COAL AND ELECTRICITY IN INDIA

SEPTEMBER 2003

Environmental Standards And Controls And Their Influence On Development Of Clean

Coal Technologies

By Lesley Sloss, Colin Henderson and John Topper

IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, UK

Introduction

The link between air pollution and human health has been established for well over a
century. This has led to major changes in the way fossil fuels are used particularly over the
past fifty years in both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants. Pollution legislation such
as emission standards is the only way of ensuring that air pollution is brought under control
and that the detrimental effects on human health are minimised (Sloss, 2003).

It is recognised that in some countries such as China and India, emissions from domestic
and small scale industrial use of coal are still a major issue, unlike in OECD countries where
legislation has progressively marginalized such coal use. However, this paper considers the
trends in emissions legislation, which have a direct bearing on fossil fuel fired power plant,
because it is these emissions that are significant at the global level and are likely to be
involved in finding solutions to global problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

Increasingly, policy makers are looking at ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and
phrases such as “zero emissions technologies” are entering the jargon in the west to
describe the concept of progressively reducing all significant emissions to atmosphere to
negligible levels. In this paper, recent and impending legislation in Europe, USA and Japan
are considered with respect to “conventional” pollutants such as SOx, NOx, particulates and
trace elements, since these tend to be used as models for future potential use in India. This
leads onto considerations of how clean coal technologies have developed and how they
might develop in the future.

Types of legislation

In the past there have generally been two forms of environmental legislation (Concawe,
2001):

¾ legislation driven by environmental quality; and

¾ legislation driven by available technologies.

Environmental quality was the original driver for environmental legislation. Deterioration in air
quality prompted authorities to find a way to reduce ambient concentrations of pollutants. The
environmental quality-driven approach to legislation has dominated in Europe in, for
example, the 2nd UNECE Sulphur Protocol and the UNECE Gothenburg Protocol. It was also
the basis of the Clean Air Acts seen in the USA and elsewhere.

The technology driven approach is a progressive one which ensures that emissions are
continually reduced as new and improved control technologies come onto the market. Best
available technology (BAT, Europe) and maximum achievable control technology (MACT,
USA) are derived from a technology driven approach (Concawe, 2001). The technology-
driven approach assumes that all sources within the countries to which the legislation is
applied, such as those within the EU, have similar emission problems.

1
The main types of legislation seen throughout the world at the moment are:

¾ Emission limits;
¾ Cap and trade;
¾ BAT/MACT;
¾ IPPC;
¾ Economic mechanisms

Emission limits are generally linked to ambient pollution concentrations and are based on
epidemiological data, ambient air quality and ambient air quality standards (Wijetikkeke and
Karunaratne, 1995).

Cap and Trade is a regulatory approach which recognises that allowing the market to find its
own means of emission reduction may be more cost effective than strict emission limits. The
most established example is the US EPA’s Acid Rain Program, which allows SO2 emissions
trading under a tonnage cap on affected sources. A larger NOx cap and trade market is
planned to begin in the 2004 ozone season for the 19 Eastern US states (Bradley and Jones,
2002).

Much legislation, such as that for SO2 and NOx in the EU and the USA, includes
requirements for BAT or MACT. It is generally recognised that BAT for individual sources
may differ due to the technical characteristics of the installations, the geographical location
and local environmental conditions. In order to make the prescription of the most appropriate
BAT more simple, the European Commission has organised an exchange of information
between member states (JRC, 2002). The US EPA is currently finalising the MACT standard
for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) is another technology-based approach to

legislation. IPPC moves away from narrow end-of-pipe policies such as BAT and MACT and
even emission standards towards a broader integrated and preventative approach. It
includes wider issues such as energy efficiency and the minimisation of waste. It also
includes management and organisation issues and considers cross-media effects ranging
from local to global (James, 2002; Nalbandian, 2002).The application of the IPPC Directive to
all existing plants in Europe is required by 2007 at the latest.

Economic mechanisms take several forms. Fines are commonly based on the Polluter Pays
Principle, and are a way of penalising sources for non-compliance with emission legislation.
In some situations it has been deemed that all emissions should be fined or taxed, not just
emissions over the specified limit. For example, charges can be made for the total amount of
any pollutant emitted from a single source. These charges can be levied on actual source
emissions - direct emission charges, or on estimated emissions - presumptive emission
charges (World Bank, 1999).

International legislation

UN

The United Nations has several protocols and programmes which cover emissions from
sources such as coal combustion. Countries that are members of the UN can decide whether
or not to sign and/or ratify any of these protocols and programmes on an individual basis.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) was signed in 1979 by 33 countries, including the USA
and Canada and most EU states. By June 2002 the number of member countries had
increased to 48.

2
EU

The European Union currently consists of fifteen member countries. Most EU legislation is
given in the form of directives as this allows the Member States more flexibility in achieving
environmental objectives. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive
of 1996 (96/61/EC) required the introduction of an integrated environmental licensing system
which will apply to a range of industrial processes including combustion installations greater
than 50 MWt. It was to be implemented by Member States by 1999.

The European Parliament worked with the European Council of Ministers to produce a
National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD) for acidifying and ozone-forming air pollutants.
This directive (2001/81/EC) sets limits for each member state for SO2, NOx, Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC’s) and ammonia. The NECD sets more stringent limits of SO2 and NOx
emissions for many countries than those specified in the Gothenburg Protocol (Agren, 2002).

The Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD)(2001/80/EC) originally established emission

standards for new plants larger than 50 MWt, irrespective of the fuel used. A number of
derogations were permitted for plants operating for less than 2200 hours per year, for power
plants in Spain, for a limited period, and for indigenous lignite-fired power plant (McConville,
1997). The new directive means the introduction of emission limit values (ELVs) for existing
plants plus the tightening up of the requirements for new plants (Agren, 2001; Agren 2002).

Countries in the EU have until November 2003 to either adopt the ELVs outlined in the LCPD
or to come up with alternative national action plans. This means that new national legislation
may well appear in many countries before the end of 2003.

It is not clear what concessions might be granted and for how long to the 10 candidate
countries soon to join the EU. Several of these have some highly inefficient coal or lignite
fired power plants. It would be logical that they be given both time and financial assistance to
bring these up to the same standards achieved in the former East Germany after
reunification.

However, the situation now is complicated by the impending application of an EU wide

carbon emissions trading scheme in 2005 which would further disadvantage the use of such
power plant. The new trading scheme, which was adopted and finalised by the European
Council in July 2003, will mean that more than 10,000 installations across the EU now face
caps on emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. How the trading scheme is to be
applied in each member country will be determined by each national government. At the
moment only Sweden, Germany and the UK are on track to meet the Kyoto agreements.
There has been a suggestion that the EU scheme could be opened up to other carbon
markets such as the JI and CDM via a “linking-directive”. This would mean that European
installations could purchase credits from outside the EU. Whilst this could reduce the
immediate pressure on coal-fired installations in EU member countries, there is concern that
this could undermine emissions reductions in the EU (Edie, 2003).

The two biggest coal producers and users in the EU are UK and Germany. Some
commentary on how each has reacted to the legislative pressures to date follows.

UK

The agreement and introduction of the original EU Large Combustion Plants Directive
(LCPD) of 1988, that first set emissions limits for new plants and national emissions ceilings
for existing plants, was a major milestone for the then nationalised electricity industry in the
UK, with its high dependence on the combustion of indigenous coals of 1.6% sulphur
content. During the period leading up to the agreement, plans were made to meet the

3
expected progressively tightening national emission ceiling for SO2 in the decision to install
6 GWe of capacity of the UKs pulverised coal (pc) fired units with flue gas desulphurisation
(FGD) systems, starting with the 4 GWe at Drax. This was completed in 1996. 2 GWe of
FGD was also installed at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. During the same period, the UK electricity
supply industry (ESI) was restructured and privatised, and, in the context of the emergence
of further initiatives such as IPPC and the revised LCPD adopted in 2001, it appears unlikely
that more FGD plant will be fitted to UK coal-fired power stations. As a major contribution to
meeting the NOx ceiling, all of the UK units of 500 MWe capacity and higher were retrofitted
with low-NOx burners during the 1980s and early 1990s.

The combined effect of restructuring of the ESI, the increased availability of cheap natural
gas, and a fall in the price of natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC) power plants that
occurred during the early 1990s resulted in a major fuel switch towards gas, a halving of coal
burn by the ESI, and the use of more imported coals of lower sulphur content within this
burn. In addition, no major new coal-fired power station has been built in the UK since the
1980s. All the existing coal-fired stations are subcritical pc-fired units except for one elderly
supercritical one. Government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now envisages
increased emphasis on natural gas imports (despite rising costs) and renewable sources of
energy, especially wind power, for which plans for 6 GWe of capacity have recently been
announced (DTI, 2003).

Germany

In Germany, with its tight national emissions regulations, there was already very widespread
application of FGD from retrofits carried out during the mid-late 1980s. Germany was also
one of the first countries to commercially deploy selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx
control. Such retrofits continued during the 1990s and there are now large numbers of
installations.

Re-unification of Germany stimulated a drive to reduce drastically the much worse SO2, NOx
and particulates emissions from the inherited stock in the eastern part of the country of
elderly, badly maintained lignite-fired plants. In most cases, the best option here was not to
retrofit environmental control measures, but to replace the units by modern subcritical and
supercritical pc-fired units (still fired on lignite) to give the multiple benefit of greatly enhanced
efficiency, reduced emissions and reduced operating costs. Table 1 lists some of the
properties of some of these plants (Rousaki and Couch, 2000). An example, the new
Schwarze Pumpe plant, near Dresden, is described below.

Table 1 Some recent lignite-fired supercritical pcc plants in Germany

(Rousaki and Couch, 2000)

Name Output (gross), Mwe Steam conditions Commissioning year

Schkopau 2x450 26.5 MPa/545°C 1995-96
Schwarze Pumpe 2x800 26 MPa/547°C /565°C 1997-98
Lippendorf 2x930 26.8 MPa/554°C /583°C 1999-2000
Boxberg 2x900 26.8 MPa/545°C /560°C 2000
Niederaussem 1x1000 27.5 MPa/580°C /600°C 2002

4
Schwarze Pumpe power station, Germany

The two 800 MWe lignite-fired supercritical units of the Schwarze Pumpe plant entered
commercial service between November 1997 and May 1998. The station, on the site of an
earlier lignite-fired plant, replaced several older plants and supplies power to the grid and
heat to district heating schemes and process steam to a briquette factory (Rousaki and
Couch, 2000; Sage and others, 2001). Main steam conditions are 26 MPa/547°C, with single
reheat at 5.5 MPa/565°C. The high sulphur lignite fuel has moisture contents up to 55-60%
and lower heating values around 9 MJ/kg. However, emissions of SO2 are only 120 mg/m3.
Emissions data are shown in Table 2. The low NOx emissions have been achieved by the
use of fuel and air staging without downstream flue gas treatment. Particulate emissions are
12 mg/m3, achieved using electrostatic precipitators. The electrical efficiency of the plant is
41% (LHV basis). Energy availability in the year 2000 was 98.66%, after allowance for the
one scheduled outage for each unit. This highly successful project has formed the basis of
similar units at Lippendorf and Boxberg.

Table 2 Emissions data: Schwarze Pumpe plant

(Sage and others, 2001)

Substance Statutory limit Permit application Measured level

Particulates, mg/m3 50 50 12
CO, mg/m3 250 250 90
NOx, mg/m3 200 200 165
SO2, mg/m3 400 400 120

5
USA

Legislation for air pollution control in the USA appears far more complex than that in Europe
because of differences in existing legislation, industrial structures and geographies (Li,
2002). The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) are regularly updated and tightened.
Emission standards are now accompanied by requirements for MACT. However, emissions
trading and cap and trade schemes are becoming increasingly popular and more flexible
mechanisms for reducing emission limits are being adopted. The new Clear Skies Initiative
(summarised in Table 3) sets targets for emission reductions but does not specify how these
reductions should be achieved. However, the US EPA is about to decided on its
requirements for mercury control. Whether this will be an emission standard, a minimum
reduction, a MACT requirement or a cap and trade scheme remains to be seen.

Table 3 Proposed cuts in emissions under the Clear Skies Initiative, USA
(Nalbandian, 2002)

Current emission 2010 target 2018 target

(2002)
SO2 11 million tons 4.5 million tons 3 million tons
(9.98 Mt) (4.08 Mt) (2.72 Mt)
NOx 5 million tons 2.1 million tons 1.7 million tons
(4.54 Mt) (1.9 Mt) (1.54 Mt)
mercury 48 tons 26 tons 15 tons
(43.5 t) (23.6 t) (13.6 t)

Despite a significant amount of research and development, there is currently no technology

that has been identified as MACT for mercury. As soon as such a technology is identified, it
is likely that a MACT requirement will follow very quickly. In the absence of MACT, a mercury
cap or minimum reduction in emissions will be the most probable approach. The inclusion of
a trading option is also likely. Mercury combustion chemistry is highly variable. Some coals
(some US bituminous seams) produce mercury that is largely oxidised and easy to capture.
In some situations FGD can control over 70% of oxidised mercury emissions. Other coals
and lignites produce more elemental mercury which is much more difficult to capture. Some
coal-fired plants may be able to reduce emissions by coal switching or other relatively simple
approaches. A cap and trade system will provide the flexibility to allow those plants that can
reduce mercury in a cost effective manner to do so.

In the USA, the issue of smog accumulations from temperature inversions over major centres
of population and the consequent tightening limits on NOx meant that SCR systems began to
be installed increasingly during the 1990s in sensitive areas. There can be difficulties for
SCR catalysts at plants using high sulphur coals, but the flexibility in the legislation has also
stimulated the further development and deployment of less expensive combustion-based
NOx control measures at locations where situations allowed it. Selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) has also been applied commercially on coal-fired power plants since the
early 1990s (Soud and Fukasawa, 1996). SO2 emissions reduction requirements have been
addressed by a combination of wet FGD and sorbent injection systems.

As in Europe, in the beginning of the 1990s, the USA saw a move over to the ordering of new
generating capacity based on NGCC plants as they were at the time perceived as offering a
less expensive way of reducing emissions than using pc-fired plants with FGD and NOx
controls. Their higher efficiency and lower capital requirements were also attractions.
However, shortages of power and sharp increases in the price of gas in the last few years
appear to have ended this trend, and there is renewed interest in ordering coal-fired power
stations. Moreover, the power industry is beginning to choose supercritical pc-fired units for
some of these new installations because of their efficiency benefits.

6
Since the late 1980s, the US DOE has been supporting demonstration projects within the
Clean Coal Technology Program (CCT Program). This programme was driven in part by the
need to diversify from oil and to maximise the use of indigenous coal resources and also by
the need to reduce the environmental impact of power stations based on coal so that options
were not restricted by the ever tightening legislated emission limits. The CCT Program has
formed a foundation for its principal replacement programmes, the ten-year Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI) and the Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII).

Several of the CCT Program projects were sited at units required to meet SO2 reductions by
1 January 1995, under Phase I Title IV of the CAAA. The projects successfully met these and
the technologies also helped industry meet later more stringent SO2 limits. The EIA has
predicted that 11 GWe of capacity will be retrofitted with FGD to meet the Phase II Title IV
goals. Title IV also called for reductions in NOx emissions and the CCT Program
demonstrated combustion-based NOx emission control techniques applicable to virtually all
boiler types (US DOE, 2002).

Japan

Environmental policy in Japan is based on “administrative guidance” where the government

gives advice, setting requirements for individual companies. These requirements are
voluntary but include emission standards to be observed. Economic penalties are often set,
however these are not often applied nor are they severe. In Japan, social responsibility is a
high priority and a company violating regulations will lose their social reputation and public
credibility which is regarded as worse than any fine or penalty.

Emission limits for pollutants such as SO2 are calculated using the “K value”. The K value
varies from region to region based on air quality standards and specific local air pollution
problems and sensitivities. The limit set for each plant also takes into account BAT “at the
most reasonable cost”. Future emission limits are gradually tightened over a pre-defined
period of time (Sloss, 2003).

Industrial cities such as Yokohama have specific problems. In 1964 a novel approach to
these localised problems was developed. EPDC (Electric Power Development Company
Ltd), controlled by MITI (Ministry for International Trade and Industry) was planning to build a
new coal-fired plant in the Yokohama area. Since Yokohama had air pollution problems, the
city regulators developed a “pollution control agreement” in which EPDC committed to take
measures to achieve agreed targets beyond the levels required by law. This contract is
regarded as the first pollution control agreement (PCA) in Japan. Nowadays PCAs are used
throughout Japan as a supplement to existing legislation. They are also used as a condition
for companies to acquire a permit or licence for new plants.

Virtually all of the coal used for power generation in Japan is imported. However, the country
has widely applied FGD and NOx control systems for over 20 years. Japan’s climate, like
parts of the USA, can result in smog over some major population centres, and SCR has
tended to be used for NOx control because of its high performance and the fact that most of
the coal used is of low to medium sulphur content. During the 1990s, a number of
ultrasupercritical pc-fired power plants have been constructed to give high efficiencies and
low emissions. Two recent examples are in Table 4.

Table 4 Examples of recent ultrasupercritical pc-fired power plants in Japan

(Henderson, 2003)

Name Output (gross), Steam conditions Commissioning

MWe year
Matsuura 1x1000 24.1 MPa/593°C/593°C 1997
Tachibanawan 1x1050 25.1 MPa/600°C/610°C 2000

7
The future

The technologies referred to earlier centred on plants based on pulverised coal combustion
(pcc – shown in Figure 1 because this is by far the most widely adopted system for coal-fired
power generation. Of the newer clean coal technologies (CCTs) that are not based on
supercritical pcc, circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) and pressurised fluidised bed
combustion (PFBC) have been commercialised, while integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) demonstrations at commercial scale have been operated in the USA and Europe
(Henderson, 2003).

All these technologies will have a role to play in satisfying power generation needs in the
future. IGCC could also be configured to produce hydrogen and chemicals as well as power
(co-production – shown in Figure 2). Although the combustion-based technologies could be
redesigned for CO2 capture, IGCC currently appears most readily suited to adaptation to
achieve this, especially as a co-production system.

8
Coal-fired power generation advancement needs a strategy that allows for developing both
conventional CCTs and the related near-zero emission technologies. This requires the
planning and management of an overall long-term coal strategy, with synergistic interactions
at all technical levels. There are effectively two pathways (or roadmaps) with close linkages
between them. While CCTs move toward the long-term target of near-zero emissions, during
the interim period progressively reducing emissions and costs must occur. Apart from the
value of continuing benefits per se, this is essential to ensure the technology base on which
to build economical near-zero emission plants and to provide credibility in achieving the near-
zero emission goal.

The second main strand of the strategy is essential for the long term security of energy
supplies, through coal-fuelled systems with very low emissions of conventional pollutants and
heavy metals and, especially, the means of capture of CO2 for sequestration. These may
include second generation IGCC, perhaps with fuel cells, plus CO2 separation, and low-CO2
ultrasupercritical PCC. Co-production complexes may well offer advantages for maximising
economic returns, so flexibility within the roadmap is necessary. Co-production now forms a
major feature of US energy policy, as shown in the emergence of a major solicitation issued
under the Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative. The 1 US$ billion FutureGen
project will result in a near-zero emission 275 MWe coal-fuelled IGCC plus hydrogen
production plant demonstration incorporating CO2 separation together with geological
sequestration (US DOE, 2003).

It is necessary to tailor the strategy according to regional issues, as the geographical location
envisaged for deployment has an influence on the most appropriate pathway. Thus, in the
extremely heavily coal-dependent electricity systems here in India and in China, where
electricity demand is set to continue to rise more rapidly than in more industrialised countries,
it seems more realistic to adopt a policy related to improving existing plants over a longer
timescale and introducing advanced PCC before development and deployment of CO2-
capture plants, perhaps only eventually based on gasification.

Diagrammatic roadmaps to 2015 for an OECD country and a developing country are shown
in Figures 3 and 4

9
Roadmaps need to include targets to focus direction for R&D and to encourage speed of
progress in deployment. Table 5 shows some suggested targets for environmental
performance and thermal efficiency (guidelines only, since technology type has a major
effect).

Table 5 Some suggested targets for environmental performance and thermal

efficiency of future CCT plants
(Henderson, 2003)

Year Efficiency, % SO2 NOx Particulates, Hg CO2

LHV basis removal emissions mg/m3 removal removal
Current, 40-45 S/C 90-95% 200 mg/m3 10-50 PCC - -
new PCC PCC PCC 1-10 IGCC
45 IGCC 98% IGCC
2010 45-50 95% PCC 50 mg/m3 5 90% -
99% IGCC
2020 55+ 95% PCC 10- 2 95% 80%+
99% IGCC 15 mg/m3 capability

Notes:
IGCC here refers to any gasification-based technology

Because the long-term future of coal appears to rest on the achievement of near-zero CO2
emissions, an accompanying pathway for achieving CO2 sequestration is needed. This
needs to include, apart from the technologies and costs, the exploration and resolution of
environmental issues associated with geological storage and investigation of the legal
aspects.

10
Carbon emissions trading will make coal less attractive unless suitable mechanisms are
developed through which CO2 reductions through capture and sequestration become eligible
carbon-saving projects, but emissions trading needs also to be structured such that
investments in non-capture CCTs of improved efficiency are not penalised either, because
this will jeopardise development of the near-zero emission plants essential for the future.

R&D requirements

The R&D needs to progress along the pathways described above are summarised in Figures
5 and 6.

In the short-medium term, reducing capital costs and improving efficiency and environmental
performance will aid further deployment of the established technologies (CFBC and
supercritical PCC) through continuing evolutionary improvements. Longer-term requirements
for many of the technologies involve advanced materials developments and demonstration of
adequate availability of plant and capital cost reductions. For IGCC, in particular, further
commercial-scale demonstrations are needed to increase confidence in the technology.

Zero or near-zero emission technologies

For zero or near-zero CO2 PCC, the two principal approaches involve separation from the
flue gas at the back end of an otherwise largely conventional PCC unit or separation from the
much more CO2-rich flue gas from oxy-coal combustion. The method most advanced in
status that can efficiently absorb CO2 from flue gases is chemical scrubbing using amines,
but developments are needed. With oxy-coal combustion, a concentrated stream of CO2
would directly exit the boiler, part of which would be recycled for feeding with oxygen. Work
is required to determine the effects of the unconventional atmosphere on corrosion, slagging
and fouling.

11
Widespread establishment of conventional IGCC as a cost-effective, reliable technology for
utility power generation will be needed for it to form a credible basis of future near-zero
emission systems based on CO2 separation from shifted syngas. The pressure and
concentration of the CO2 in shifted syngas favour the use of separation by physical
processes. Zero emission co-production plants will need configurations that are sufficiently
flexible and integrated well, both internally externally with appropriate industrial processes on
adjacent sites. Air separation using less energy- and capital-intensive systems (membranes)
could in the long term improve the efficiency and cost of oxygen-blown IGCC and oxy-coal
combustion.

Near-zero emission plants will need to have designed into them not only means for capture
of most of the CO2, but also solutions to the elimination of conventional pollutants.

Conclusions

¾ Emission legislation arises in response to concerns over increasing concentrations of

pollution in the atmosphere. The concentrations of these pollutants can be reduced
either by applying a simple emission limit to all major sources (the environmental
quality approach) or by requiring that all sources fit suitable control equipment to
reduce emissions (the technology driven approach). In reality, much of the legislation
seen around the world is a combination of these two approaches. Historically, policies
that have set emission standards for coal-fired plants have driven the industry to
produce the most cost-effective technological solutions. These BAT or MACT
systems can then also be required within legislation.

¾ Emission limits have the advantage of being simple and universal, applying to all
prescribed sources. Maximum emission limits can be tightened as required.
Technological legislation, such as the requirement for BAT or MACT requires that the
required pollution control system for each source be identified. However, this
definition may change with time and with continuing developments in pollution control
and can therefore be regarded as continually increasing in stringency.

12
 ¾ Economic tools are less specific in their actual controls on individual plants. Fines can
be successful if the system is well-run and the fines are set at such a level that they
genuinely promote the installation of pollution control technologies rather than simply
taking money from non-compliant sources. Taxes and refund systems, when used
correctly, can result in the application of BAT or MACT to plants that would otherwise
been unable to afford such modifications.

¾ Flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading schemes or cap and trade schemes
are becoming more popular. These set overall targets for emission reductions in a
country or region and are more flexible than strict emission standards and BAT
requirements. This allows the authorities to select the most suitable controls and
requirements in each area and even on a plant-to-plant basis.

¾ Different legislative approaches to control of “conventional” pollutants such as SOx,

NOx, and particulates have been described for the EU citing UK and Germany as
examples, for the USA and for Japan. The technological responses have converged
over time and similar techniques for these end-of-pipe controls are similar across
OECD countries.

¾ CO2 is now the biggest driving force behind long-term CCT development
programmes as they become increasingly focused on zero emissions. In the short-
medium term, improved environmental controls and efficiency improvement
measures plus further deployment of clean coal technologies such as
ultrasupercritical PCC, PFBC and IGCC with wet gas cleaning should occur. This
may be achieved more rapidly in retrofits in certain situations. Meanwhile, for the
longer term, systems ready for separation of CO2 need to be developed and
demonstrated to the point of commercialisation. These may include second
generation co-production IGCC, perhaps with fuel cells, with CO2 separation, and
low-CO2 ultrasupercritical PCC.

References

Agren C (2001) At last getting somewhere. Acid News; 3; 1-5 (Oct 2001)
Agren C (2002) Environmentalists rage over Bush’s “Clear Skies” plan. Acid News; 2; 18-19
(Jun 2002)
Bradley M J, Jones B M (2002) Reducing global NOx emissions: developing advanced
energy and transportation technologies. Ambio; 31 (2); 141-149 (Mar 2002)
CONCAWE Review (2001) Future EU air legislation. Target or technology driven?
CONCAWE Review; 10 (2) vp (Oct 2001)
DTI (2003) Hewitt announces biggest ever expansion in renewable energy. UK Department
of Trade and Industry, London, UK. Available from:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.nsf/TI?openview&month=Jul&year=2003 (Jul 2003)
Edie (2003) Emissions trading directive adopted by European Council. Edie News Archive:
http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/7307.cfm 2 pp (Jul 2003)
Henderson C (2003) Clean coal technologies roadmaps. London, UK, IEA Clean Coal
Centre, In preparation (2003)
JRC (2002) Permanent watch for best available anti-pollution techniques. JRC in Action:
European Commission. DG Joint Research Centre; 2; 3-4 (Jun 2002)
Li M X (2002) Evaluations of current air programs and suggestions. Paper presented at: 5th
annual EUEC conference, Tucson, AZ, USA, 22-25 Jan 2002, 8 pp (Jan 2002)
McConville A (1997) Emission standards handbook. IEA CR/96. London, UK, IEA Clean
Coal Centre, 201 pp (Aug 1997)
Nalbandian H (2002) Prospects for integrated pollution control in pulverised coal fired power
plant. CCC/68. London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 64 pp (Nov 2002)
Rousaki K, Couch G R (2000) Advanced clean coal technologies and low value coals.
CCC/39, London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 76 pp (Nov 2000)
Sage P W, Höwener H, Ferre González M A (2001) Schwarze Pumpe lignite-fired power
plant. CARNOT Online - Case study: large combustion-plant. Available from:
13
http://enpov.aeat.com/carnot/case_studies/pdf/SchwarzeP.pdf (2001)
Sloss L L (2003) Trends in emission standards. London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, In
Preparation (2003)
Soud H, Fukasawa K (1996) Developments in NOx abatement and control. IEACR/89,
London, UK, IEA Clean Coal Centre, 123 pp (Aug 1996)
US DOE (2002) Clean coal technology demonstration program: program update.
Washington, DC, USA, United States Department of Energy (US DOE) 357 pp (Jul 2002)
US DOE (2003) FutureGen - a sequestration and hydrogen research initiative. US
Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Available from:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2003/tl_futuregen1.html as:
futuregen_factsheet.pdf 2pp (Feb 2003)
Wijetilleke L, Karunaratne S A (1995) Air quality management: considerations for
developing countries. World Bank Technical Paper no 278. Report no WB–0418/XAB.
Washington, DC, USA, World Bank Group, 120 pp (Apr 1995)
World Bank (1999) Pollution prevention and abatement handbook 1998: towards cleaner
production. Washington DC, USA, World Bank Group, 471 pp (Apr 1999)

Contact Us

For Environmental Standards and Controls Lesley Sloss; lesleysloss@blueyonder.co.uk

For Clean Coal Technologies ; colinxhenderson@aol.com
For advice on the work and staff availability of IEA Clean Coal Centre and the IEA
Greenhouse Gases R & D Programme; john.topper@iea-coal.org.uk

14