International Conference

on

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development

Sustainable Energy Development from Thermal Power Plants

Krishnamurthy.Na*, Mohan Krishna.Sb, Kuldeep.Sb, Raghu.Nb, Nagendra.Kb
a
Professor, SET-Jain University,Bangalore, India
b
Assistant Professor, SET-Jain University , Bangalore, India
* Tel:+91 (080)27577200, E-mail: smk87.genx@gmail.com

Abstract

The emission of green house gases is primarily responsible for global warming, which has already reached alarming stage. The pollutants
from burning of fossil fuels causes emission of green house gases. The single largest source of GHG emission is from thermal power plants.
The paper reviews the emission of green house gases and incidentally other pollutants from thermal power plants, the extent to which they are
emitted and various methods to mitigate the effects of these pollutants are discussed. Also, it is concluded that consensual efforts are been
made by government, corporate sectors and UN agencies and related sectors to reduce carbon emission. In spite of these efforts the outcome
is still not significant. The reasons for these are discussed and also economic considerations in achieving the social objectives are also dealt
with.

Keywords:Carbon credit, FGD, SCR, Sustainability, Sequestration.

Introduction to Sustainability of energy:-

The economic and social progress of any country is mainly reflected by the growth of power sector and transportation. In power
sector the growth is centered around the development of new power plants like thermal, hydro, wind, photovoltaic, biomass,
geothermal, etc. The power plants, based on fossil fuels will produce more pollutants or particles to atmosphere resulting in
environmental pollution. In the upstream while manufacturing, the equipments required to install power plants will also
consume some energy and due to this there will be environmental pollution. In transportation sector growth is taking place
implies, the number of vehicles will increase, due to this there is an increase in pollution in environment, due to exhaust gases
which are produced from the vehicles while commuting. Moreover while manufacturing vehicles; energy is consumed to make
different parts of vehicles. All these operations contribute to the net energy consumption leading to more impact on the
environment. Our objective is to achieve multitude of developments with least pollution to the environment and disturbance of
the ecology, so as to ensure the balance between growth and environment. Sustainability plays a major role in the electrical
generation industry as the latter contributes approximately 37% of the global Green house gas emissions [5]. Whenever there is
growth in the energy sector, care should be taken to ensure that the ill effects caused to the surroundings and living beings
should be minimum. The growth of energy on this principle is sustainable growth.

The most robust tool to assess the sustainability impacts of a technology or system is life-cycle assessment or analysis (LCA).
LCA is a frame work that allows for the systematic assessment of a system or technologies impacts on the environmental,
human health & resource through a full cycle of use, from raw material extraction to end-of-life management & disposal. This
often includes there supply chain of products required for manufacture or production; for example, the environmental impact of
steel production will be consideration in the LCA of coal plants because of the steel used in plant construction. LCA use
existing data sets to analyze material & energy flows and assign environmental impacts to all those materials flows. The method
of conducting LCA is defined according to internationally recognized international organization of standardization (ISO) 14040
standards. There are four phases of a LCA:

1. Goal and scope definition.

2. Inventory analysis.

3. Impact assessment.

4. Interpretation of results

Since the 1950s, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity have increased. This has been linked to increasing
ambient CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007). In 1996, the inter governmental panel on climate change (IPCC)
described some of the negative impacts of increased atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, including global mean temperature rise,
increase in ocean levels and stronger tropical storms. These impacts are collectively referred to as climate change. CO 2
emission from the combustion of fossil fuels is the largest contributor to green house gas (GHG) emissions.Application of
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on new and existing power plants has the ability to reduce CO 2 emissions from power
production. The utilities and policy makers are considering the wide-spread implementation of CCS technology on new and
existing coal plants to curb GHG emissions from the power generation sector. However, the implementation of CCS systems
will have many other social, economic and environmental impacts beyond curbing GHG emissions that must be considered to
achieve sustainable energy generation. For example, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X), Sulphur oxides (SOX) and particulate
matter (PM) are also important environmental concerns for coal fired power plants. If the parasitic energy consumption of a
carbon capture plant increases the emissions of one of these other air pollutants, the technology should not be viewed as
sustainable or environmental friendly. In fact, some of these “external” or “tangential” impacts may prove to be equally
important and prevent the successful and sustainable implementation of CCS technology on a large scale.

Definition: “Meeting the needs of the current generation while not impeding future generations to meet their own needs” .

Effects of emissions from Thermal power plant

These are basically unburnt carbon particles, ash and hazardous particles of SO X and NOX compounds. Table 1 compares the
coal samples used at Chandrapur Thermal Power Plant (India) with that of Ohio (USA) coal fired power plant. The composition
clearly shows traces of Nitrogen, Sulphur and ash present.

Table 1: Comparison of Coal Samples of Chandrapur thermal power plant and Ohio coal fired power plant

Chandrapur ( India) Ohio (USA)

1. Fixed Carbon 27.5% 44%
2. Total Carbon 37.69% 64.2%
3. Hydrogen 2.66% 5%
4. Nitrogen 1.07% 1.3%
5. Oxygen (difference) 5.78% 11.8%
6. Sulphur 0.8% 1.8%
7. Ash 47% 16%
8. Total moisture 5% 2.8%
9. Gross calorific value (Kcal/kg) 3400 6378
10. Coal per unit of electricity (kg/kWh) 0.77 0.36

The particle matter particularly under fog conditions gives rise to smog which impairs visibility to a great extent and it can
deposit on plants and crops resulting in truncated growth. Moreover, though these particles may not stay in the atmosphere for
long, their ill effects are substantial. They may be removed by rain or wind but when it is blown by wind, it affects the
neighboring areas.
Typical example is the gross ill effects on vegetation in the island of Kyushu of Japan due to particulate matter
emitted over China and blown over to Kyushu. From emission of SO x and NOx, as can be seen from Table 1, leads to increased
acidity in the atmosphere. The average pH value of the atmosphere has very much increased in UK and other countries
compared to Norway and Sweden. The ill effects of SO x apart from the above shown, are many, which include aggravation of
asthma or other respiratory symptoms, increased mortality, corrosion of metals , deterioration of electrical contacts, paper,
textiles, formation of acid rain etc. NO x also contributes to the aggravation of respiratory and other associated illness, fading of
paints and dyes etc. The hazardous gases, namely SO x and NOx can be eliminated from the flue gases by various methods. This
paper confines itself to the study of the following SOx and NOx control mechanisms.

Removal of SOX from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems

Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) is one of the most popular set of technologies used to remove Sulphur dioxide (SO 2) content
from the exhaust flue gases of coal fired power plants. The FGD system is essentially installed between the boiler/furnace and
the stack. The flue gases are desulfurized by chemical scrubbing action. Some of the common methods used are:

• Wet scrubbing using a slurry of alkaline sorbent, usually limestone or lime, or seawater to scrub gases;
• Spray-dry scrubbing using similar sorbent slurries;
• Wet sulphuric acid process recovering sulphur in the form of commercial quality sulphuric acid;
• SNOX Flue gas desulfurization removes sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates from flue gases;
• Dry sorbent injection systems. (A sorbent is a material used to absorb or adsorb liquids or gases).
Figure 1. Shows a basic layout of the FGD technology used in the fossil fuel based power plants.
 Fig.1. FGD technology used in fossil fuel based power plants [2].

For a typical coal-fired power station, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) will remove 95% or more of the SO2 in the flue gases.
Most FGD systems employ two stages: one for fly ash removal and the other for SO 2 removal. Attempts have been made to
remove both the fly ash and SO2 in one scrubbing vessel. However, these systems experienced severe maintenance problems
and low removal efficiency. In wet scrubbing systems, the flue gas normally passes first through a fly ash removal device,
either an electrostatic precipitator or a wet scrubber, and then into the SO 2-absorber. However, in dry injection or spray drying
operations, the SO2 is first reacted with the sorbent, and then the flue gas passes through a particulate control device.
Another important design consideration associated with wet FGD systems is that the flue gas exiting the
absorber is saturated with water and still contains some SO 2. These gases are highly corrosive to any downstream equipment
such as fans, ducts, and stacks.

Selective Catalytic Reduction for removal of NOX

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a means of converting nitrogen oxides, also referred to as NO X with the aid of a catalyst
into diatomic nitrogen, N 2, and water, H2O. A gaseous reducant , typically anhydrous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia or urea, is
added to a stream of flue or exhaust gas in presence a catalyst. Carbon dioxide [CO2] is a reaction product when urea is used as
the reducant. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is a method of converting harmful oxides of nitrogen (NO X) emissions, by
catalytic reaction, into benign nitrogen gas and water. SCR can deliver near-zero emissions of NO X, an acid rain and smog-
causing pollutant and greenhouse gas, in modern highway clean diesel engines. Commercial selective catalytic reduction
systems are typically found on large utility boilers, industrial boilers, and municipal solid waste boilers and have been shown to
reduce NOX by 70-95%. More recent applications include diesel engines, such as those found on large ships, diesel
locomotives, gas turbines, and even automobiles. The commercially used catalyst materials are an active phase vanadium
pentoxide and tungsten trioxide on a carrier of titanium.
The flue gas containing undesirable NO X is passed through the SCR reactor. Ammonia (NH 3) is also injected into
the SCR reactor. Reaction takes place in the presence of catalyst and ammonia reacts with NO X to form Nitrogen and Water.
Under optimum flow conditions, with temperature range 320 – 4000 C, NO X removal efficiency is about 90%. Figure 2 shows
the basic schematic of a SCR reactor used for selective catalytic reduction.
 Fig.2. Schematic of SCR Reactor for removal of SOX from flue gas

Carbon Credit and Carbon exchange

A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide
or the mass of another greenhouse gas with a carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2e) equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide.
Carbon credits are an immediate answer to reducing the amount of Green House Gas (GHGs) emissions in the atmosphere. The
generation and sale of carbon credits funds carbon projects which would not have gone ahead i.e. additional to business as
usual. Carbon credits also help lower the costs of renewable and low carbon technologies as well as assisting in the technology
transfer to developing countries. The Environment Protection Authority of Victoria defines a carbon credit as a “Generic term to
assign a value to a reduction or offset of greenhouse gas emissions, usually equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2-e)”. Carbon credits and carbon markets are a component of national and international attempts to mitigate the
growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Carbon credits can be generated from various types of projects
including:

* Renewable energy: a switch from fossil fuels to a ‘clean’ energy e.g. wind and solar energy

* Forestation and Afforestation: The planting of new trees as trees sequester and store CO2 e.g. forest regeneration

* Energy efficiency: reducing emissions though an increase in energy efficiency e.g. installation of energy-efficient machinery

* Methane capture: avoiding methane emissions through capture and burning to create energy e.g. landfill methane capture

Table 2: Currently available Control Technologies in use for Reduction of Emissions of Air Toxics from Coal- fired power
plants.

Control Technology Pollutants controlled Technology Power plants using this

technology

Wet flue gas Collateral pollutants, Liquid mixed with 144(32%)

desulfurization (FGD) Sulphur dioxide, limestone is sprayed into
scrubbers. particulate matter the emission, producing
wet solid by products.
Sulphur oxides react with
limestone to form calcium
sulphite and calcium
 sulphate.

Dry flue gas Collateral pollutants, Emissions are passed

desulfurization (FGD)
scrubbers.
Sulphur dioxide, through a stream of liquid
particulate matter mixed with lime or a bed 64 (14%)
of basic material such as
limestone, forming salts
which are captured using
PM controls.

Fluidized bed combustion Collateral pollutants, Combustion technology

(FBC) sulphur dioxide more efficient than
conventional boilers, airs 6 (1%)
blown through a bed of
limestone and fuel during
combustion.

Electrostatic precipitator Collateral pollutants, other Particles are charged with

(ESP) forms of primary electricity and collected on
particulate matter. oppositely charged plates, 333 (71%)
particles are cpllected for
disposal/further treatment.

Baghouse Collateral pollutants, other Emissions passed through

forms of primary fabric filters and collected.
particulate matter. 157 (35%)

There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in
lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters purchase the credits from an investment fund or a
carbon development company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. Buyers and sellers can also use an
exchange platform to trade, such as the Carbon Trade Exchange, which is like a stock exchange for carbon credits. The
mechanism was formalized in the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement between more than 170 countries, and the market
mechanisms were agreed through the subsequent Marrakesh Accords. The mechanism adopted was similar to the successful US
Acid Rain Program to reduce some industrial pollutants.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the 'caps' or quotas for Greenhouse gases for the developed Annex 1 countries are
known as Assigned Amounts and are listed in Annex B. The quantity of the initial assigned amount is denominated in individual
units, called Assigned amount units (AAUs), each of which represents an allowance to emit one metric tonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent, and these are entered into the country's national registry. Table 3 shows the Countries included in Annex B to the
Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period and their emissions targets.
Table 3: List of countries included in Annex B of the Kyoto protocol

Target (1990** -
Country
2008/2012)

EU-15*, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco,

-8%
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland

US -7%

Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland -6%

 Croatia -5%

New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine 0

Norway +1%

Australia +8%

Iceland +10%

Apart from giving incentives like carbon credit to reduce carbon emission there are serious efforts for completely removing
CO2 from flue gases which is known as carbon scrubbing or carbon capturing.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

There are several methods of capturing CO 2 and the CO2 so captured is transferred to suitable sites for storage. In order to
prevent the CO2 from escaping to the atmosphere, post combustion carbon capture, works by isolating CO 2 from the other flue
gases after combustion. Several methods have evolved to scrub CO 2, from flue gas and using a liquid solvent. Two solvents
commonly used for this purpose are aqueous ammonia and monoethanolamine (MEA). The method is as fallows; after the
fossil fuel is burned in the air, the resulting gases (flue gas) are collected and chilled. The solvent is then added which absorbs
CO2, forming a reversible chemical reaction. The new compound separates out from the other gases by entering a more solid
state that gets pumped to a new chamber and reheated. The heat causes the CO 2 to come out of the solution so that it can be
diverted for storage. One of the disadvantages of solvent process is that excess heat may decompose MEA releasing toxic
substances to atmosphere. Other methods of carbon capturing are:

• Polymer membrane gas separators, where the membrane prevents CO2 from passing while other gases are allowed to pass
• Photosynthesis e.g. Algae based carbon sink
• Cooling the flue gases to a temperature that forces CO2 to condense out of the solution for separation
• Pre combustion capture which is widely used in fertilizer, chemical, gaseous fuel (H 2, CH4) and power production. In
these cases the fossil fuel is partially oxidized, for instance in a gasifier. The resulting syngas (CO&H 2O) is shifted into CO2,
and H2 . The resulting CO2 can be captured from a relatively pure exhaust stream. The H 2 can now be used as fuel, thus CO 2 is
removed before combustion take place.
• Oxy fuel combustion: here carbon is burned in oxygen instead of air. The fuel gas consists of mainly CO2 and water
vapour, the latter of which is an almost pure CO2 stream in the fuel gas which can be transported for stor[m]ing. It is also called
zero emission process.

Transport:

After capture CO2would have to be transported to suitable storage sites. This is done by pipeline, which is generally the
cheapest form of transport. In 2008, there were approximately 5800Km of CO 2pipelines in the United States used to transport
CO2 to oil fields. While transporting extreme ca[s]re is to be taken to avoid leakage.

Carbon di oxide sequestration:

Various forms have been conceived for permanent storage of CO 2 .These forms include gaseous storage in various deep
geological formations (saline formations and exhausted gas fields) with metal oxides to produce stable carbonates.

Geological storage:

CO2 is sometimes injected into declining oil fields to increase oil recovery. Approximately 30to 50 million metric tonnes of CO 2
are injected annually in the United States into declining oil fields.
Energy Storage:

The energy requirements of sequestration processes may be significant. It is quoted that sequestration consumed 25% of the
plant’s rated 600MW output capacity. After adding CO 2 capture and storage, the capacity of the 600MW coal fired power plant
is effectively reduced to 457MW.

Carbon di oxide recycling/ carbon capture and utilization (CCU)

• The CO2 and other captured green house gases are injected into the membranes containing waste water and select strains of
algae together with sunlight or UV light causing an oil rich biomass that doubles in mass every 24hrs
• The bioCCS algal synthesis process is based on earth photo synthesis. The [ex]capital outlay on such a plant may offer a
return upon investment due to the high value commodities produces (oil for plastics, fuel & feed)
• Bio CCS algal synthesis test facilities are being trailed at Australia’s three largest coal fired power stations (Tarong, Queens
land: Erering, NSW; Loyyang Vistoria)

Limitations of CCS for power stations and cost considerations:-

Critics say that large scale CCS deployment is unproven and decades away from being commercialized. They say it is risky and
expensive and that a better option is renewable energy, some environmental groups say that CCS technology leaves behind
dangerous waste material that has to be stored just like nuclear power stations.
Another limitation of CCS is its energy penalty. The technology is expected to use 10 to 40 % of energy produced by a power
station. Wide scale adoption of CCS may erase efficiency gains in coal power plants of the last 50 years and increase resource
consumption by one third. Overall levels of CO2 abatement would remain high at approximately 80 – 90 %, compared to a plant
without CCS. It is possible for CCS when combined with biomass, to result in net negative emissions. Though all of the
currently (as on Feb 2011) operational BECCS (Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) plants operate on point emissions
rather than power stations, such as biofuel refineries. The use of CCS can reduce CO 2 emissions from stacks of coal power
plants by 85 – 90 % but it has no effect on CO 2 emissions due to the mining and transport of coal, it will actually increase such
emissions and of air pollutants per unit of net delivered power and will increase all ecological, land-use air pollution, and water
pollution impacts from coal mining, transport and processing because the CCS system requires 25% more energy, thus 25%
more coal combustion than does a system without CCS.
Another concern regards the performance of storage schemes. Opponents to CCS claim that safe and permanent storage of CO 2
cannot be guaranteed and that even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation effect.

Cost:

Although the processes involved in CCS have been demonstrated in other industrial applications, no commercial scale projects
which integrate these processes exist; the costa therefore are somewhat uncertain, some recent credible estimates indicates that
a carbon price of US $60 per ton is required to make capture and storage competitive, corresponding to an increase in electricity
prices of about US 60 cents per KWh (Based on typical coal-fired power plant emissions of 2.13 pounds CO 2 per KWh). This
would double the typical US industrial electricity price (now at around 60 cents per KWh) and increase in the typical retail
residential electricity price by 50%. The reason that CCS is expected to cause such power price increases are several. Firstly
the increase in energy requirement for capturing and compressing CO 2 significantly raises the operating cost of CCS equipped
power plant. In addition there are added investment and capital costs. The process would increase fuel requirement of a plant
with CCS by about 25% for a coal fired plant and about 15% for a gas fired plant.

Conclusion:

The development of energy which is so essential for over all development of developing countries and alleviation of poverty
has to be done in a sustainable manner. Towards this goal, efforts are put by various agencies, but still the outcome is not
significant. It is concluded by the survey that, though some progress has been made, there is still a long way to go for achieving
the objectives of green, clean and sustainable energy.

References:

[1] Soli.J.Arceivala and Shyam Asolekar, “Environmental studies”, Tata Mc Graw Hill, 2012.
[2] S.Rao, B.B.Parulekar, “ Energy Technology: Non conventional, Renewable and conventional”, Khanna Publishers, 3rd
edition, 2009.
[3] Jie Zhou.etal, “A Comprehensive model for evaluation of Carbon Footprint and green house gases emission from Biogas
plants”, Third International Conference on digital manufacturing and Automation, 2012.
[4] Hua Honghan.etal, “Carbon Footprint of Energy consumption and environmental impact in Autonomous Regions of
china”, International Conference on computer distributed control and intelligent environmental monitoring, 2012.
[5] www.ipcc.ch
[6] “ Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources”, World Nuclear
Association Report.
[7] J.Becher, S.Finucane, S.Jones, “ Maximising Sustainability in a Coal-fired Power Station”, Coolimba Power Project,
IAIA08, pp. 1-5.
[8] N.Krishnamurthy, S.Mohan Krishna, “ Recent developments in study of Carbon Footprint, its measurement and
mitigation”, Proceedings of The International Conference on Energy, Environment and Ecofriendly buildings, Sep 2013.