Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Mercury emission from coal-red power plants in Poland

Anna Glodek a, *, Jozef M. Pacyna b, c
a

NILU Polska, 4 Ceglana St., PL 40-514 Katowice, Poland

Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller, Norway
c
Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk, Poland
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 13 February 2009
Received in revised form
22 July 2009
Accepted 24 July 2009

The paper reviews the current state of knowledge regarding sources of mercury emission in Poland. Due
to the large quantities of coal burned at present, as well as taking into account existing reserves, coal
remains the main energy source of energy in Poland. The data on coal consumption in Poland in the past,
at present and in the future are discussed in the paper. Information on the content of mercury in Polish
coals is presented.
Coal combustion processes for electricity and heat production are the main source of anthropogenic
mercury emission in Poland. It is expected that the current emissions will decrease in the future due to
implementation of efcient control measures. These measures for emission reduction are described in
the paper. Results of estimated mercury emission from coal-red power station situated in the Upper
Silesia Region, Poland are investigated. A relationship between mercury emission to the air and the
mercury content in the consumed coal in power station equipped with the electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) is discussed.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Mercury
Emissions
Coal combustion
Power energy sector

1. Introduction
Mercury (Hg) is one of the most important environmental
contaminants emitted to the atmosphere, water and land. Global
atmospheric emission of mercury from all anthropogenic sources in
2005 was estimated to be 1930 tonnes. Coal combustion processes
are found to be the main source of anthropogenic mercury emission
to the atmosphere (Pacyna et al., 2003, 2006a,b; Pacyna and
Pacyna, 2006). These processes are accounting for about 45% of the
total global anthropogenic mercury emissions (Pacyna et al., 2008;
UNEP, 2008).
One of the major determinants of mercury emissions from coal
combustion is the amount of coal burned. Poland is ranked as
a country with the fourth highest anthropogenic mercury emissions in Europe in 2005 (Pacyna et al., 2008). Polish economy
heavily depends on the use of coal for electricity and heat
production. As a consequence, the main source of Hg emitted to the
atmosphere in Poland is coal combustion in coal-red power plants.
Taking into account the existing reserves of fossil fuels, hard coal
and brown coal will remain the principal energy sources of primary
energy in Poland, and the coal combustion processes are predicted
as one of the major sources of atmospheric mercury emission.

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 48 32 2570858.

E-mail address: ag@nilu.pl (A. Glodek).
1352-2310/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.041

Because there are no legal limits on air emissions of mercury

from power plants in Poland, the electric utility industry has not
had a strong incentive to control mercury emissions. There is also
only limited information on the content of mercury in coal burned.
Studies concerning mercury emission from coal-red power plants
in Poland are carried out sporadically.
The main goal of the work reported here was to assess the
amount of mercury emitted during coal combustion in power
plants in Poland.
The relationship between the mercury content in coal and
combustion gases after the electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) in the
Jaworzno III Power Plant in Poland is also presented.
2. Consumption of coal to produce electricity in Poland
in 2005 and until 2030
Poland heavily depends on coal for electricity production.
According to World Coal Institute (2008) Poland was ranked on the
top of the countries dependent on coal for electricity generation in
2006 with 93% of electricity generated from combustion of hard coal
and brown coal. Also the electricity generation structure in the rst
months of the year 2008 indicates that as much as 62% of the electricity was generated from combustion of hard coal, 33% from brown
coal, 3.5% from natural gas and 1.5% from biofuels (Gabrys, 2008).
The structure of energy production in Poland may substantially
change by the year 2030. At that time the public coal-red plants

A. Glodek, J.M. Pacyna / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

are expected to contribute only 60% to the total national energy

production. This will be possible under the condition that other
energy production sources are in place, including renewable energy
sources (RES) and nuclear reactors. The use of non-fossil energy
sources should partly substitute the existing coal-red plants. The
installed capacity at hydropower plants is growing steadily,
particularly at small-scale plants.
A projection of fuel consumption for electricity generation in
Poland in the period 20052030 is presented in Table 1 (Energy
Policy of Poland until 2030, Draft, 2007).
3. Mercury content in Polish coals
The source of Hg emissions from coal-red electric utility boilers
is the Hg that naturally exists in coal and is released during the
combustion process. Although coal does not contain high concentrations of mercury, the amount of Hg released globally during the
coal combustion processes is signicant due to large amounts of
coal burned in power plants (Pacyna et al., 2008).
Mercury is associated with both inorganic minerals in coal (i.e.,
the materials that generate ash when the coal is burned) as well as
with the organic fraction in coal (i.e., the carbon portion of the coal
that generates heat) (DEP, 2002). Most of the Hg is believed to be
present in combination with sulde minerals, particularly pyrite.
The mercurypyrite association accounts for 6570% of the Hg in
some coals. Mercury is also associated with other ash-forming
minerals and with the organic fraction in coal. As much as 2535%
of the Hg in coal is typically associated with the organic material
(USEPA, 2002).
Concentration of mercury in coals varies substantially depending on the type of the fuel and its origin (Pacyna and Pacyna, 2005).
These concentrations are presented in Table 2.
Most available data, concerning mercury concentration in Polish
coals refers to hard coals. Studies in Poland (Bojarska, 2006) indicate that the average value for the mercury concentration in Polish
hard coals is 0.141 mg kg1. Based on samples from the Polish
mines, the lowest mean concentration of Hg was 0.062 mg kg1,
measured in the coal-mine Piekary, and the highest concentration
of 0.302 mg kg1 reported in the coal mine Knurow. Concentrations
of mercury in coals from several Polish coal mines are given in
Table 2.
These results are similar to the earlier studies on proprieties of
heavy metals from combustion of coal in residential furnaces
(Hlawiczka et al., 2001). They reported a range of Hg concentration:
0.1230.396 mg kg1 in a number of coal samples. Another study on
Hg content in Polish coals reports that Hg content varies within
a range from 0.050 to 0.350 mg kg1, having an average concentration of 0.179 mg kg1; for brown coal with a range of 0.120 and
0.370 mg kg1 and for hard coal between 0.050 and 0.150 mg kg1
(Pye et al., 2006). Konieczynski and Zajusz-Zubek (2007) obtained

Table 1
Forecast of fuel consumption for electricity generation 20052030 (Mtoe) (Energy
Policy of Poland until 2030, Draft, September 2007).
Fuel consumption, Mtoea
Specication/year

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Hard coal
Brown coal
Crude oil
Natural gas
Nuclear
Renewable sources
Waste
Total consumption

23.5
12.7
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.7
0.1
38.7

22.9
11.6
0.6
1.3
0.0
2.6
0.1
39.0

23.8
12.4
0.6
1.9
0.0
2.8
0.1
41.6

26.4
12.0
0.6
2.2
0.0
3.2
0.2
44.5

25.9
12.8
0.7
3.4
5.1
3.7
0.2
51.7

23.2
12.8
0.7
4.7
12.7
4.2
0.2
58.5

1 Mtoe 1 million tonnes of oil equivalent 41.868 PJ.

5669

Table 2
Mercury concentration in coals (Pacyna and Pacyna, 2005; Bojarska, 2006; Wojnar
and Wisz, 2006).
Pacyna and
Pacyna, 2005

Bojarska, 2006

Wojnar and Wisz, 2006

Polish coal-mines

Polish power plants

Hard coals

Hg, ppm

Coal mines

Hg, ppm

Unit/Hard
coals

Hg, ppm

Europe
USA
Australia
South Africa
Russia
Brown coals

0.011.5
0.011.5
0.030.4
0.011.0
0.010.9

Murcki
Myslowice
Staszic
Wesola
Wieczorek
Wujek

0.145
0.151
0.113
0.113
0.104
0.163

1
2
3
4
5
6

0.0640.1
0.0970.141
0.0840.12
0.0530.092
0.10.105
0.0930.132

Europe
USA

0.021.5
0.021.0

7
8
9

0.0660.109
0.0540.124
0.0560.09

Unit/Brown coals
10
11

0.1720.283
0.1170.37

similar results. They reported the mercury content in Polish hard

coals between: 0.1330.238 mg kg1, and for brown coals with
a range of 0.1220.420 mg kg1.
A review of test data for 800 samples of hard and brown coals
from Polish power plants indicates that the average mercury
content is 0.100 mg kg1 and 0.250 mg kg1, respectively for hard
and brown coals (Wojnar and Wisz, 2006). On the basis of these
data, the amount of mercury in coals burned in Polish power plants
was calculated. It was estimated that the amount of Hg introduced
with brown coal is about three times higher than the amount
introduced with hard coal (Wojnar and Wisz, 2006). Results of this
study are shown in Table 2.
4. Mercury releases to the atmosphere
4.1. Emission control technologies
Certain conventional air pollution technologies, considered as
BAT (Best Available Techniques), allow for decreasing Hg emission
from coal-red power plants (IPPC 2005). The pollution control
devices that are utilized on coal-red utility boilers for reducing
NOx, SO2, and PM affect mercury speciation and are effective in
reducing mercury emission.
In general, the following approaches can be adapted to reduce
mercury emissions from coal-red utility boilers: pollution
prevention and post-combustion pollution control (Hlawiczka,
2008). Two pollution prevention options are available: fuel
switching and coal cleaning (Hlawiczka, 2006; USEPA, 2002).
Commercial coal cleaning facilities use physical cleaning techniques to reduce mineral matter and pyritic sulfur content (Pacyna
et al., 2005). As a result, the coal product has a higher energy
density and emission of sulfur dioxide as well as other pollutants,
including mercury can be reduced. The efciency of this removal
depends on the cleaning process used, type of coal, and the
contaminant content of coal. Mercury emissions can be reduced by
limited fuel switching (generally not more than 1020% of fuel) or
installation of new gas-red units or integrated gasication
combined cycle (IGCC) units (USEPA, 2002).
The particle-bound form of mercury (Hg(part)) can be captured in
the particulate matter (PM) control devices, i.e., electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs) and fabric lters (FFs). The oxidized mercury
compounds (Hg2) are water-soluble and can be captured in wet
ue-gas desulfurization systems (FGDs or scrubbers). Elemental

5670

A. Glodek, J.M. Pacyna / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

mercury (Hg0) is insoluble in water and cannot be captured effectively in wet scrubbers. Both elemental and oxidized mercury
adsorb onto porous solids such as y ash, powdered activated
carbons (PAC), or calcium-based acid gas sorbents for subsequent
collection in a PM control device. The (Hg2) form of mercury is
believed to be more readily captured by adsorption than the (Hg0)
form (USEPA, 2002).

treatment plant, the low NOx emission systems and the pneumatic
system for ash removal. Therefore, this power plant is considered as
one of the most modern power plants in Poland at present (PKE SA).
However, only ESPs were in operation at the time of measurements
presented in this study. Therefore, these measurements were
aiming at the assessment of ESP emission control efciency for
mercury.

4.1.1. Particulate control devices

Particulate control devices are used to capture particulate
matter emissions from utility boilers. Gaseous mercury (both Hg0
and Hg2) can potentially be adsorbed on y ash and subsequently
be collected in a PM device. The amount of mercury removed
varies depending on the type of coal. The average capture of Hg for
cold-side ESP is 36% for bituminous coal compared with about 3%
for sub-bituminous coal (USEPA, 2002). It should be noted, that
ESPs are now commonly used abatement measures in major
electric power plants and central heating plants worldwide. Fabric
lters are more effective in reducing gaseous Hg emissions.
Measured Hg emission reduction range up to 90% (USEPA, 2002;
Pavlish et al., 2003).

4.2.1.1. Emission estimates. The measurements of the total mercury

contents in coal and combustion (ue) gases that have passed the
ESPs were conducted (Ekolbud, 2004; Report Jaworzno III Power
Station, 2004a,b). The measurements were made for pulverized
boilers OP-650, for selected boiler units, no. 3 and 4 in the Jaworzno
III Power Station. The measurements were carried out according to
Polish Standard PN-81/Z-04133/01.
The concentrations of mercury in ue gases are shown in Table 3
(Ekolbud, 2004).
The mercury concentrations in samples of hard coal are
presented in Table 4 (Report Jaworzno III Power Station, 2004b).
The amount of mercury emitted into the air from coal
combustion in a power station should be in relation to the mass of
mercury contents in the coal consumed (Mniszek, 1994). Mercury
emission, as a result of the mercury content in the coal and the
mercury amount in the ue gas was calculated using equations (1)
and (2) (Mniszek, 1994; Dabrowski et al., 2008).

4.1.2. Flue-gas desulfurization systems

The application of ue-gas desulfurization (FGD) has very
important impact on removal of not only sulfur dioxide but also
mercury. SO2 post-combustion control technologies fall into three
classications: wet, semi-dry, or dry systems. An SO2 control
system always operates in conjunction with a PM control device. It
was concluded in the literature that the overall removal efciency
for mercury in various spray dry systems varies from about 35 to
85% (Pacyna et al., 2006a). The most effective Hg emission reduction, approaching 90%, can be achieved for units employed with
systems controlling NOx and SO2 (e.g., SCR/ESP/FGD combination),
(USEPA, 2002; Clean Air Mercury Rule).
4.1.3. Sorbent injection
In conventional combustion approach (ACI activated carbon
injection) 5080% of mercury removal may be achieved. ACI with
an ESP and a retrot fabric lter, or a fabric lter alone allows
achieving 90% of Hg emission reduction (USEPA, 2002). More
effective Hg removal can be obtained through brominated ACI
technology, approximately 90% or higher (Feeley and Jones, 2008).
Fabric lters (FFs), electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and ue-gas
desulfurization systems (FGDs) are the main emission control
devices in coal-red power plants in Poland. However, no regularly
published data are available on the efciency of these emission
control devices in reducing Hg emissions from coal-red power
plants in Poland.

Hgair Coalmass  CoalHg  k

(1)

Hgair Ce  Ve

(2)

where:
Hg(air) mercury emission into the air (mg Hg y1)
Coal(mass) the amount of coal burned (tonne y1)
Coal[Hg] the concentration of Hg in the coal (mg Hg kg1)
k the proportionality coefcient of Hg from coal to the
atmosphere or penetration coefcient, reecting the Hg penetration through the emission control equipment and thus the
efciency coefcient for a given emission control equipment
(1  k),
Ce mercury concentration in the ue gas (mg Hg m3)
Ve combustion gas ow rate (m3 h1)
The mercury emission can be expressed by equations (Mniszek,
1994; Dabrowski et al., 2008):

Hgair Coalmass  EmFHg

(3)

where EmF[Hg] mercury emission factor, which can be expressed

as the function of the mercury content in the consumed coal
corrected by the emission control efciency coefcient (1  k):

4.2. Mercury emissions from coal combustion in Polish

power plants

EmF CoalHg  k

An example of the assessment of Hg emission control efciency

of ESPs employed in the Jaworzno Power Plant in the Upper Silesia
in south of Poland is given below.

Measurements of Hg concentrations in coal and ue gases after

the ESPs in the Jaworzno III Power Plant were designed to assess the
penetration coefcient for the ESP emission control for Hg (the k
coefcient for ESPs in equations (1) and (4)) (Glodek, 2005). Then,
the emission to the atmosphere was estimated with the use of

4.2.1. Estimated mercury emission from Jaworzno III Power Plant

The Power Plant Jaworzno III is a system power plant with total
installed capacity of 1345 MW. This power plant produces both,
electric and thermal energy in association. Power Plant III has six
pulverized boilers OP 650 (radial-ow, dust, single-drummed,
maximum capacity: 650 tonnes steam h1). The implementation of
the Program for the Elimination of the Environmental Hazards
resulted in Jaworzno III Power Plant in commissioning a number of
environmental protection installations: the ue-gas desulfurization

(4)

Table 3
Mercury concentrations in ue gases after the ESPs in the Jaworzno III power plant
(Ekolbud, 2004).
Unit

Power Plant III/Unit no. 3

Power Plant III/Unit no. 4

Sample 1

Sample 2

mg m3
n

mg m3
n

<0.011
<0.011

<0.011
<0.011

A. Glodek, J.M. Pacyna / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

Table 4
Mercury concentration in hard coal (Report Jaworzno III Power Station, 2004b).
Unit

Hg, mg kg1

Power Plant III/Unit no. 3

Power Plant III/Unit no. 4

0.076
0.066

(1  k) emission control efciency coefcient as no other emission

control equipment was in operation at the studied boilers during
the measurements. The measurements of Hg concentrations in coal
and in ue gases after passing the ESPs have shown that as much as
90% of mercury introduced with coal to the combustion zone passes
the ESPs. The penetration coefcient was assessed to 0.9. Thus, the
ESPs efciency coefcient is only 0.1 meaning that only 10% of
mercury introduced to the combustion zone with coal is captured
by ESPs.
The correlation coefcient between the concentrations
measured within the study was very high amounting to 0.99. This is
somewhat surprising but the Hg concentrations in coal burned in
the Jaworzno III power plant are quite stabile. The ESP operation at
the time of the measurements was without any problems.
Finally, the mercury emission, during combustion of certain
amount of coal can be calculated for the studied Jaworzno III units
along the following equation:

Hgair Coalmass  CoalHg  0:9

(5)

The results of emission calculations are presented in Table 5.

Chemical speciation of Hg into Hg2, Hg0 and Hg(part) could
not assessed because monitoring of these species was not
available during the measurements. However, based on international studies, it is likely that the major portion of Hg emitted
from power plants will be in the Hg0 form (USEPA, 2002; Pacyna
et al., 2008).
4.2.2. Mercury emission from all Polish power plants
Atmospheric mercury emission in Poland, for the year 2005
has been estimated by Hlawiczka et al. (2006). The biggest share
in anthropogenic emission in Poland came from combustion
processes (hard and brown coal). Emission from large combustion plants is responsible for ca. 40% of the total anthropogenic
emission in the county in 2005, amounts to 20.1 tonnes. In public
power sector, mercury emission from combustion of hard coal in
power plants is nearly three times higher than the emission from
brown coal-red power plants. Stationary combustion processes
in non-industrial combustion plants (combustion in residential
and commercial units, responsible for 2.0 tonnes) and industrial
boilers (combustion in boilers, gas turbines and stationary
engines as well as process furnaces without contact, responsible
for 1.5 tonnes) are less signicant in the total Hg emission in
the country.
While emissions from large power plants can be efciency
controlled by emission control technologies (ESPs and FGDs),
emission from residential units is still largely uncontrolled. In these
units the poorest types of fuels and even wastes are burned.
The 2005 emission estimates for Hg, along the various individual source categories dened in the EMEP/CORINAIR SNAP codes
are presented in Table 6 (Hlawiczka et al., 2006).

Table 5
Annual mercury emission from selected units of Jaworzno III Power Plant.
Unit

Hg(air), kg year1

Power Plant III/Unit no. 3

Power Plant III/Unit no. 4

0.9
0.9

52.985
57.544

5671

5. Future mercury emissions from power plants in Europe

and Poland until the year 2020
The knowledge of current levels of mercury emissions is
a crucial information for predictions of emissions and possibilities
of their reductions in the future. A number of projects have been
carried out (MERCYMS An Integrated Approach to Assess the
Mercury Cycle into the Mediterranean Basin: www.iiacnr.unical.it/
MERCYMS/project.htm; ESPREME Estimation of Willingness-topay to Reduce Risks of Exposure to Heavy Metals and Cost-benet
Analysis for Reducing Heavy Metals Occurrence in Europe: http://
espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de; DROPS Development of macro and
sectoral economic models aiming to evaluate the role of public
health externalities on society: http://drops.nilu.no and SOCOPSE
Source control of priority substances in Europe: http://www.
socopse.se) with the main goal to improve our knowledge on
sources and emissions of Hg in the European countries in the years
2010 and 2020.
In the EU project DROPS two scenarios for emission of heavy
metals, dioxins and PCBs the air to the year 2020 were prepared.
BAU Climate scenario (Business as Usual with Climate Policies)
assumes implementation of current legislation and corresponds to
the previous BAU Climate scenario in ESPREME project. MFTR
scenario (Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction) assumes
implementation of all technical solution to reduce emission of
pollutants and corresponds to the previous DEG scenario (Deep
Green) in MERCYMS project. Scenarios for selected sectors were
examined from a perspective of industrial technologies, emission
control technologies as well as all technical (emerging) solutions to
reduce emission of considered pollutants to the atmosphere to
a maximum degree.
IPPC Directive denes main requirements for large combustion
plants, iron and steel production, cement and chlor-alkali industry
and waste incineration. Other requirements are associated with the
European Union sector directives and international conventions.
Based on this legislation assumptions for implementation of
emission reduction methods and technology changes to year 2020
were prepared. Two groups of countries were considered separately: 1) a group of EU-27 countries with Croatia plus European
Economic Area (EEA) members and 2) the rest of the European
countries.
On the basis of scenarios, prepared by NILU Polska and
described in Panasiuk et al. (2006), the projections of Hg emission
were made in the Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas in
Katowice, Poland. These projections, for the years 2010 and 2020,
were elaborated taking into account the results of emission
inventories for the base year 2000 and information on possible
changes in activities (data on production and consumption) and
emission factors (Strzelecka-Jastrzab et al., 2004, 2007).
Table 6
The 2005 anthropogenic emissions of Hg in Poland (Hlawiczka et al., 2006).
Hg emission in Poland, tonnes
Total
SNAPa nomenclature/sources:
01 Combustion in energy and transformation industries
0101 Public Power
Hard coal
Brown coal
0102 District heating plants
0104 Solid fuel transformation plants
0105 Coal mining
02 Non-industrial combustion plants
03 Combustion in manufacturing industry
04 Production processes
09 Waste treatment and disposal
a

SNAP (Selected Nomenclature for Air Pollution) for emitting activities.

20.1
8.1
7.9
5.8
2.1
0.08
0.03
0.07
2.0
8.4
1.3
0.3

5672

A. Glodek, J.M. Pacyna / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

Hg emission, [Mg/a]

80
60
40
20
0

base year 2000

BAU+
Climate
2020

BAU+
Climate
2010

MFTR 2010

MFTR 2020

Scenario/ year
Fig. 1. Mercury emission scenarios for power plants in Europe until the 2020 (tonnes) (based on: Strzelecka-Jastrzab et al., 2004, 2007; Pacyna, 2005).

In BAU Climate scenario for large combustion plants, implementation of available measures causing reduction of Hg emission
is described according to IPPC (2005). According to this, it is
expected that coal-red combustion plants will be equipped with
fabric lters (FFs) or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) operated in
combination with ue-gas desulfurization (FGD) techniques. Some
plants will implement techniques designed for heavy metals
removal. It is predicted, that until 2020, techniques designed for
metal removal (activated carbon, sulfur-impregnated adsorbents
and selenium impregnated lters) will be commonly used in
combustion plants.
For MFTR scenario for large combustion plants, it is predicted
that participation of open cycle combustion of fossil fuels will drop
signicantly. In coal-red combustion plants, high performance
dust control systems and FGD systems will be commonly used. It is
expected that measures for heavy metal removal (activated carbon,
sulfur-impregnated adsorbents and selenium impregnated lters)
will be commonly used. Some older power plants will be closed.
Wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and biogas plants will substitute
demand for electricity. Integrated gasication combined cycle
(IGCC) technology is predicted to be used in coal-red combustion
plants. In other coal-red plants post-combustion emission control
system simultaneous control of SOx, NOx and Hg (with a gasphase oxidation process) will be used. Until 2020 plants will be
equipped with current emerging techniques.
Full description of DROPS scenarios is included in Panasiuk et al.
(2006). Emission projections are presented in details in (StrzeleckaJastrzab et al., 2004, 2007; Pacyna, 2005).
European projections according to BAU Climate scenario show
that the mercury emission from power plants can be reduced to

47 tonnes in 2010 (37% reduction with relation to the base year) and
next to 29 tonnes in 2020 (60% reduction with relation to the base
year). According to the more restrictive MFTR scenario, reduction of
mercury emission for the year 2010 is projected to 35 tonnes (53%
reduction) and next for the year 2020 24 tonnes (68% reduction)
(Strzelecka-Jastrzab et al., 2004, 2007; Pacyna, 2005). The projections of mercury emission from combustion processes in power
plants in Europe for the years 2010 and 2020 are presented in Fig. 1.
In Poland, implementation of BAU Climate scenario will result
in decrease of mercury emission from coal combustion in power
plants to 5 tonnes in 2010 (48% reduction with relation to the base
year) and to 2.5 tonnes in 2020 (74% reduction comparing to the
base year). According to MFTR scenario, it is projected, that mercury
emission can be reduced to 3.5 tonnes in 2010 (65% reduction) and
further to 1.7 tonnes (83% reduction) in the year 2020 (StrzeleckaJastrzab et al., 2004, 2007; Pacyna, 2005). The projections of
mercury emission from combustion processes in power plants in
Poland for the years 2010 and 2020 are presented in Fig. 2.
The presented analysis indicate that the current amount of
mercury emission from power plants in the European countries can
be lowered in the future. However, the coal combustion processes
will still remain the main source of the total anthropogenic
mercury emission in Europe. Comparing predicted amounts of
mercury emission in perspective to the year 2020, Poland, as
a country with the high emission of mercury among European
countries, still remains one of the highest emitters of mercury in
Europe. Signicant reduction of mercury emission from coal-red
power plants in Poland can be achieved through the lower share of
coal in combustion processes and through the employment of more
effective emission control devices.

Hg emission, [Mg/a]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

base year 2000

BAU+
Climate
2010

BAU+
Climate
2020

MFTR 2010

MFTR 2020

Scenario /year
Fig. 2. Mercury emission scenarios for power plants in Poland until the 2020 (tonnes) (based on: Strzelecka-Jastrzab et al., 2004, 2007; Pacyna, 2005).

A. Glodek, J.M. Pacyna / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 56685673

6. Concluding remarks
Poland is regarded as a country with one of the highest
anthropogenic mercury emission in Europe. Combustion of fuels,
mainly coal to produce electricity and heat is the main source of
anthropogenic mercury emission in Poland. Solid fuels dominate in
the structure of primary energy consumption in the country.
Anthropogenic mercury emission in Poland will continue to
decrease. However, comparing predicted amounts of total European mercury emission until the year 2020, Poland will still remain
one of the highest emitters of Hg in Europe.
De-dusting installations, such as ESPs alone are capable of
reducing only small amounts of Hg from the ue gas. Measurements reported in this work indicate that only 10% of mercury in
the ue can be removed by these devices.
While emissions from large combustion plants can be efciently
controlled by various emission control technologies (e.g., ESP in
combination with FGD), emissions from residential units are still
largely uncontrolled. This may result in even higher emissions of Hg
from these units in the future compared to the current emissions.
Signicant reduction of mercury emission in Poland is possible
through reducing the share of coal combustion processes and
through employing more efcient emission control devices. Hard
coal and brown coal will remain the principal energy sources of
primary energy in Poland. However, introduction of renewable
energy sources (RES) should partly substitute the combustion of coal
in existing coal-red power plants. Employment of new emerging
methods for coal gasication with gas cleaning (IGCC) would result
in producing cleaner energy in the country in the future.
Acknowledgments
This work has been carried out with the nancial support from
the EU projects: DROPS (FP6-2004-SSP-4 contract no. 022788);
SOCOPSE (FP6-2005-Global-4, contract no. 037038) and the
SORBENT project nanced through the EEA Financial Mechanism
and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism.
The authors are grateful for this support.
References
Bojarska, K., 2006. Concentration of mercury in Polish hard coals, MEC3 Third
International Experts workshop, 57 June 2006, Katowice, Poland.
Clean Air Mercury Rule. Available information [on line] at: www.epa.gov/mercury.
Dabrowski, J.M., Ashton, P.J., Murray, K., Leaner, J.J., Mason, R.P., 2008. Anthropogenic mercury emissions in South Africa: coal combustion in power plants.
Atmospheric Environment 42 (27), 66206626. September 2008.
DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), 2002. Evaluation of the Technological and Economic Feasibility of Controlling and Eliminating Mercury
Emission from the Combustion of Solid Fuel. Emissions Standards for Power
Plants. Pursuant to 310 CMR 7.29. Bureau of Waste Prevention Division of
Planning and Evaluation, Boston.
Ekolbud, 2004. Pomiary stezen rteci w emitowanych spalinach ze zrodel zainstalowanych w Elektrowni II i Elektrowni III Katowice, Poland.
Energy Policy of Poland until 2030, Draft, 2007. September, Warsaw, Poland.
Available information [online] at: http://www.mg.gov.pl
Feeley, T.J., Jones, A.P., 2008. An Update on DOE/NETLs Mercury Control Technology
Field Testing Program.
Gabrys, H.L., 2008. Polish power industry in 2008. Are the results achieved in the
rst months of this year as good as they are presented by the media? Energetyka 8/9, 562. 2008.
Glodek, A., 2005. Mercury Emission from Coal-red Power Plants. Masters Diploma
thesis. Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland.

5673

Hlawiczka, S., 2006. Atmospheric Mercury Fluxes from Anthropogenic Sources in

Poland and Possible Emission Reduction Measures; MEC3 Third International
Experts Workshop, 57 June 2006, Katowice, Poland.
Hlawiczka, S., 2008. Rtec w srodowisku atmosferycznym, IPIS PAN, Zabrze, Poland.
Hlawiczka, S., Kubica, K., Zielonka, U., Wilkosz, K., 2001. Wlasciwosci emisji pylu i
metali ciezkich w procesie spalania wegla w paleniskach domowych. Archiwum
Ochrony Srodowiska 27 (2), 2945.
Hlawiczka, S., Cenowski, M., Fudala, J., 2006. Inwentaryzacja emisji niemetanowych
lotnych zwiazkow organicznych i metali ciezkich za rok 2005, Report IETU,
Katowice, Poland.
IPPC, 2005. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants. European Commission. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/lcp_nal_
0505.pdf.
Konieczynski, J., Zajusz-Zubek, E., 2007. Badania emisji wlasciwosci zykochemicznych zanieczyszczen powietrza atmosferycznego. Wystepowanie Rteci W
Produktach Spalania Wegla I Produktach Odsiarczania Spalin, BK 228/RIE-2/2007.
Mniszek, W., 1994. Emission factor of mercury from coal-red power stations.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 33 (2), 161170. November, 1994.
Pacyna, J.M., 2005. Source-sectors analysis and evaluation report, ESPREME D01b
Report, Kjeller.
Pacyna, J.M., Pacyna, E.G., 2005. Emissions and Legislation outside North America
and the EU Project ESPREME, MEC2 Second International Experts workshop,
Ottawa, Canada 2425 May 2005.
Pacyna, J.M., Pacyna, E.G., 2006. Mercury Strategy Development in the EU and UN;
Current global emissions and their scenarios, MEC3 Third International Experts
Workshop, Katowice, Poland.
Pacyna, J.M., Pacyna, E.G., Steenhuisen, F., Wilson, S., 2003. Mapping 1995 global
anthropogenic emissions of mercury. Atmospheric Environment 37, 109117.
Pacyna, J.M., Munthe, J., Larjava, K., Pacyna, E.G., 2005. Mercury emissions from
anthropogenic sources: estimates and measurements in Europe. In: Pirrone, N.,
Mahaffey, K.R. (Eds.), Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global
Scales. Atmospheric Processes and Human Exposures Around the World.
Springer, N.Y., pp. 5164.
Pacyna, E.G., Pacyna, J.M., Steenhuisen, F., Wilson, S., 2006a. Global anthropogenic
mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmospheric Environment 40, 40484063.
Pacyna, E.G., Pacyna, J.M., Fudala, J., Strzelecka-Jastrzab, E., Hlawiczka, S.,
Panasiuk, D., 2006b. Mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic
sources in Europe in 2000 and their scenarios until 2020. Science of the Total
Environment 370, 147156.
Pacyna, J.M., Munthe, J., Wilson, S., Maxson, P., Sundseth, K., Pacyna, E.G., Harper, E.,
Kindbom, K., Wangberg, I., Panasiuk, D., Glodek, A., Leaner, J., Dabrowski, J.,
2008. Technical Background Report to the Global Atmospheric Mercury
Assessment. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme/UNEP Chemical
Branch. www.chem.unep.ch/mercury.
Panasiuk, D., Pacyna, J.M., Glodek, A., Piatek, R., Pacyna, E.G, Strzelecka-Jastrzab, E.,
Fudala, J., Hlawiczka, S., 2006. Scenarios for heavy metals, dioxins/furans and
PCBs emissions to air in Europe for years 2010 and 2020, DROPS D1.2 Report,
Katowice, Poland.
Pavlish, J.H., Sondreal, E.A., Mann, M.D., Olson, E.S., Galbreath, K.C., Laudal, D.L.,
Benson, S.A., 2003. Status review of mercury control options for coal-red
power plants. Fuel Processing Technology 82 (23), 89165.
PKE SA. The Southern Poland Power Company. Available information [on line] at:
http://www.pke.pl/dp/en
Pye, S., Jones, G., Stewart, R., Woodeld, M., Kubica, K., Kubica, R., Pacyna, J.M., 2006.
Costs and environmental effectiveness of options for reducing mercury emissions, AT/ED48706/Final Report v2.
Report Jaworzno III Power Station, 2004a. Raport dobowy z pracy blokow elektrowni Jaworzno II i III, 20.12.2004r., Jaworzno, Poland.
Report Jaworzno III Power Station, 2004b. Analiza rteci w weglu z podajnikow.
Wydzial Analiz Chemicznych elektrowni Jaworzno III, Jaworzno, Poland.
Strzelecka-Jastrzab, E., Fudala, J., Panasiuk, D., Pacyna, J.M., Hlawiczka, S., 2004.
Atmospheric Mercury Emission Projection for the years 2005, 2010 and 2020 in
Europe and the Mediterranean Sea Countries. MERCYMS WP-4. Annual Report,
Katowice-Kjeller.
Strzelecka-Jastrzab, E., Panasiuk, D., Pacyna, J.M., Pacyna, E.G., Fudala, J., Hlawiczka,
S., Cenowski, M., Dyduch, B., Glodek, A., 2007. Emission projections for the years
2010 and 2020 and assessment of the emission reduction scenario implementation costs, DROPS D1.3 Report, Katowice, Poland.
UNEP, 2008. The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment Sources, Emissions and
Transport. UNEP-Chemicals, Geneva. www.chem.unep.ch/mercury.
USEPA (United States Environment Protection Agency), 2002. Control of Mercury
Emissions from Coal-red Electric Utility Boilers, Interim Report Including
Errata Data. 3-21-02. EPA-600/R-01-109.
Wojnar, K., Wisz, J., 2006. Rtec w polskiej energetyce. Energetyka 4 (622), 59.
World Coal Institute, 2008. Coal Facts 2008 Available information [on line] at:
http://www.worldcoal.org.