Grammelis Et Al-2004-International Journal of Energy Research PDF

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:799–815 (DOI: 10.1002/er.996)
The perspectives of energy production from coal-fired power

plants in an enlarged EU
P. Grammelis1,2, E. Kakaras1,2,n,y and N. Koukouzas1

1
Centre for Research & Technology Hellas (CERTH), Institute for Solid Fuels Technology and Applications,
4th km Ptolemais–Kozani road, Ptolemais 502 00, Greece
2
Laboratory of Steam Boilers and Thermal Plants, Mechanical Engineering Department, National Technical University of
Athens, 9, Heroon Polytechniou Ave., Zografou Athens 157 80, Greece
SUMMARY
The aim of this paper is to present the current status of the coal-fired power sector in an enlarged EU
(EU-15 plus EU member candidate states) in relation with the main topics of the European Strategy for the
energy production and supply. It is estimated that 731 thermoelectric units, larger than 100 MWe, are
operating nowadays, and their total installed capacity equals to 200.7 GWe. Coal contribution to the total
electricity generation with reference to other fuel sources, is by far more intensive in the non-EU part (EU
member candidate states), compared to the EU member states. It is expected that even after the
enlargement, the European Union will strongly being related to coal. Enlargement will bring additional
factors into play in order to meet the requirements of rising consumption, growing demand for
conventional fuels and increasing dependence on imports. Besides the technology, boiler size, efficiency, age
and environmental performance will determine the necessities of the coal-fired power sector in each
country. Depending on the case, lifetime extension measures in operating coal-fired power plants or clean
coal technologies can play an important role towards the energy sector restructuring. Low efficiency values
in the non-EU coal-fired units and heavily aged power plants in EU countries will certainly affect decisions
in favour of upgrading or reconstruction.
The overall increase of efficiency, the reduction of harmful emissions from generating processes and the
co-combustion of coal with biomass and wastes for generating purposes indicate that coal can be cleaner
and more efficient. Additionally, plenty of rehabilitation projects based on CCT applications, have already
been carried out or are under progress in the EU energy sector. The proclamations of the countries’ energy
policies in the coming decades, includes integrated renovation concepts of the coal-fired power sector.
Further to the natural gas penetration in the electricity generation and CO2 sequestration and underground
storage, the implementation of CCT projects will strongly contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions in
the European Union, according to the targets set in the Kyoto protocol. In consequence, clean coal
technologies can open up new markets not only in the EU member candidate states, but also in other parts
of the world. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: clean coal technologies; electricity generation; rehabilitation; CO2 reduction
n
Correspondence to: Dr E. Kakaras, Mechanical Engineering Department, NTUA, 9 Heroon Polytechniou Ave.,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece.
y
E-mail: ekak@central.ntua.gr
Contract/grant sponsor: European Commission; contract/grant number: 4.1004/D 99-006
Received 9 May 2003

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 8 August 2003
800 P. GRAMMELIS, E. KAKARAS AND N. KOUKOUZAS
1. INTRODUCTION
Coal has been for the last two decades and will continue to be a key source for electric power
generation in Europe and worldwide, although a short reduction of its share is expected due to
the increased use of natural gas. In 2020, coal is projected to account for nearly 34% of the
world’s electricity consumption, compared with 36% in 1997, Figure 1 (CSFTA-VGB, 2000).
Within the scope of the concept to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto
protocol, the need to assess the prospects for CO2 reduction from the coal-fired power
generation arises. The targets fixed in Kyoto}a reduction of CO2 and five other greenhouse
gases by 8% by 2008–2012 compared with 1990 levels was agreed}will oblige the European
Union to reduce the annual emissions by 272 Mt of CO2 until 2010. According to the various
scenarios, the replacement of coal and oil by natural gas in electricity generation, could lead to a
31% reduction in EU CO2 emissions, while the sequestration and underground storage of CO2
from electricity plants could reduce EU CO2 emissions by 30%. The second scenario could
result to an increase of the cost of coal by 60% and that of natural gas by 30–40% and of course
risks of long-term management of such storage have to be addressed. Another solution could be
the increased use of renewable energy sources combined with energy efficiency and CO2 capture
and underground storage. The development of the last technology is still under progress,
since storage risks and uncertainties have to be minimized, while technology implementation
cost should be dramatically reduced, especially referred to the capture process. However, to
be more realistic, only technologies, which are currently beyond the research phase, can serve
the Kyoto targets. CO2 reduction can be attained in an economically viable way, by increasing
the conversion efficiency of thermal units through the use of cleaner and more efficient
solid fuels technologies. As a result of the increased conversion efficiencies, CO2 emissions are
reduced by 10–15% for each 5-percentage-point improvement in conversion efficiency (IEA
Coal Research, 1999). Except from improving the steam characteristics and thus the efficiency,
clean coal technologies (CCT) contribute to the more economical use of solid fuels and
incidentally to the CO2 emissions reduction, hence, the importance of CCT, amongst the other
energy technologies.
Percent 1997 2020

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Electricity Non-Electricity Total
Figure 1. Coal share of world energy consumption by sector, 1997 and 2020.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:799–815
THE PERSPECTIVES OF ENERGY PRODUCTION 801
Furthermore, environmental concerns in Western Europe play an important role in the

competition among coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power. With respect to gas and oil, coal
produces more pollutants, because of the lower heating value and more CO2, due to the higher
ratio C/H. Since November 2001, the new LCP enforces the EU member States to even stricter
emission limit values. Additionally, the candidate member states have to finalize the operation
model of their power systems in an EU-conform manner. The improvement of the
environmental performance of coal-fired power plants in the enlarged EU is of crucial
importance in order to achieve the above-mentioned targets.
Among the main objectives of this work were first to present the main characteristics and
current status of the coal-fired power plants with capacity higher than 100 MWe within the
European Union and the candidate member states. Following, the future prospects of coal
electricity generation and CCT applications are presented in accordance with the European
policy on energy production and supply.
2. CURRENT STATUS OF ENLARGED EU COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT PARK
2.1. Capacity and main technological characteristics

The Power Plant Park with capacity higher than 100 MWe, burning coal}covering hard coal,
lignite, peat, anthracite and oil shale}both for EU and non-EU countries is illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3, respectively (CSFTA-VGB, 2000; EC DG-JRC, 2001). Coal-fired power
plants larger than 100 MWe are installed in 24 out of the 30 countries under investigation.
Capacity and Number of Large (>100MWe) Coal-fired

Thermal Units for EU member countries
60000 200
Capacity, MWe
50000 No. of thermal units
160
No. of thermal units

Capacity, MWe
40000
120
30000
80
20000
40
10000
0 0
Italy
Germany
Ireland
France
Greece
Luxembourg
Portugal
Finland
Belgium
Sweden
Netherlands
Spain
Denmark
United Kingdom
Austria
Country
Figure 2. The coal-fired power sector with thermal units of capacity higher than 100 MWe, in the
European Union (CSFTA-VGB, 2000; EC DG-JRC, 2001).
Capacity and Number of Large (>100MWe) Coal-fired

Thermal Units for non-EU member countries
20000 200
Capacity, MWe
16000 160

Capacity, MWe
12000 120
8000 80
4000 40
0 0
Bulgaria
Hungary
Turkey
Fyrom
Latvia
Lithouania
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Malta
Romania
Poland
Estonia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Albania
Country
Figure 3. The coal-fired power sector with thermal units of capacity higher than 100 MWe, in the non-EU
countries (CSFTA-VGB, 2000).
Luxembourg, Cyprus, Latvia and Lithouania do not have thermal power plants burning coal.
Only thermal units of low capacity are installed in Albania and Malta. It is observed that the
installed capacity of the non-EU countries is almost 13 of the EU coal-fired power plant park.
Furthermore, it is more than evident the massive use of coal in Germany and U.K. and the
medium in Italy, France and Spain. From the non-EU countries, Poland has the greater share
and then Czech Republic, Romania and Turkey follow. Compared to the installed capacity of
coal-fired power plants, including the lower than 100 MWe units, great differences are observed
for Germany, U.K., Denmark, Czech Republic and Estonia, where many units of small size are
installed.
It is worth to notice the increased coal presence in the electricity generation capacity of
Denmark, Poland, Fyrom, Czech Republic, U.K., Germany, Greece and Bulgaria with respect
to other fuel resources. In Estonia, installed capacity is almost exclusively based on oil-shale use.
Coal contribution to the total electricity generation with reference to other fuel sources, is by far
more intensive in the non-EU part (52.5%), compared to the EU member states (29.5%) (EIA,
2000; EC, 2000). The utilization of coal-fired power plants is higher in Germany and EU
candidate member states. Specifically, the coal power sector in Germany represents 25.7%
of total installed capacity, while its share in the electricity generation is higher, up to 29.2%.
The respective percentages of coal-installed capacity and electricity generation in EU member
candidate states are 21.4 and 23.4%. This trend changes inversely in the other EU area,
indicating that the utilization level in these countries is lower.
Boiler average capacity varies from 150 for Belgium and 110 of Slovakia up to 420 of the
United Kingdom and 250 of Romania. The boilers in the non-EU countries are of lower
capacity compared to the EU members and this is mainly attributed to the reduced economic
activities. As a consequence, the average value of boiler capacity drops to 274 MWe for the
enlarged EU. West European countries prefer to construct large coal-fired units as both fuel
conversion efficiency and economical electricity generation, are increased with the unit size. In
recent years, the tendency for units that are below 30 years has been to construct boilers of
higher capacity. In this way, average capacity of recently installed boilers in enlarged EU
increases up to 317 MWe, compared to the size of 200 MWe, which is the mean value for the
aged units.
2.2. Age and obsolescence level of the coal-fired power plants

Coal-fired generating plants have traditionally been built with an assumed nominal design and
economic life of about 30 years. However, many power plants are now operating exceeding this
time limit. The classification of the EU and non-EU coal-fired power plants according to their
age is illustrated in Figure 4(a) and 4(b). The EU power plants (Figure 4(a)) are more
homogeneously distributed in the three age ranges and 29% of EU capacity (MWe), consisting
of 195 units, is over 30 years old. The majority of the aged units are of low capacity, while the
recently constructed boilers have larger size. The maximum value of the capacity (MWe) appears
in the 25–30 years range, while most of the units are between 30 and 35 years old. On the other
hand, 46% of installed capacity or 104 units of the non-EU thermoelectric units are between 20
and 30 years, while only 20% has exceeded the 30 years lifespan. It is concluded that the non-
EU coal-fired power plant park is more recently developed compared to the EU. Similar
conclusions are either drawn when examining the EU and non-EU parts as a whole. Almost
27% of enlarged EU installed capacity has exceeded 30 years, while the rest of capacity is
equally distributed in the two age ranges, i.e. below 20 years and between 20 and 30 years. This
means that aged units constitute a significant portion of the coal-fired power sector and they
have to be retrofitted or replaced by new installations, in order to continue to produce electricity
in a reliable and economic way.
The lifetime extension of the coal-fired power plants as much as 50–60 years can offer several
technical and economical advantages. Namely, it can improve the power plant performance in
an economically beneficial manner, by increasing the availability, reliability and heat rate. The
power plant safety is also improved and environmental protection measures are enhanced,
aiming to meet the new and stricter environmental constraints. Last but not least, efficiency of
thermal units is increased, leading to cost and fuel savings, as well as low CO2 emission values.
In order to evaluate the existing power plants status for each country and consequently the need
for the performance of lifetime extension measures, a statistical technique, the ‘weighted average
age (WAA)’ was developed through the following formula:
P
Z MWi
Weighted average age ¼ Pi i ð1Þ
i MWi
where i denotes a coal-fired thermoelectric unit, H the age of the unit and MW capacity of the unit.
The ‘WAA’ provides information about the age and obsolescence level of the power plants.
The calculated results indicate statistically which countries should be mostly interested in
extending the life of their coal-fired plants, as one of the most cost-effective options for meeting
Percentage of capacity (%) Number of units

24 200
22 180
of EU coal-fired power plants

20
Percentage of total capacity 160
18
140
16
No of units
14 120
12 100
10 80
8
60
6
40
4
2 20
0 0
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 >40
(a) Years
Percentage of capacity (%) Number of units

26 60
24
22
of non-EU coal-fired power plants
50
Percentage of total capacity
20
18
40
No of units
16
14
30
12
10
20
8
6
4 10
2
0 0
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 >40
(b) Years
Figure 4. (a) Classification of the EU coal-fired power plants in several age ranges, according to their
capacity (MWe) and number of units (CSFTA-VGB, 2000; EC DG-JRC, 2001). (b) Classification of the
non-EU coal-fired power plants in several age ranges, according to their capacity (MWe) and number of
units (CSFTA-VGB, 2000).
their future energy requirements. Belgium, United Kingdom, France and Sweden in EU
(Figure 5) and Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland and Bulgaria in the non-EU part (Figure 6)
seem to urgently need lifetime extension measures. On the other hand, Portugal, Netherlands,
Finland and Austria in EU (Figure 5) and Turkey with Fyrom in the non-EU part (Figure 6)
have rather new coal-fired power plant parks. With the exception of Turkey and Fyrom, all
other East European countries have rather high ‘WAA’ values, but in average lower than the
‘WAA’ value for the EU area. This is the result of the heavily aged coal-fired power plants
possessed by Belgium, U.K. and France and in sequence by Italy and Germany. The improved
situation of the coal-fired power sector of Czech Republic is more than evident after the
35
30
Weighted Average Age 25
20
15
10
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Belgium
Portugal
Ireland
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Spain
Finland
Austria
Greece
France
Luxembourg
EU country
Figure 5. WAA of the coal-fired power plants for the EU countries
(CSFTA-VGB, 2000; EC DG-JRC, 2001).
35
30
Weighted Average Age
25
20
15
10
0
Malta
Cyprus
Fyrom
Romania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Turkey
Lithouania
Albania
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Poland
Czech Republic
Non-EU country
Figure 6. ‘WAA’ of the coal-fired power plants for the non-EU countries (CSFTA-VGB, 2000).
significant reconstruction activities undertaken in the country, in the last years. However, one
should always keep in mind the great size difference of the EU and non-EU coal-fired power
plant parks and, that comparisons should be made according to the installed capacity that has
to be modernized.
Aiming to provide more detailed information on the obsolescence level of the coal-fired plants
in each country, the ‘WAA’ was calculated using the power plant data separated in three ranges,
i.e. over 30 years, between 20 and 30 years and below 20 years. The calculated results of the
‘WAA’ of the 3 year ranges for the EU and non-EU countries are reported in Tables I and II.
It is obvious that there are serious differences in the statistical level of obsolescence between
the three ranges and the overall initial evaluation. The below 20 years range shows that
‘WAA’ values vary from 8.2 to 17.2, indicating that the obsolescence level depends on the
Table I. WAA values of the 3 year ranges for the EU.

A/A Country name Below 20 years Between 20 and 30 years Over 30 years
1 Austria 14.77 0.00 39.43
2 Belgium 14.00 24.32 36.17
3 Denmark 9.81 25.83 33.84
4 Finland 8.20 24.22 37.33
5 France 17.02 27.61 34.14
6 Germany 12.56 26.32 36.13
7 Greece 13.48 26.48 36.50
8 Ireland 13.67 0.00 0.00
9 Italy 8.03 27.76 34.64
10 Luxembourg 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 Netherlands 11.23 20.00 35.10
12 Portugal 10.83 0.00 0.00
13 Spain 17.22 24.51 34.05
14 Sweden 13.00 28.41 0.00
15 United Kingdom 15.81 27.91 33.25
EU 12.76 26.69 34.71
Table II. WAA values of the 3 year ranges for the non-EU countries.
A/A Country name Below 20 years Between 20 and 30 years Over 30 years
1 Bulgaria 13.95 24.30 32.58
2 Cyprus 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 Czech Republic 14.31 25.08 33.98
4 Estonia 0.00 28.67 36.05
5 Hungary 14.00 29.12 31.00
6 Latvia 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 Lithouania 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 Malta 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 Poland 8.01 25.13 35.31
10 Romania 13.99 23.95 33.01
11 Slovakia 8.25 24.00 33.75
12 Slovenia 0.00 25.22 0.00
13 Turkey 11.88 23.75 0.00
14 Albania 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 Fyrom 14.67 0.00 0.00
non-EU 12.15 25.15 34.49
Enlarged EU 12.62 26.23 34.67
commissioning year of the new coal-fired power plants in each country. The graph of 20–30
years range shows two distinctive ranges. In the lower one, eight countries are included with
values between 20 and 25. In the higher range from 26 to 28, power plants from France, U.K.,
Italy and Sweden are covered. The higher level of obsolescence is observed for over 30 years old
power plants, for which the ‘WAA’ varies from 33.3 up to 39.4. Although Austria, Belgium and
Finland have the higher ‘WAA’ values and consequently they mostly need lifetime extension
measures compared to other EU countries, Germany and U.K. possess the largest portion of the
EU coal-fired power sector, which has exceeded the lifetime limit of 30 years.
The calculated results of the ‘WAA’ index for the 3 year ranges referring to the non-EU
countries are reported in Table II. ‘WAA’ values for the below 20 years range vary between 8
and 15, and the obsolescence level for this part of the coal-fired power sector depends on the
commissioning year of the power plants. In the 20–30 years range, four countries have ‘WAA’
values less than 25, three countries around 25 and only Estonia and Hungary have higher
‘WAA’ values, which correspond to power plants constructed around 1972. As it has already
been mentioned above, the higher level of obsolescence is expected for the over 30 years range.
‘WAA’ for the aged power plants varies from 31 up to 36. Estonia and then in sequence, Poland,
Czech Republic and Slovakia seem to have problems with the age of their power plants.
However, the Slovakia’s installed capacity over 30 years, amounts only to 440 MWe while for
other non-EU countries, such as Bulgaria, the overaged installed capacity is larger, i.e.
1760 MWe for Bulgaria, which is 31.3% of its coal-fired power sector. Non-EU countries have
lower average ‘WAA’ values compared to the EU and only 20% of the installed capacity more
than 30 years old.
2.3. Total efficiency of coal-fired thermal units

The efficiency of the enlarged EU coal-fired thermoelectric units varies between 21.1 and 41.0%.
The thermal units in Denmark, Portugal (Sines power station), Netherlands, Ireland
(Moneypoint power station) and Italy have high efficiency values, while the coal-fired power
plants in Turkey and the Bitola power station at Fyrom in the non-EU part operate well. On the
other hand, some of the units in Greece, Spain and U.K. meet low efficiency values, while the
problematic operation of the Romanian, Slovakian, Estonian and Hungarian power plants is
obvious. More generally, the efficiency values in the EU coal-fired power sector are higher
compared to the non-EU countries, mainly due to the improved technology applied, the better
maintenance of the units and the increased boiler capacity.
The total efficiency of thermal units in relation to the boiler age is illustrated in Figure 7. The
efficiency trend is positively dependent by the commissioning year and electricity generating
capability approaching asymptotically to the range of 38–42%. Low efficiency values refer to
old boilers of small capacity, while high efficiency values correspond to relatively new thermal
units of higher capacity. The scattering of the points from the mean line may depend either on
the necessity in recent years to construct boilers of low capacity due to different causes, such as
site constraints or local limit request or on the low efficiency East-European power plants. The
approach to the efficiency range of 38–42% becomes even narrow, as the boiler capacity
increases. Based on these remarks, it is concluded that the conventional design of the thermal
units has reached its maximum conceptual development and further implementation measures
for the efficiency increase should be investigated in advanced technologies. It is worth to
mention that the coal-fired thermoelectric units constructed in the last couple of years are based
44
42
40
38
Total Efficiency (%)

36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Commissioning year
Figure 7. Total efficiency (%) of the coal-fired power plants in enlarged EU in relation to the
commissioning year (CSFTA-VGB, 2000; EC DG-JRC, 2001; Kakaras et al., 2002).
on supercritical steam conditions and meet higher efficiency values, as high as 46 (%, net) in
Niederaussem, Germany and 48 (%, net) in Avedore, Denmark.
2.4. Coal-fired thermal units retrofitted for emission control

The EU Council Directive of 1998 defined the emission limit values of the pollutants in the flue
gas, which became even stricter for the new power plants, according to the revised LCP
Directive of 2001. The EU countries have already drawn up programmes for the reduction of
pollutants, according to the emission and air quality standards. Modernization and
desulphurization programmes of the coal-fired power plants are now developed in the non-
EU countries and installed capacity that is equipped with flue gas controlling systems is
continuously increased.
Based on the available data about the environmental performance of the coal-fired power
plants in each country, the installed capacity and number of units that have denitrification and
desulphurization equipment were estimated. The reduction of the two pollutants under
consideration, i.e. NOx and SO2 is achieved with different methods. Namely, for the NOx
reduction both primary and secondary measures are applied. The primary processes aim to
reduce the NOx formation in the furnace and include air staging, low-NOx burners and the
reburning method. The concept of the secondary measures is based on the reduction of the fire-
generated NOx through the use of separate units after the furnace and ammonia injection. They
are comprised of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and the selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) processes. The SNCR technology is incorporated in less than 5% of the power plants
worldwide. Both primary and secondary measures were taken into account when estimating the
percentage of the coal-fired power plants that are retrofitted for emissions control. In some
cases, two or even three systems can be used in the same boiler for the NOx emission reduction.
Low NOx burners and then air staging are the mainly applied methods.
The flue gas desulphurization (FGD) technologies are categorised as dry or semidry and wet
systems. Except from the FGD units, other measures to reduce SO2 emission are to switch to
coal with lower sulphur content or to convert the boiler to fluidised bed combustion process and
intergrated gasification combined cycle}the latter option not extensively used. Desulphuriza-
tion technology is mainly based on the FGD units.
The results about the flue gas controlling equipment both for EU and non-EU countries are
illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. Almost 75% of the EU coal-fired power sector applies
denitrification techniques. No sufficient data were available for the de-NOx equipment of the
coal-fired power plants in Poland and Czech Republic. In these two countries, modernization
Capacity (MWe) No. of units
160000 600
140000
500
120000
Capacity (MWe)
400
No. of units
100000
80000 300
60000
200
40000
100
20000
0 0
EU De-NOx of non-EU De-NOx of
EU non-EU*
*Insufficient data for Czech Republic and Poland.

Figure 8. Capacity (MWe) and number of units of the EU and non-EU countries that are
equipped with de-NOx systems.
Capacity (MWe) No. of units
160000 600
140000
500
120000
Capacity (MWe)
400
No. of units
100000
80000 300
60000
200
40000
100
20000
0 0
EU De-SO2 of non-EU De-SO2 of
EU non-EU
Figure 9. Capacity (MWe) and number of units of the EU and non-EU countries that are
equipped with de-SO2 systems.
programmes for flue gas control in the existing and new installations are on going. For all other
non-EU countries, five units of total installed capacity 600 MWe have denitrification equipment.
Desulphurization systems have been installed in 62.6% of the EU and 24% of the non-EU coal-
fired thermoelectric units, as shown in Figure 6. The results clearly indicate that the flue gas
controlling programmes in EU are close to their completion, while coal-fired power plants have
to be modernized for the emitted pollutants control, in order to meet the EU environmental
standards (Kakaras et al., 2002). Finally, the conventional dust removal systems, bag and
electrostatic filters are capable to collect dust from the flue gas at high efficiency. Most of the
thermal power plants have been equipped with electrostatic precipitators.
3. EUROPEAN UNION’S PRIORITIES ON ENERGY PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY
3.1. Security of supply

In November 2000, the European Commission published a Green Paper on a European strategy
for the security of supply (EC, 2000). The innovation of this Green Paper is the emphasis on
demand management. First of all, it is expected that the supply of energy will be increasingly
coming from outside the European Union. Secondly, the decisions in the energy market will
be made by individual players interacting on the market, due to the development of the
internal energy market. Thirdly, the pure European energy companies will be substituted by
international ones.
The Green Paper stress that although the energy market has changed, the main challenge to
European Union supply policy has not the growing dependence of the EU on imported fossil
fuel sources, with its implications for the economy, environment and international relations.
The European Union conventional energy reserves, particularly solid fuels reserves, are limited;
the EU coal reserves are around 12.4% of the world reserves. This fact has not affected the rise
in energy demand over the previous decades, which resulted to increasingly dependence on
imports for Europe. Under business-as-usual assumptions, the overall import dependency will
be increased from today’s 50 to about 60–70% in 2020. Especially gas imports are forecast to
increase from 40% today to 66% in 2020 while coal imports will increase from just over 50% to
more than 70%.
As far as the coal is concerned, this increase of coal imports is a result of the significant
reduction of coal production in EU-15 over the last decades, which is expected to continue in the
future (CSFTA, 1997). In France, coal mining has gradually declined to 2 million tonnes in 2001
and will finally end in 2005. U.K. produced approximately 32 million tonnes of coal in 2000 but
it has set its sights on a future without subsidies for the coal industry. In Germany, coal
production should drop to 26 million tonnes in 2005 compared with 35 million tonnes in 2000.
Spain will gradually reduce the coal production to 11 million tonnes in 2005 compared with 15
million tonnes in 2000 following the restructuring plan which has adopted for the period 1998–
2005.
In addition to the decrease of coal production in the European Union, the aid to coal
production should diminish between 2001 and 2007 by EUR 3828 million to EUR 2075 million,
according to the recently prepared proposal of the European Commission to the Council. The
last will be applied from the date of expiry of the ECSC Treaty, i.e. the end of July 2002. One of
the principles underpinning the new aid scheme, which will expire on 31 December 2010,
concerns redistributing the subsidies allocated to the energy sector, in order to transfer the aid
traditionally granted to the coal industry to renewable energy sources. Therefore, the good trade
links, communication and political relationships with external partners, as well as the physical
distance and existence of infrastructure between the EU and its suppliers are of high importance
and under further consideration.
Taking into account Europe’s reliance on imported coal and the significant reduction in
domestic subsidies for the EU coal industry, initiatives have been undertaken for further
cooperation of the European Union with coal producer countries, such as Australia.
Furthermore, coal plant operators are now looking upon the feasibility of handling a widening
range of coal types as imports increase. Special attention is given on the environmental
performance of these plants, in order to comply with the even more stricter environmental
restrictions.
New technologies favouring renewable energy sources and energy efficiency could transform
the supply debate in the coming future. Particularly energy technologies which are based on
wind, solar and biomass, could reverse the trend of growing dependence on imports. According
to the White Paper on Renewable Energy Sources, biomass co-firing with coal in large
combustion plants is considered as significant option to increase biomass share in the electricity
generation sector. However, the implementation of co-firing in Europe is still limited and more
applications are needed towards the technology deployment. New technologies, which are
currently at the research stage, such as fuel cells, could radically change energy markets. We
have to keep in mind that the new technologies have changed the pattern of energy use and
production since the 1970s, by drastically reducing the energy intensity of industrial and
domestic activities. Particularly as far as the clean coal technologies concerns, several advanced
power plant and solid fuel firing concepts have been studied, after the oil price crisis, in respect
of their applications. Special emphasis has been placed on the demonstration of such
technologies that are expected to be capable of meeting the stepped-up requirements in terms of
emission control and efficiency.
3.2. European union enlargement

In the coming years a number of Central and Eastern European states is expected to be
integrated in the European Union. Even though, accession countries have a similar balance of
energy supply and demand, significant differences occurred in the opening environment, such as
the age and technical performance of infrastructure and plant. Additional factors, such as the
energy dependency of these countries on mostly one source, the dominance of solid fuels,
different legal and regulatory frameworks, the predominance of state-owned, vertically
integrated monopolies, low energy efficiency, obsolete technologies and persistent technical
difficulties need to be reconsidered. A foreseen increase dependence on gas among the accession
countries is expected, while the indigenous production of coal will be slashed. However,
enlargement will bring additional factors into play in order to meet the requirements of rising
consumption, growing demand for conventional fuels and increasing dependence on imports.
New pipeline links and transit connections, including with the former Soviet Union, will be
created. Enlargement will also create new opportunities for investment in new, energy efficient
technologies, and closer links with major suppliers and transit countries. The clean coal
technologies can play an important role towards this direction by contributing to the
replacement of outdated plants and in general to energy sector restructuring.
3.3. European CCT applications (CSFTA-VGB, 2000)

Clean coal technologies are of primary importance both for their application in the European
Union, and also for their capacity to generate export earnings and employment, by taking
advantage of the enormous emerging markets abroad. CCT can help offering effective solutions
in the increasing demand for energy services in non-EU countries and worldwide and to the
most cost effective, efficient and environmentally sustainable method of producing the energy
required to provide these services. A wide variety of clean coal technologies are, nowadays,
applied or under development, such as the Supercritical Combustion (SC) plants, the fluidized
bed combustion (FBC) boilers}both in atmospheric and pressurized conditions: the integrated
gasification combined cycle systems (IGCC), the pressurized pulverized combustion cycle
(PPCC), the integrated gasification fuel cell systems (IGFC) and the magnethohydrodynamic
electricity generation (MHD).
CCT are in first technology (an Edge-Technology) priorities for the European Commission,
according the recently released Green Paper. Since 1980s, European Commission has
continuously supported the demonstration and dissemination of CCT, through THERMIE
and ENERGIE Programmes. Numerous projects have been carried out or are still in progress.
They include the construction of modern supercritical boilers, already accomplished in the
power plants of Niederaussem, Lippendorf, Boxberg, Schwarze Pumpe, etc., and CFBs}power
plants of Turow, Porici, Soprolif}and even more complicated operation modes like the
demonstration of HTW technology in Vresova, Czech Republic (EUCLID POWER) and the
development of the integrated gasified combined cycle technology in China (CHINA IGCC).
Rather than making an extensive reference to the CCT, as has already been done several times in
the past, it was preferred in this paragraph to compare the different clean coal technologies and
to highlight their advantages and disadvantages. The main characteristics of CCT are given in
Table III.
The PC with supercritical steam conditions is at present the most reliable and well-proven
technology for repowering or reconstruction options, although in most countries it no longer
represents BAT. However, hundreds of such units are in operation worldwide and there is a lot
of gained experience. The combination of this technology with primary or secondary
depollution systems (Low-NOx burners or SCR and FGD) is in most cases possible, and can
satisfy all the current and the foreseeable, at least for the next few years, environmental
constraints. Moreover, the expected further increase of the thermodynamic cycle efficiency
thanks to the development of new superalloys, would reduce more the cost of the produced
electricity, as well as all the generated pollutants per KWh, including the CO2 emissions.
On the other hand, it seems that the best combination of simplicity, economy and
environmental performance can be provided by the circulating fluidized bed technology
(CFBC), which concentrates the greatest number of advantages for a thermal power plant
operation. However, the future of this technology for power generation relies on the
construction of units of higher scale, i.e. larger than 250 MWe, that is in operation today.
Furthermore, the development and improvement of certain devices, such as the hot gas filters,
the high temperature cleaning systems, and the efficient and resistant to erosion and corrosion
gas turbines are needed especially in the pressurized option of CFBC technology. There are two
major advantages that make this technology very promising and compromising in the
forthcoming years. The first is the great flexibility of the boiler to use a different coal type, for
example due to price or availability reasons, which is much greater in the atmospheric bed case,
Table III. Main characteristics of clean coal technologies.

PC with FGT ACFBC PBFBC PCFBC IGCC
Status Commerc. Commercial Demonstr. Developm. Demonstr.
Complexity Medium Low Medium Medium Very high
Usage Base or not Base or not Base or not Base or not Base
Space High Medium Low Low Very high
requirements
Fuel range All coals All coals, All coals All coals All coals,
residuals, residuals,
biomass, urban biomass
waste
Fuel flexibility Low Very high High High Medium
Operation Medium High Medium High Low
flexibility
Cost of Standard Lower Higher (up to Lower Higher
Electricity (up to 5%) 10%) (up to 5%) (up to 20%)
Renovation Well suited Well suited Well suited Very well Very difficult
options suited
NOx mg/Nm3 100–200, 150–250, 200–300, 100–200, 150–200,
secondary intrinsic intrinsic intrinsic primary
SO2 (1% S) 200, secondary 200, primary 200, primary 200, primary 25, secondary
mg/Nm3
Dust mg/Nm3 50 50 50 10 10
Liquid waste Yes No No No Yes
Ash flow rate 50, yes 70, yes 90, yes 60, under study 55, yes
(g/kWh), and
valorization
capable to burn also residuals or biomass. The second is that its adequate environmental
performance is achieved intrinsicly or by primary depollutiong systems, therefore a later on
installation of additional secondary FGT units would allow the operation of a power plant
under much more stringent environmental legislation, that may be adopted in the next decades.
The previously stated advantages and dependencies of the FBC power plants are also valid
for the IGCC technology. Additionally, IGCC presents higher efficiency and a much better
performance concerning the flue gas emissions, the latter exhibiting two important drawbacks,
that eliminate its potentiality for industrial and commercial use at least for the next decade. The
great plant complexity and consequently the high construction and operation costs, along with
the huge space requirements restrict the benefits of a new unit construction, and make
prohibitive the repowering of existing old power plants. Nevertheless, suppliers could reach
close to 50% efficiency with improved lower cost designs including better steam cycles. IGCC
may become the most favoured technology in case that CO2 capture/sequestration becomes
practical application. Low volumetric syngas flow combined with a high partial pressure of CO2
can ensure high CO2 capture efficiency, at a relatively reduced additional investment cost.
Towards that direction, research efforts should be focused on the integration of the power cycle
with the additional process steps and the development of new gas turbines, especially for
burning hydrogen-enriched fuel gas. Based on these advanced concepts, IGCC systems may
play an important role in the future}especially in a long-term perspective. However, a
commercial breakthrough would require a substantial reduction of investment cost.
The hybrid cycle technology needs several years for further development and evaluation
before become commercial, depending mainly on the expected progress in the high temperature
cleaning technology. As far as the other clean coal processes are concerned, the PPCC, the
MHD, the Fuel Cell and the O2-combustion are still in the research and development stage, and
they cannot become competitive before certain technological and/or economical problems are
solved. Considering the continuous progress of the research worldwide, it seems, however
possible that some of them may attract the interest of the power generation industry in the near
future.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The estimation of the current situation in the coal-fired power sector in Enlarged EU showed
that 731 units larger than 100 MWe are operating nowadays, with total installed capacity equal
to of 200.7 GWe. Almost a quarter of the installed capacity in the enlarged EU belongs to the
non-EU countries. Germany in the EU countries and Poland in the EU candidate member states
have the major portion of the installed capacity. Furthermore, the thermoelectric units burning
coal in Germany (Schenck et al., 1994) and Centre-East European countries have the highest
utilization in the enlarged EU. Average capacity of boiler capacity is 274 MWe for the enlarged
EU, while this value has risen up to 317 MWe for the units commissioned in the last 30 years.
Total efficiency values can be as low as 24–27% for non-EU coal-fired units, while they may
exceed 42% in the EU units of advanced technical design. Most of the EU coal-fired power
plants apply denitrification and desulphurization measures, while only 25% of the installed
capacity in the non-EU area have desulphurization equipment. No or few activities concerning
the NOx control in East European countries have been recorded. It seems that EU member
states have almost completed their flue gas controlling programmes, while serious improvements
have to be carried out in East European countries. In some of them, like Bulgaria, Romania,
etc., with promising coal reserves, financial difficulties prohibit the development of environ-
mental programmes (CSFTA 2001; IEA-VGB-ETSU, 1999).
Although coal has lost market share to natural gas, it is foreseen that it will continue to be a
key source of energy for electricity generation. In Western Europe is projected that coal use will
decrease or remain the same due to environmental concerns and competition from natural gas.
In Eastern Europe, reliance of the coal-fired power sector on the local production will continue,
although a small decline is expected because of natural gas penetration. The economic reform of
Eastern countries to a market-oriented economy is still continued and will certainly accelerate
the modernization of the coal-fired power sector in these countries.
CCT are mostly applied in countries, where new power plants are constructed or aged and
inefficient power stations are re-constructed. A statistical technique, the ‘WAA’, was developed
aiming to determine which of the examined countries mostly need modernization measures.
Although Austria, Ireland, Belgium and Finland have the higher ‘WAA’ values, Germany and
U.K. possess the largest portion of the coal-fired capacity, which has exceeded 30 years. Poland
in the non-EU area is the most promising area for the implementation of modernization
measures. It has been estimated that something more than 1/4 of the enlarged EU capacity
exceeds 30 years.
Taking into account the security of supply, addressed by the Green Book, the environment
and global warming as well as the enlargement of the European Union, it is clear that new
technologies such as the clean coal technologies need to be further supported. CCT could be the
intermediate, but more realistic, step in order to meet the Kyoto protocol targets and
requirements. The European Commission has proved its support to such technologies through
the elaboration of various THERMIE and ENERGIE projects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of Dr A. Minchener to review this paper is gratefully acknowledged. The work was funded
in part by the European Commission in the framework of CARNOT Programme, Contract No.: 4.1004/D/
99-006.
REFERENCES
CSFTA 1997. Evaluation of the lignite industry of the Enlarged European Union. Final Report (Contract No.: 4.1040/E/
95-017).
CSFTA-VGB. 2000. Size and type of existing electricity-generating capacity using solid fuels within an enlarged EU.
Final Report (Contract No: 4.1004/D/99-006), Athens.
CSFTA-VGB. 2000. Study on the renovation options for power plants burning indigenous solid fuels in an Enlarged
European Union, taking into account environmental and economic factors. Final Report (Contract No: 4.1004/D/99-
007), Athens.
CSFTA. 2001. Assessment of the possibilities of implementing fluidized bed technologies in Balkan countries. Final
Report of ESF OPET. April.
European Commission. 2000. GREEN PAPER}Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply, 29
November (COM(2000)769 final).
European Commission DG-JRC. 2001. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)}Draft Reference Document
on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants. March.
IA. 2000. Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Annual 1997, DOE/EIA-0219(97),
Washington, DC, April 1999. Projections: EIA, World Energy Projection System (2000).
IEA Coal Research}The Clean Coal Centre. 1999. CO2 reduction}prospects for coal.
IEA in collaboration with VGB and ETSU. 1999. Proceedings of Workshop on Financing of Clean Coal Technologies in
the EU-Assessing Countries. 7–8 September. Dresden, Germany.
Kakaras E, Grammelis P, Jacobs J. 2002. Existing electricity generation capacity using solid fuels within the enlarged
EU: market size and renovation options. VGB Power Tech, April.
Schenck K, Haaker H, Nitsch D, Placke R, Reese C. 1994. Recent influences and their effects on the availability of
thermal power plants. VGB Kraftwerkstechnik, vol. 74(3), March.

Grammelis Et Al-2004-International Journal of Energy Research PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grammelis Et Al-2004-International Journal of Energy Research PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:799–815 (DOI: 10.1002/er.996)

The perspectives of energy production from coal-ﬁred power

P. Grammelis1,2, E. Kakaras1,2,n,y and N. Koukouzas1

Contract/grant sponsor: European Commission; contract/grant number: 4.1004/D 99-006

Received 9 May 2003

Percent 1997 2020

Furthermore, environmental concerns in Western Europe play an important role in the

2. CURRENT STATUS OF ENLARGED EU COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT PARK

2.1. Capacity and main technological characteristics

Capacity and Number of Large (>100MWe) Coal-fired

No. of thermal units

Capacity and Number of Large (>100MWe) Coal-fired

No. of thermal units

2.2. Age and obsolescence level of the coal-ﬁred power plants

Percentage of capacity (%) Number of units

of EU coal-fired power plants

Percentage of capacity (%) Number of units

Weighted Average Age 25

Table I. WAA values of the 3 year ranges for the EU.

2.3. Total eﬃciency of coal-ﬁred thermal units

Total Efficiency (%)

2.4. Coal-ﬁred thermal units retroﬁtted for emission control

Capacity (MWe) No. of units

*Insufficient data for Czech Republic and Poland.

Capacity (MWe) No. of units

3. EUROPEAN UNION’S PRIORITIES ON ENERGY PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY

3.1. Security of supply

3.2. European union enlargement

3.3. European CCT applications (CSFTA-VGB, 2000)

Table III. Main characteristics of clean coal technologies.

You might also like