 372.0 42. The various test results from different units have been categorized in accordance with the installed capacity of the generating units.8 32.8 242232.3 5.5 32.58 523.85 19.53a 4.10 592.5 1.13a 14.53 192.5 1.25 167914.99 135. Other plant data relevant to the measured values. The generating units of 60 MW capacity.52 369.5 Electricity generation and corresponding emission Generation (MW) 60 60 60 60 250 250 175 140 175 200 67. which has been reflected in the range of emission for CO.96 434.0 750 0 0 300 0 0 950 0 0 800 0 1.0 122. Oil is also used during the starting process of the boiler.67 46550.67 2139. naming S1U1.5 58. the oldest amongst the Table 3 Emission rates of green house gases from different thermal power generating units Generator unit Installed in year Installed capacity (MW) 60 60 60 60 250 250 210 210 210 210 67.2 1.6 4.5 .9 1. Table 4 Fuel feeding and ID fan delivery rates at the time of GHG measurement at different thermal power generating units Generator unit Generation (MW) Coal feed rate (ton hÀ1) Oil feed rate (l hÀ1) ID fan airflow rate (m3 sÀ1) 55.0 58.823 33.210 174.63 181389.36 133. S1U2. but there was no scrubber in any unit for suppression of any gas.0 138.681 NO (kg hÀ1) 130.14a 60.3 4.6 29.5 5.40 213002.5 1.71 2238. Information on corresponding coal and oil inflow rates were also noted from control room. Chakraborty et al.31 CO (kg hÀ1) 428. All the generating units have individual electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and ID fans. as available from the respective plant authority. no measurements could be taken during such start up process in any plant.41 92.75 1861.ARTICLE IN PRESS N.5 98.27 211836.86 2643.7 1.8 29.64 327.6 152.96 49420.5 CO2 (kg hÀ1) 48456.6 5.71 Flue gas temperature (1C) 127 128 139 154 137 127 133 126 127 143 144 S1U1 S1U2 S1U3 S1U4 S2U1 S2U2 S3U1 S3U3 S3U5 S3U6 S4U2 a 1982–1983 1982–1983 1982–1983 1982–1983 1995 1997 1987–1988 1987–1988 1987–1988 1987–1988 1990 Due to oil support in these thermal power plants.5 7.0 5.5 140.72 397.82 260099.95 2106. However. are given in Table 4. were installed way back in the year 1982–1983.8 6.4 1. So far.9 59.92 509. it will be prudent here to describe the plants in brief before results are presented.4 1.842 SO2 (kg hÀ1) 312.3 1. and each generating unit has been given a name for identification.79 4285.7 1. and S1U4.6 246 240 275 240 280 300 90 Ambient temperature (1C) 33 34 36 39 35 36 35 34 32 32 30 Lambda (%) Excess QA (%) S1U1 S1U2 S1U3 S1U4 S2U1 S2U2 S3U1 S3U3 S3U5 S3U6 S4U2 60 60 60 60 250 250 175 140 175 200 67.

the plant-load factor varied in between 0. it may be considered here that the efficiency of these two plants. measurement on flue gas was carried out in the vertical stack at a height of 92. The plant was commissioned in the year 1990. However. This may be due to additional oil support that was required to control the flame stability.63 and 181389. Naturally. The plant-load factor for this plant was almost equals to unity at the time of measurements. Chakraborty et al. S3. unit S3U5 and S3U6 were of improved version over the design of other two comparatively older units. The emissions of the direct (CO2) and the indirect (CO. Further. measurements were conducted at a horizontal location of rectangular ducts immediately after the location of ID fans (at a height of approximately 5 m from ground level) for individual units carrying flue gas to common stack. The average CO2 emission from S3U2 was the second highest. and S4. and S3U6. For almost all the other days of measurement. The plant was operating at its rated generation capacity at the time of the measurements.1. were designed for coal having 35% ash content. The test results are given in Tables 3 and 4. it is seen that the average CO2 emission for S1U4 was maximum whereas that of unit S1U3 was minimum although the same amount of coal (29.00. whereas the average CO2 emission from the units S3U3 and S3U5 were 167914. 3.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1078 N. Except for one particular day. the flue gas temperature must have reduced by few degrees centigrade after traveling a considerable distance. S3U3.27 kg hÀ1. and SO2) GHGs as measured for the different units of the respective thermal power plants designated as S1. In unit S3U1 and S3U3. S2. as and when required.5 m from ground level. respectively. S3U5. measurement was conducted at a horizontal location of the gas duct (one of two parallel ducts) before the stack. the height of measurement location was approximately 12 m from ground level. They were built and commissioned in the year 1995 and 1997. In these two units. In these units. respectively. have not deteriorated much so far.667 and 1. It is understood from the plant authority that occasionally oil has to be used for maintaining stability of the combustion system in the boiler of different units. It was also noted that sometimes the color of flue gas emitting out of the unit was quite blackish. respectively. they are youngest of all thermal power plants where the measurements were conducted. the plant-load factor was almost equals to unity on almost all the days of measurement. measurement was conducted at a horizontal location of the gas duct (one of two parallel ducts for each unit) just before the stack. CO2 emissions from different plants From Table 3. The height of the location was approximately 2 m from ground level. have been reported in the following sections. It is also evident from Table 3 that the average CO2 emission rate from unit S3U1 was highest amongst the four units of that category (S3). naming S2U1 and S2U2. NO. at the time of experimental measurement for a day it was observed that only units S1U1 and S1U4 were being fuelled with oil at the rate of 750 and 300 l hÀ1. The values of coal feeding rates in these four units (given in Table 4) were available verbally from the plant authority as no measured coal-feeding rate was available. The generating units of 210 MW capacity. The average CO2 emission from unit S2U1 was more than that of S2U2 because more coal . The designed coal supply requirement was 700 kg MWhÀ1. Measurement was also conducted on a generator unit naming S4U2 of installed capacity 67. Being more than 20 year old units.6 ton hÀ1) is being fed into both the units. In this unit. The 250 MW capacity generating unit were the highest in capacity where measurement were carried out. the feeding rate varied from unit to unit. Here also. In unit S3U5 and S3U6. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 plants where measurement has been carried out so far. The reason may be the higher carbon content of mixed coal being supplied to the unit. in between ID fan and electrostatic precipitator. measurement was conducted at a horizontal location of the rectangular flue gas duct (one of the four parallel ducts for each unit). their operational efficiency have definitely decreased in comparison to newer plants. The possible reason behind such a variation may have been the amount of excess air supplied and the combustion efficiency of the units. Perhaps this is the main reason behind the occasional requirement of fuel oil along with coal in two of the generating units (see Table 4). the plant-load factor was almost equals to unity. The carbon dioxide emissions from S1U1and S1U2 were more or less the same (see Table 3). The plant was designed for operation with coal containing 25% volatile matter. respectively.5 MW. So. this is required when the volatile matter content of coal is o22%. In all the cases. But depending on the quality of available coal. naming S3U1.

The average CO emission from S1U2 was lowest which can be attributed to better combustion efficiency of the system. For the generator unit (naming S4U2) of installed capacity 67. and 133. the average emission rate of CO was measured to be 14.71 kg hÀ1.31 kg hÀ1. Measurement was also conducted on a generator unit (naming S4U2) of installed capacity 67.36. combustion was not complete resulting in emission of higher amount of carbon monoxide. The average CO emission from the unit S3U3 was 375. The average CO emission from unit S3U5 was the lowest and this may be attributed to better combustion in the system.5 MW. respectively. It recorded the second highest CO emission value. The average CO emission from S1U3 was 33.71. The average CO emission from unit S2U1 was comparably higher than S2U2 and this may be attributed to better combustion efficiency of the unit S2U2 compared to S2U1. The average CO emission from unit S3U1 was very high. SIU4 recorded the second highest CO emission.92 kg hÀ1. respectively.95 kg hÀ1. and S1U4 are 130. S3U5.97 kg hÀ1. The average NO emission from unit S2U1 was less in comparison to that of unit S2U2. S1U3.3.ARTICLE IN PRESS N.75 kg hÀ1 whereas that from unit S2U2 was 1861. NO emissions from different plants The basic reason behind the variation of NO emissions from the different categories may be attributed to the varying amount of fixed nitrogen content in coal and the variable performance efficiency of the burners of the different categories.51–372. 2643.99 kg hÀ1. Complete combustion of coal and oil was not possible resulting in higher carbon monoxide emission from the unit. Discussion Thermal power plants are one of the main sources of GHG emission throughout the world. The average NO emissions as measured for the other units S1U1. 3.86.5 MW.681 kg hÀ1. Here. The average SO2 emissions from all the four units in the S1 category were more or less constant with the unit S1U1 emitting the minimum. Additional oil support was also provided to the unit S3U6 but to a lesser extent as compared to S3U1. The average NO emission from the unit S3U1 of the S3 category was the highest amongst themselves. Measurement was also conducted on a generator unit (naming S4U2) of installed capacity 67. The average SO2 emission for the unit S2U1 was 2155.67. and 2139. Average SO2 emission measured for the category S4U2 was found to be 509. The average SO2 emission rates of S3U1. From Table 3.4. and S3U6 were 2106. Another possible reason may be the lesser amount of fixed nitrogen in coal fed into that unit. 92. SO2 emissions from different plants The main reason behind the variation in SO2 emission for the different categories can mostly be attributed to the varying sulfur content of coal fed into the respective units. The possible reason can be attributed to the lesser performance efficiency of the burner compared to the other units of the same category. 3. as measurement was not possible due to unavoidable circumstances in that plant.5 MW. The ranges of the SO2 emission for this category of units lie in the range 312. it can be seen that the average NO emission from unit S1U2 was the highest. The emissions from the other units of this category were more or less at par with each other (see Table 3). 2238. The average emission rate of NO was recorded to be 192. 4. 3. The average SO2 emission for the four units in the S3 category was more or less equal with the maximum emission being recorded in the unit S3U5. However. The reason may be attributed to better performance of burners in S2U1 compared to that of S2U2. Chakraborty et al. as here also additional oil support was provided but to a lesser extent as that to S1U1. thereby producing lesser amount of NO in S2U1 than in S2U2. no comparison could be made with other units of the same category. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 1079 (152 ton hÀ1) was being supplied to S2U1 in comparison to that (138 ton hÀ1) of unit S2U2 to meet same amount of electrical load. Due to higher coal flow rate and low air supply. For a very .64 kg hÀ1 (see Table 3). additional oil support in this unit may be the main reason for such a high CO emission. The average emission rate of CO2 was 72821.842 kg hÀ1. CO emissions from different plants The average CO emission from unit S1U1 was highest as considerable amount of low speed diesel oil was injected along with coal due to lesser combustion capability of the unit (see Table 3).99 kg hÀ1.210.2. S3U3.

nic.140 g kWhÀ1 of electricity (a) 34. Furthermore.652. except for the two indirect GHGs CO and NO (see Table 5). Obviously. In order to develop strategies of GHG reduction. the total range of emission (per kWh of electricity) from all categories of power plants has been selected and their mean emission coefficient has been calculated first. (2004) 1. These emission coefficients then will not only help developing the national inventory but will help comparing the national emission with the emission of the developed countries.49 (kg kWhÀ1) 5. and in S3U6 (3067.253 (g kgÀ1 of coal) Present study 1.14 kg hÀ1).210–15.8 (kg kWhÀ1) 4–18 (g kWhÀ1) 6–13. it is worth mentioning that the present study is totally on-line measurement based whereas the study by OSC is based on theoretical calculations. Table 5 Comparison of emission coefficients Gaseous type Range of measured emission coefficient Present study for the year 2003–2004 CO2 SO2 NO CO a b Emission coefficients Gurjar et al.07 g kgÀ1 of coal (b) 7. The emission coefficients calculated in the present study are more or less at par with the values obtained by Gurjar et al.49b NOx as NO2 measured by Gurjar as 1.055–24. roughly the differences can be attributed to the varying composition of coal fed into the machine and the combustion process in the unit and their performance.153 (g kgÀ1 of coal) Study by OSC in the year 1997–1998 0. SIU4 (135.49 g kWhÀ1 of electricity S3 210 CO Note: The emission rates of CO in the units SIU1 (428. The ranges of the values of the emissions in per kWh of electricity generated and in per kg of coal utilized obtained in the present study are provided in Table 5 in comparison to those obtained by OSC (Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization) and by Gurjar et al.824a (g kgÀ1 of coal) 0. a more or less four times higher coefficient values for NO has been reported by OSC. .ARTICLE IN PRESS 1080 N. (2004). (2004). Additional oil support. The main variation is likely due to variable combustion technologies in the respective units. With that the total emission for the year 2003–2004 has been estimated. SO2. there is no doubt that this needs to be further investigated.263 (g kWhÀ1) 0. While the co-efficient values obtained for CO2 and SO2 matches closely with that obtained by OSC (Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization). a realistic inventory of GHG is very much required.32 kg hÀ1). However.8–1.53 kg hÀ1).98 g kgÀ1 of coal (b) 24. Chakraborty et al.263.776–1.639 (kg kgÀ1 of coal) 14. For that. It has been considered that a total of 466. determination of methodology-based measured emission coefficients are very much essential.1 (g kWhÀ1) Not available 0.018 (g kgÀ1 of coal) 5. and NO values are Table 6 Increased Emission Coefficients due to additional oil support Plant Generation Gas type designation capacity per unit (MW) S1 60 CO Emission (a) 13. measurement of GHGs’ from the thermal power plants are very much essential in order to find out their values so that necessary policies of reduction of such gases can be formulated.99 (g kWhÀ1) 1. additional oil support in some of the units of the plants (see Table 6) may be the other possible reason for this mismatch in CO values. it can be observed that the corresponding CO2.in) in India. This excludes contribution by the captive and other non-conventional power plants. At the same time variation of coal quality with regard to carbon content and fixed nitrogen content may have an indirect effect on the variation of CO and NO formation. To calculate the total emission of each of these toxic gases. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 fast developing economy like India. converted to NO multiplying with a factor of 0.739 (kg kgÀ1 of coal) 14.13 kg hÀ1) were high compared to the other units of the plant.600 GWh electrical energy was produced from coal-fed thermal power plants for the year 2003–2004 (http:// indiabudget.767 (g kgÀ1 of coal) 0. Particularly in case of CO. S3U1 (4285.540–3. From Table 7. CO.031 (g kgÀ1 of coal) 4.

nic.055–24.in).420 g 1.000 GWh (Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization) while that for the period 2003–2004 was 466. such as (a) quality of coal mixture. Also all the plants do not run at full load all the time.129 Tg. (c) quantity of coal and oil required for per unit generation. (d) age of the plant and its maintenance standard. At the same time.263 g 2.058. and (e) amount of excess air fed into the furnace.21–15. 1.in).667 CO 0. (b) quality of oil. So. it can be generalized that the emission rates of the direct and indirect GHGs obtained from the Indian thermal power plants varies on various accounts. the mixture remains non-homogenous.99 g 8. This reflects that there is not much variation exists between the present study and that reported by OSC (Modeling Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source Characterization) at least for carbon dioxide taking into consideration the increased generation of electricity from 1997–1998 to 2003–2004.583 SO2 5. Again efficiency of the plant and equipment. on-line measurement should Table 7 Total estimated emission of green house gas from Indian thermal power plants in the year 2003–2004 Emission per unit (kWh) of electricity CO2 Range of emission from all power plants Average emission coefficient Total estimated emission during year 2003–2004a (Tg) 0. resulting in non-homogenous temperature zones in the furnace resulting in the variation in both (direct as well as indirect) GHG production. .600 GWh for the year 2003–2004 (http:// indiabudget. a Total generation from coal fired thermal power plants in India.ARTICLE IN PRESS N. The quality of coal (from different sources) is variable over a wide range. For a particular power plant. Only. 5. more accuracy in estimating total GHG emission can be achieved if measurement is conducted on almost all the power plants in India. wherever used. arrangements cannot be made for homogenous mixing of air and fuel at every location of the furnace.667. At the same time.49 kg 0.393 g 1. as the mixing ratio of different quality of coal cannot be specified. Further. the combustion efficiency cannot be maintained at a desired standard level.583.54–3. As the variability of all the above factors in all the generating plants in India remains random in nature. a single quality standard cannot be adhered to. Even if a plant runs at no load or little load.nic.998 kg 465. nor the generation pattern over a day or month is the same for a particular plant. the amount of excess air (supplied to the furnace) plays an important role in the combustion and generation of NO and SO2.058 NO 1. some fuel has to be supplied for maintaining stability of the furnace. the quantity of coal and oil requirement varies in accordance with their calorific value to meet a specific electrical demand. The amount of electricity generation during different hours of a day is also a factor controlling the GHG production. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 1081 465.600 GWh (http:// indiabudget. Moreover. for the year 2003–2004.667 Mton for the year 2003–2004 has been compared with the calculated value obtained by OSC for the year 1997–1998 which was found to be 395 Mton.776–1. Considering CO2 to be the major contributor to the green house effect. respectively. the emission coefficients cannot be quantified easily. establishing a relationship between above factors and the emission coefficient is not straightforward. the measured emission of 465. particularly the combustion and heat absorption is varying in nature. Without regular preventive maintenance of burners and air inlet valves. Conclusion From the foregoing discussions.696 g 4. The thermal power generation for 1997–1998 was 336. Chakraborty et al. has been considered to be 466.129 Note: 1 Tg ¼ 1 Mton ¼ 1 million metric ton. and 1. To find out qualitatively better emission coefficients.49 g 3. 4. The efficiency is again dependent on the age of the plant and the standard of regular preventive maintenance.

We are indebted to Ministry of Power. Government of India. Jobson. 35–39. M. Sharma. 2004. Meagher. A.. P. Imhoff. Garg..osc. Report No. D. 1998.E. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 1073–1082 Environment Acts Rules and Notifications. F. Atmospheric Environment 35. Gurjar. A.T.in.. Operation Manual of IMR 2800P Flue Gas Analyzer. for selecting us to execute the project.C.. Journal of Geophysical Research 103. Government of West Bengal.. J. 2002. Mohan. R. TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute). /www. Environmental management for clean power generation of thermal power plants: an Indian perspective. Regional and sectoral assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in India... Hubler. with their valued advice in doing this project. M..J. 2679–2695. 2003b. D. Holloway. Gillani.. Government of India. http://indiabudget. Dhanbad. J.S.. Valente. 1992.. B. We also acknowledge the support extended by National Physical Laboratory.. I. T. Martinez.C. R. M. AMBIO 31. S.V.L. Kuster.edu/research/pcrm/emissions/ India.iges. R. 1. References Chandra. Dadhwal.shtmlS..F... 2001a.. N...nic. J. Emission estimates and trends (1990–2000) for mega city Delhi and implication. Delhi.. ipcc-nggip. Atmospheric Environment 3.T. S. Atmospheric Environment 38. West Bengal Pollution Control Board (Government of West Bengal) and authorities of different power plants in West Bengal for their active support in executing this project. C. Williams. 2003.. 1998. Fehsenfeld.or. Tanner.. March 1999..M..htmS. J. Sueper. Frost. 291–294.D. 22569–22583. /www.D. Composite results based on data from 10 field measurement days. Central Pollution Control Board (Government of India). 22593–22615. The present study sets the direction to such an endeavor. Ozone pollution in the urban environment of Delhi. Ryerson. Department of Environment. McKeen. Relative production of ozone and nitrates in urban and rural power plant plumes. K..L. M. Aggarwal. 22–36. M. R. Mittal.. /http://www.F.V. C. K.. Trainer. Bhattacharya. Jorge.. We are grateful to United Nations Development Programme and Winrock International India for their financial support in executing this project.. Chakraborty et al. Anthropogenic emissions from energy activities in India: generation and source characterization. M..J.. Goldan. we express our thanks to the authorities of Jadavpur University. Lastly. A. 2001.. Chandra. This will certainly help to determine the total emission as well as strategies of reduction of the GHGs’ from thermal plants in India. Varshney. edu/research/pcrm/emissions/contents. . Modeling anthropogenic emissions from energy activities in India: generation and source characterization.B. URL: /http://www.. Luria. H. Government of National Capital Territory. Indian Journal of Air Pollution Control 3 (1). G.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1082 N.pdfS.. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Shukla. without whose all-out support it would not have been possible to make this endeavor a success. R. State of environment report for Delhi 2001. Roberts. W. Part I: emissions from thermal power generation in India.P.. Ministry of Power and Ministry of Environment and Forest. Van Aardenne.P. 2000EE65..J.comS. Parrish. Lelieveld. M.osc.. New Delhi. Government of West Bengal.jp/public/gp/gpgaum. Manzini. Central Fuel Research Institute. Emissions lifetimes and ozone formation in power plant plumes.. Renewable energies in electricity generation for reduction of greenhouse gases in Mexico 2025.A. Acknowledgments We express our gratitude to the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Journal of Geophysical Research 103. imrusa. J. G.. Buhr. be conducted at all such thermal power plants in India. 5663–5681.B. Supported by the Department of Environment.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful