Cost Functions for Controlling SO2 Emissions in Europe

COST FUNCXXONS FOR CONTROLLING SO2 EMISSIONS

IN

EUROPE

Markus Amann Gabor Kornai

May

1987 W-87-065

Working P a p e r s a r e interim reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and have received only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute or of its National Member Organizations.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

Preface

This p a p e r marks a n important s t e p in t h e development of t h e Regional Acidif- ication INformation and Simulation (RAINS) model. One of t h e major goals of t h e p r o j e c t since i t s beginning f o u r y e a r s ago, h a s been t o g e t RAINS used in policy analysis. To t h a t end t h e model should include variables t h a t a r e v e r y c r u c i a l in t h e e y e s of t h e decision makers. The c o s t of reducing a i r pollutant emissions c e r - tainly i s such a n important policy relevant variable.

The a u t h o r s have successfully developed a uniform a p p r o a c h f o r establishing cost-of-control functions f o r emissions of sulfur dioxide in virtually all European countries. This uniformity i s particularly important f o r comparing t h e cost- effectiveness of various s c e n a r i o s f o r controlling acid deposition in Europe.

Currently t h e assumptions and t h e numbers in t h i s p a p e r a r e under review by e x p e r t s in many of t h e European countries. I would like t o thank t h e members of t h e Working P a r t y f o r Air Pollution Problems of t h e Senior Advisers t o ECE Governments on Environmental Problems and t h e Group of E x p e r t s on Cost and Benefit Analysis of t h e Executive Body f o r t h e Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution f o r providing t h e f o r a f o r discussing t h e work con- tained in this p a p e r .

The cost-of-control functions allow t h e evaluation of t a r g e t t e d deposition lev- e l s at a v a r i e t y of locations in Europe. This will b e t h e topic of a subsequent pa- p e r . In t h e n e a r f u t u r e w e will a l s o develop similar control function f o r t h e emis- sions of nitrogen oxides and will eventually combine t h e functions into one cost-of- control function f o r acidifying emissions.

Finally I would like t o acknowledge contributions both financially and in kind made by t h e Federal Environmental Agency of t h e Federal Republic of Germany, t h e Department of Energy of t h e United S t a t e s of America, t h e Air Pollution Group of t h e Nordic Council of Ministers and t h e Dutch P r i o r i t y Programme on Acidifica- tion. Naturally t h e responsibility f o r t h e use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e materials provided by t h e s e institutions remains solely with t h e a u t h o r s of t h e p a p e r .

Leen Hordijk

Leader, Acid Rain P r o j e c t

Acknowledgment

The a u t h o r s are g r a t e f u l t o B. S c h a r e r (Umweltbundesamt, FRG), D. S t r e e t s (Argonne National Laboratory, USA), and B. Tangena and R. Swart (National Insti- t u t e f o r Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, t h e Netherlands) who were in- volved in discussions about t h e c o s t of control submodel. W e are also indebted to t h e many individuals who worked and have been working in t h e Acid Rain P r o j e c t .

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Goals and limitations of t h e Approach 3. Principles of c o s t calculation

4. Abatement Options

5. P r o c e s s Emission's Removal 6. National Cost Curve

References

Appendix A: Cost calculation routine f o r desulfurization options during or after combustion

Appendix B: Data used for t h e cost calculation Appendix C: National cost c u r v e s

-

^vii

-

COST FUNCTIONS

MIR

CONTROLLING SO2 W S S I O N S IN EUROPE

Markus Amann and Gabor Kornai

1. INTRODUCTION

The RAINS (Regional Acidification Information and Simulation) model i s a set of i n t e r a c t i v e computer based models developed at IIASA to assess long-term aci- dification in Europe on a regional scale. The available submodels a r e grouped into t h r e e compartments: t h e energy, emissions and c o s t of pollution control submodels, t h e atmospheric t r a n s p o r t submodel, and t h e impact compartment covering submo- dels f o r e f f e c t s on lakes, groundwater, f o r e s t soils and d i r e c t impact of SO2 on f o r e s t s . Special emphasis i s put on flexible use of t h e computer model both by ad- vanced interactive software and graphical r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e model r e s u l t s (Al- cam0 et al., 1987).

This p a p e r gives a description of t h e c o s t of control submodel, which i s linked with t h e e n e r g y pathways and emission calculations within t h e f i r s t compartment.

2. GOALS AND LIMJTATIONS OF THE APPROACH

The c o s t submodel of RAINS should s e r v e as framework f o r a consistent as- sessment of pollution control c o s t s f o r all 27 European countries in o r d e r t o en- a b l e

-

_a c o s t evaluation of different abatement s t r a t e g i e s , based on different e n e r g y scenarios and

-

a comparison of pollution control costs between countries.

The international comparability of t h e resulting c o s t d a t a i s t h e basis f o r t h e development of optimized European wide emission reduction s t r a t e g i e s , where tar- geted sulfur deposition levels are achieved in a cost optimal way (Batterman et ^al., 1986).

The requirement t o assess abatement c o s t s f o r all countries of Europe limits necessarily t h e level of detail, which can b e maintained. Data availability and com- putational c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e simplifications, which might a p p e a r too rough f o r studies focused on one country only. T h e r e f o r e t h e r e s u l t s of t h e c o s t submodel should b e considered much more as indicative than as absolute cost estimates: t h e main emphasis i s p u t on international consistency and comparability.

Keeping in mind t h e b r o a d scope of RAINS

-

t o provide a tool f o r integrated assessment of acidification from pollutant's r e l e a s e t o ecological impacts

-

^only

d i r e c t pollution c o n t r o l c o s t s are considered by t h e cost submodel. All indirect c o s t s of emission reduction (effects on e n e r g y p r i c e s , t r a d e balance, employment, etc.) as w e l l as t h e benefits are excluded from t h e evaluation.

3.

PRINCIPLES OF COST CALCULATION

A basic assumption of t h e RAINSm c o s t submodel i s t h e existence of ' f r e e t r a d e and exchange of technology0, o r

-

in o t h e r words

-

^of a competitive market f o r desulfurization equipment, accessible f o r all countries throughout Europe. Based on this assumption one c a n specify country independent capital c o s t s f o r a l l a b a t e - ment technologies, which are determined only by t h e type of t h e equipment. The ac- tual abatement c o s t s ( p e r ton of removed S O z ) of e a c h abatement technology are defined by national circumstances. These c o s t s d i f f e r considerably among coun- t r i e s even f o r t h e same technology mainly. due t o sulfur content of fuels, capacity utilization and b o i l e r sizes of installations.

The RAINS' c o s t submodel provides a n algorithm, which t a k e s into account t h e technology dependent c o s t p a r a m e t e r s as well as t h e country specific situations of t h e i r application.

4. ABATEMENT OPTIONS

Basically seven options t o r e d u c e sulfur emissions from e n e r g y combustion ex- ist: energy conservation, fuel substitution, use of low sulfur fuels, fuel desulfuriza- tion, combustion modification, 'conventional' flue gas desulfurization and ad- vanced, high efficient flue g a s cleaning methods (regenerative processes). This c h a p t e r will discuss t h e s e options in some detail.

Although RAINS i s a b l e t o evaluate ecological impacts of energy conserva- tion s t r a t e g i e s and provides t h e u s e r t h e possibility t o input his own energy scenario, i t seems not reasonable t o r e l a t e a l l c o s t s of such policies only to emis- sion reduction benefits, as t h e r e a r e a l o t of o t h e r economic benefits (effects to t h e t r a d e balance, employment, etc.). T h e r e f o r e t h e c o s t submodel excludes t h e c o s t assessment of e n e r g y conservation explicitly.

Fuel sabstitution f o r r e a s o n s of emission reduction comprises t h e exchange of sulfur containing fuels (coal, oil) by sulfur f r e e fuels (natural gas, hydropower, nuclear energy). A p r e c i s e evaluation of c o s t s involved would b e v e r y tedious and would r e q u i r e more detailed e n e r g y models. A s this,-would e n l a r g e t h e size of

\

RAINS too much, t h e c o s t submodel contains only a rough cost estimation p r e c e d u r e f o r such s t r a t e g i e s , assuming t h a t t h e differences between t h e fuel p r i c e s in e a c h country could b e i n t e r p r e t e d as opportunity c o s t s and r e f l e c t somehow t h e more complex underlying c o s t s t r u c t u r e of t h e energy system (Inaba, 1985).

The fuel p r i c e s of OECD countries a r e taken from IEA statistics (OECD, 1986).

In o r d e r t o avoid problems of evaluating non-convertible c u r r e n c i e s versus h a r d c u r r e n c i e s , f o r CMEA countries t h e e x p o r t p r i c e s of energy t o Western Europe (as

r e p o r t e d by OECD) are assumed t o r e p r e s e n t opportunity c o s t s of fuel substitution f o r t h e national economies of those countries.

A special algorithm p r e s e r v e s t h e consistency of t h e e n e r g y balance, keeping t r a c k of different combustion efficiencies of fuels and satisfying t h e basic demand/supply balances. The potentials f o r fuel substitution are derived f o r e a c h country s e p a r a t e l y based on differences of extreme, but still on a n European level consistent, e n e r g y scenarios.

According t o one of t h e main assumptions of t h e c o s t submodel t h i s a p p r o a c h i s a b l e t o assess c o s t differences between scenarios, but i t does not provide abso- lute c o s t figures.

The use of low sulfur fuels in o r d e r t o r e d u c e sulfur emissions i s only imple- mented f o r h a r d coal, where low sulfur coal i s defined as coal with 1 p e r c e n t sulfur content. Although in some countries coal with lower sulfur content i s available, it cannot be expected t h a t t h e r e are enough coal r e s e r v e s of t h i s t y p e t o establish a long-term t r a d e of coal of t h i s quality.

The c o s t s r e l a t e d t o t h i s option are derived from analysis of t h e long-term p r i c e differences on t h e world coal market f o r low sulfur coal and are assumed t o b e equal f o r all countries. Because of t h e competitive market f o r low s u l f u r coal qualities, a l s o t h e c o s t s of physical coal cleaning have t o decline t o t h e market p r i c e differential f o r naturally occurring low sulfur coal, if t h i s desulfurization method is t o b e applied.

Due t o high t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s only a negligible international t r a d e of brown coal and lignite exists in Europe. I t is, t h e r e f o r e , unlikely t h a t domestic r e s o u r c e s of t h o s e fuels will b e substituted by imports with eventually lower sulfur content.

The deaulfnrization of oil products a f f e c t s d i f f e r e n t product qualities. The d a t a b a s e of RAINS contains t h e consumption of light fraction products (gasoline,

jet fuel), gasoil (diesel a n d light fuel oil) a n d heavy f r a c t i o n products (heavy fuel oil). The light f r a c t i o n products contain a negligible amount of sulfur. Gas oil c a n b e desulfurized down to 0.3 p e r c e n t , and at higher costs down to 0.15 p e r c e n t . Heavy f u e l oil will b e available with 1 p e r c e n t s u l f u r content e i t h e r by u s e of na- turally o c c u r r i n g low s u l f u r c r u d e oils (e.g. from t h e North S e a ) as r e f i n e r y input or by desulfurization during t h e r e f i n e r y process.

Because of t h e vivid t r a d e with refined oil p r o d u c t s in Europe, t h e cost sub- model r e s t r i c t s t h e cost calculation of fuel desulfurization to t h e fuel p r i c e differ- ences, but performs no bookkeeping of r e f i n e r y c a p a c i t i e s and desulfurization in- vestments. The p r i c e increments f o r l o w s u l f u r oil qualities are valid f o r all coun- t r i e s . The cost d a t a f o r f u e l desulfurization are based on t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e Federal Environmental Agency in t h e Federal Republic of Germany.

D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n during or a f t e r combustion, in c o n t r a s t to t h e a l r e a d y dis- cussed emission reduction options, r e q u i r e s d i r e c t investments at t h e plant site.

T h e r e f o r e t h e t h r e e methods within t h i s category: combustion modification, flue g a s desulfurization and high efficient r e g e n e r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s are modeled in a dif- f e r e n t way.

An algorithm w a s developed to d e r i v e country specific unit costs of abatement ( p e r ton of removed S O 2 ) f o r t h e s e technologies, taking into account investment ef- f o r t s as w e l l as fixed and v a r i a b l e o p e r a t i n g costs. The investment costs are described by a function, involving t h e t y p e of technology, t h e flue g a s volume of t h e fuel a n d t h e boiler size as well as t h e additional expenses caused by r e t r o f i t - ting installations. In o r d e r to c o n v e r t t h e one-time payments of t h e investment ex- penses to costs p e r removed ton of SO2, t h e country specific real i n t e r e s t rate and t h e a v e r a g e lifetime of plants (depending on t h e s e c t o r ) are used to annualize t h e costs by t h e p r e s e n t value method. The capacity utilization (operating h o u r s p e r y e a r ) and t h e s u l f u r removal efficiency relate t h o s e annualized costs to t h e a c t u a l

amount of removed sulfur. The operating expenses a r e divided into two categories:

fixed costs, which a r e independent on t h e use of t h e technology (maintenance, taxes, administrational overhead, etc.) and variable costs, which are directly re- lated t o t h e operation (labour costs, additional energy demand, costs f o r sorbents and waste disposal, etc.). Together with t h e annualized investment costs they add up t o unit costs p e r ton of removed SOz. Appendix A gives a n overview of t h e cost calculations f o r desulfurization options during o r a f t e r combustion.

The technology related input d a t a f o r t h e cost calculation routine a r e dif- f e r e n t f o r each of t h e t h r e e abatement methods mentioned above. These t h r e e basic processes r e p r e s e n t s e v e r a l different technological solutions, which have

-

in each group

-

similar overall technical and economical characteristics. For methodological reasons for each group t h e most common process w a s used t o derive those significant properties, but one can assume t h a t these data r e p r e s e n t also o t h e r competitive methods of t h e same group.

Desulfurization technologies with low investment efforts, but high operating costs (due t o l a r g e amounts of produced waste material), which are applied mostly for medium efficiency removals, are represented within t h e combustion modifica- tion group by t h e limestone injection method. A s advanced. but not yet fully com- mercially available process t h e fluidized bed combustion would also b e covered by this abatement option.

The most common desulfurization technology throughout Europe is t h e flue gas desulfurization. represented by t h e w e t limestone scrubbing process. Remo- val efficiencies of 90 p e r c e n t a r e typical.

Advanced, v e r y high efficient desulfurization proaesses are grouped into t h e regenerative process methods, which achieve efficiencies in t h e range of 98 percent, but r e q u i r e higher costs. A s example f o r t h e cost calculation t h e already fully commercial Wellman-Lord method i s taken. For t h e future, e.g. t h e integrated

gasification

-

combined-cycle plants, which are presently under development in t h e USA would also fit into this technology group.

The cost d a t a f o r t h e s e methods were estimated in cooperation with t h e Federal Environmental Agency of t h e Federal Republic of Germany, using t h e specific West German experience ( S c h a r e r et aL., 1987). Appendix B contains t h e data used f o r cost calculations.

5. PROCESS EMISSION'S REMOVAL

Compared t o emissions caused by energy combustion, man-made sulfur emis- sions originating from industrial processes not r e l a t e d t o energy consumption, are badly documented. For purposes of a consistent assessment of emission reduction potentials and costs, d a t a are only available f o r few countries. These few published d a t a d o not allow t o derive even rough estimates f o r o t h e r countries. In o r d e r t o avoid inequalities between countries reporting process emissions and those, who do not d o so, i t i s necessary t o use some generic assumptions about potentials and costs of reducing those pollutants. In absence of any data, which could b e general- ized, t h r e e reduction levels at different (generic) costs are assumed f o r those countries, who specify p r o c e s s emissions.

Even if t h e r e would exist more precise d a t a about t h e origin of t h e emissions, i t would b e extremely difficult t o estimate reduction costs, as emission reduction of those processes is mostly connected with a change of t h e production technology.

Such a change is neither necessarily induced by environmental interests, n o r should t h e resulting changes of productivity and efficiency b e ignored.

6. NATIONAL COST CURYE

The national abatement costs are defined f o r each country by t h e unit costs and t h e actual potential f o r sulfur removal, which is mainly connected with t h e en-

e r g y consumption. In o r d e r t o allow comparisons of abatement costs between coun- t r i e s , RAINS contains a procedure t o derive t h e least cost combination of available abatement options f o r each emission reduction level from z e r o reduction up t o t h e technically feasible limit.

For a selected energy pathway a compilation of those least cost solutions will result in t h e 'National Cost Curve'. The cost efficiency s e r v e s a s common criterion to select a set of pollution control policies out of t h e infinite number of possible combinations within each country and enables t h e r e f o r e a consistent international comparison and evaluation of abatement efforts.

The cost submodel performs in t h e f i r s t s t e p f o r all implemented reduction possibilities (see Table 2 of Appendix A) t h e calculation of t h e country specific unit abatement costs, as long as they are technical feasible, i r r e s p e c t i v e whether they a r e cost efficient o r not. In t h e second phase of t h e model r u n , t h e s e sets of theoretical options are used to form cost efficient combinations. I t should b e men- tioned, t h a t this process does not t a k e care of introduced environmental legisla- tion of individual countries, as otherwise difficult evaluation problems between countries would arise. I t is assumed t h a t limitations t o some abatement methods, f o r example due t o waste disposal problems, are reflected by t h e related (country specific) cost f a c t o r (e.g. disposal costs), which prohibits a cost efficient applica- tion of this process in a country.

However, t h e r e are some o t h e r underlying assumptions, influencing t h e con- struction of t h e cost curves. To evaluate t h e abatement costs f o r f u t u r e y e a r s , one should also know t h e potential of new and old power plants, as t h e investment costs t o r e t r o f i t old plants are much higher. The cost submodel is based on t h e generic assumption, t h a t t h e power plants of t h e y e a r 1985 are phased out in a linear way within t h e i r lifetime of 30 years. The resulting gap in electricity production

-

depending on t h e selected energy pathway

-

has t o b e filled with new installations.

For r e a s o n s of i n t e r n a l consistency i t should b e a s s u r e d t h a t desulfurization equipment, which h a s been constructed once, h a s t o o p e r a t e until t h e end of i t s calculated lifetime, otherwise t h e c o s t calculation, which i s based o n a n annualiza- tion p r o c e d u r e , would fail. A s r e s u l t of t h i s condition only t h o s e old power plants are allowed t o b e r e t r o f i t t e d with desulfurization equipment, which will b e still in operation at t h e end of t h e time horizon of t h e c o s t of c o n t r o l submodel (in t h e y e a r 2000). F o r those plants, which are to b e closed down e a r l i e r , only t h e use of l o w s u l f u r fuels i s applicable.

Appendix C contains t h e abatement cost c u r v e s f o r all 27 European countries.

They are based on t h e official energy pathways as t h e y were r e p o r t e d from indivi- dual governments to IEA and ECE and r e l a t e to t h e y e a r 2000 (IEA coal informa- tion, ECE energy database). A s they should r e f l e c t t h e original energy s c e n a r i o , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s p a p e r , no fuel substitution i s included although t h e cost submodel i s a b l e t o handle also t h i s option ( a s described above).

The c u r v e s show t h e least costs t o r e d u c e emissions f o r increasing reduction levels, s t a r t i n g from t h e amount of unabated emissions, which would result from t h e f o r e c a s t e d fuel consumption without any abatement measures. The level of t h e 30%

reduction (compared to 1980 emissions), t o which m o s t countries a g r e e d in t h e Con- vention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, i s indicated by a star. The g r a p h s contain t h e c u r v e s f o r t h e t o t a l annual abatement costs and marginal costs curves.

REFERENCES

Alcamo, J., Amann, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., Holmberg, M., Hordijk, L., Kamari, J., Kauppi, L., Kauppi, P., Kornai, G. and Makela, A. (1987). Acidification in Eu- rope: a simulation model f o r evaluating control strategies. Ambio (forthcom- ing).

Batterman, S., Amann, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., Hordijk, L. and Kornai, G. (1986). Op- timal SO2 abatement policies in Europe: some examples. IIASA Working Paper WP-86-42, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

ECE Energy Data Base (1987) (on tape), Geneva.

Inaba, S. (1985). Costs of Meeting S t r i c t e r Environmental S t a n d a r d s for Sta- t i o n a t y Sources of Emissions

-

The E l e c t r i c i t y Sector. International Energy Agency, P a r i s .

International Energy Agency, Coal Information 1986, OECD, P a r i s .

OECD (1986). Energy Prices a n d Tarzes, Second Quarter 1986, No. 4 , Internation- al Energy Agency, OECD, Paris.

S c h a r e r , B., and Haug, N. (1987). The c o s t of flue g a s desulfurization and dentrifi- cation in t h e Federal Republic of Germany. Economic B u l l e t i n for Europe, 39 (1). Pergamon P r e s s .

APPENDIX

k an overview of the cost calculations f o r desulfurization options during or after combustion.

Table 1: Parameters used for cost calculation.

Country specific data sc s u l f u r content

hv h e a t value

ST s u l f u r r e t a i n e d in a s h b s a v e r a g e boiler size P f capacity utilization q r e a l i n t e r e s t rate

c e ,c l , p r i c e s f o r e l e c t r i c i t y ,labour, c ,c s o r b e n t s and waste disposal

Technology specific data I investment function

c i f i n t e r c e p t c i V slope

v r e l a t i v e flue g a s volume I t lifetime of plant

x s u l f u r removal efficiency

Pi

maintenance c o s t s and administrational o v e r h e a d s

Ae , A 1 , specific demand f o r energy,labour, A S , Ad s o r b e n t s and waste disposal

Investment Function

c i V

I = ( c i f + - ) v / bs bs

Annualized investments

Fixed operating costs:

0hf-1~

=

I

Pi

Variable operating coats:

S C d d

O M v a T = ( A 1 c l + A e c e + ( - ( 1 - s r ) ) z ( A s c S + A c )) hv

Unit Costa per PJ

Unit Costs per ton S O 2 removed

S C

c ~ 0 , = C P J / ( ( 1- s r ) z ₎ hv

Table 2: Pollution control options (excluding fuel switching).

Conversion Hard coal Heavy fuel oil Power plants Brown coa1,old

Brown coa1,new Hard coa1,old Hard coal.new Heavy fuel oi1,old Heavy fuel oi1,new Domestic Hard coal

Coke,Briquettes Gas oil

Heavy fuel oil T r a n s p o r t Gas oil

Industry Hard c o a l Coke Gas oil

Heavy fuel oil

Low Combustion Flue g a s Regener.

sulfur modification desulfuriz. p r o c e s s x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x x x

APPENDIX

B: Data used for the cost calculation.

Technology Specific Cost Data

The notation of the parameters refers t o the equations on page 12.

Table 3: Technology specific data

Investment Cost Functions

Intercept ci f

Slope ci"

Resulting Specific Invest- ments f o r a 210 MWeL plant:

Operating Costs:

Annual Maintenance Costs

Pi

Other Overheads

Labour Demand

*I

h

Additional Energy Demand h e Sorbents

Sorbents Demand A S

By-product

Amount of By-product hd Sulfur removal efficiency z

Combustion Modlficatlon new r e t r o f i t

52.0 67.6

22500.0 29250.0

159.1 207.2

4.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 Limestone

4.68 Waste material

7.80 50.0

Flue Gas Desulfurlzation new r e t r o f i t

167.0 217.0

20000.0 26000.0

262.2 340.9

4.0 2.0 10.0

1.0 Limestone

1.56 Gypsium

2.60 90.0

Regenerative Processes

275.0 22500.0 382.1 4.0 2.0 10.0

5.0 NaOH

0.06 Sulfur

0.50 98.0

DM / kWeL

X of total investments/year

% of total investments/year Manyear/100 MW

%

t Sorbents/t SO2 removed t Product/t SO2 removed X

-

¹⁶

-

Country Specific Parameters

Note: In case a fuel is not used in a country as powerplant input, f o r computational r e a s o n s a default boiler size of 210 MW i s used.

Table 4: Average Boiler Size (bs )- Powerplants (in

MW

el) Brown Hard Heavy

Coal Coal Fuel Oil

Albania 210 210 210

Austria 139 220 128

Belgium 210 160 158

Bulgaria 210 210 210

CSSR 210 210 210

Denmark 210 178 201

Finland 210 134 82

F r a n c e 202 252 306

FRG 235 206 190

GDR 210 210 210

Greece 243 210 155

Hungary 210 210 210

Ireland 210 300 106

Italy 153 335 227

Note: In case a fuel i s not used in a country as powerplant input, f o r computational r e a s o n s a default capacity utilization of 4000 h o u r s p e r y e a r i s used.

Brown Hard Heavy Coal Coal Fuel Oil

Luxembourg 210 210 210

Netherlands 210 328 193

Norway 210 210 210

Poland 210 210 210

Portugal 210 300 150

Romania 210 210 210

Spain 257 254 195

Sweden 210 502 203

Switzerland 210 210 150

Turkey 195 150 126

UK 210 245 291

USSR 210 210 210

Yugoslavia 99 370 149

Table 5: Capacity Utilization (pf)- Powerplants (in hours per year) Brown Hard Heavy

Coal Coal Fuel Oil Albania 4000 4000 4000 Austria 3504 3504 3066 Belgium 4000 3416 3679 Bulgaria 4818 4818 4380

CSSR 4818 4818 3153

Denmark 4000 3592 526

Finland 4000 2365 3854 F r a n c e 3767 3767 1489 FRG 6745 4205 1226 GDR 4818 4818 2716 G r e e c e 6132 4000 3504

Hungary 4292 4292 4292

Ireland 4000 3592 3416

Italy 3679 4030 4030

Brown Hard Heavy Coal Coal Fuel Oil Luxembourg 4000 3504 3504 Netherlands 4000 3154 3942

Norway 4000 4000 964

Poland 4380 4468 4468

Portugal 4000 4117 4117

Romania 4380 4380 4380

Spain 4730 4468 4468

Sweden 4000 4000 1314

Switzerland 4000 4000 1401

Turkey 4993 2978 2978

UK 4000 4468 876

USSR 5168 5168 5168

Yugoslavia 4380 1927 1927

/

Table 6: Electricity Prices. labour Costs and Real Interest Rata - -

1

Ele- Labour

P r i c e Costs [10**6 DM [lOOO DM/

p e r PJ] Manyear]

c l3 c l

Albania Austria Belgium Bulgaria CSSR Denmark Finland F r a n c e FRG GDR Greece Hungary Ireland I talv

Real I n t e r e s t

Rate

[XI

P 4.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 5.7 7.0 7.1 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.8 5.6

Ele- Labour Real

P r i c e Costs I n t e r e s t [10**6 DM [lOOO DM/ Rate

p e r PJ] Manyear]

[XI

c l3 c 1 Q

Luxembourg 115.0 28.1 4.0

Netherlands 126.0 24.8 5.3

Norway 41.0 39.8 8.0

Poland 88.0 10.8 4.0

P o r t u g a l 153.0 5.9 4 .O

Romania 88.0 8.8 4.0

Spain 135.0 12.8 8.0

Sweden 88.0 34.9 6.9

Switzerland 141.0 41.4 2.2

Turkey 88.0 3.2 8.0

UK 135.0 22.8 4.4

USSR 88.0 13.2 4.0

Yugoslavia 88.0 10.9 4.0

Note: The d a t a f o r e l e c t r i c i t y p r i c e s r e p r e s e n t t a r i f s f o r industrial consumers (without taxes). The d i f f e r e n c e s in l a b o u r costs between c o u n t r i e s are assumed to b e r e f l e c t e d by t h e GDP (NMP) p e r capita.

1

^{Table 7:} Default values assumed for all countries:

1

Average Boiler Size bs Industry

Capacity Utilization

~f

Industry

Costs of Sorbents Material c S Limestone

NaOH

Costs of By-products c Waste Disposal f o r

Limestone Injection Gypsum

Sulfur

General Parameters valid for all Technologies

I

Table 9: Process Emissions Control Costs:

I

Table 8: General Parameter valid for all Technologies

Reduction from 0 % t o 30 % : 5000 DM/t SO2 Reduction from 30 % t o 60 % : 10000 DM/t SO2 Reduction from 60 % t o 80 % : 20000 DM/t SO2 Lifetime of Pollution

Control Equipment It (in years) Conversion 20 Powerplants 30

Industry 20

Flue G a s Volume relative t o Hard Coal Combustion

u

Brown Coal 1 . 2 Hard Coal 1 . 0 Heavy Fuel Oil 0.9

APPENDIX C:

The following cost c u r v e s a r e b a s e d o n t h e official e n e r g y pathways, as t h e y w e r e r e p o r t e d f r o m t h e individual governments to IEA a n d ECE a n d r e l a t e to t h e y e a r 2000 (IEA Coal information, 1986; ECE E n e r g y d a t a b a s e , 1986). A s t h e y should r e f l e c t t h e o r i g i n a l e n e r g y s c e n a r i o s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s p a p e r n o f u e l s u b s t i t u t i o n i s included, a l t h o u g h t h e cost submodel i s a b l e t o handle a l s o t h i s option ( a s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e ) . T h e c u r v e s show t h e l e a s t costs to r e d u c e emissions f o r i n c r e a s i n g r e d u c t i o n levels. Displayed a r e t h e c u r v e s of t o t a l a n n u a l and mar- ginal c o s t s , v e r s u s t h e remaining emissions f o r t h e y e a r 2000.

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987

(c) IlASA

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987

(c) IlASA

~ 5 0

- - - _- - _-

- - r40 - - -

- - -

- I30 - - - - -

- - - ,20 - - - -

- - - - :lo -

- -

- - - -

-

0 I

500:

Albania

I \

I I ^\

EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 ) EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 ) I

n

6 400:

<

Q,

z

5 ³⁰⁰ . - - - . -

V

E - -

v,

-

5 ^200;

0

- -

A

-

4

-

3

- -

z

-

2 loo!

s ^{- - -} _-

e ^- _{- -}

0

I

1600-

I

I

-

I

- _-

I

- -

n _L

-

0

-

%1200-

'-. i3 _{- -}

C 0

-

.- - - -

. -

E - -

" 800- -

E ^{- -} -

0

-

0

A

-

4

-

3

-

z 400-

Z

-

< - -

< ^-

+

0

-

+ - - _-

0

0

\

\

\

\

\\!

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

1 \

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I t I I I I f , I I I ; J I I I I I

0 5 0 100

150

200 250

. Austria

\

\

\

\

\

\

-

\ \

\

\

\

\ ^k

\

\

\

\

\

- -

l l l . l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l - l

, , , ,

100 200 300 400

r50 - - - - - _-

_/4

-

^N

-

₀

~ 4 0

v,

- -

^*-

-

⁰

- C

- -

-

_2i

i30 -

⁰

-

₀

- -

⁰

-

w

-

- -

-

^V)

120 6

-

₀

- -

^U

- - - a

!lo $

-

^Z

- -

- -

- -

-

0

NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions 2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7 (c) IlASA NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions 2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7 (c) IlASA

,

B u l g a r i a

\

~ 5 0 - - - - _-

-

^A

-

^N

F40 8

- -

^rC

-

⁰

- - - <

-

_Z

- i30 _-

⁰

-

0 ₀

- -

V

-

- -

:20 E

-

₀

- -

^U

- -

- a

- z

f 1 0 o

- _%

- -

^Z

- - - -

- 0

800

I 3000:

I

I

- -

1

- -

1

- -

,2500 <

b - -

aJ

-

.2 -

z ²⁰⁰⁰ ;

- - -

. !i - - -

- -

. - -

E -

--1500:

-

EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 ) B e l g i u m

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

- _- - - - -

^\ \

-

^\

- - -

- - _{- -}

^\

. _- \ I

\

-

^\

-

^\

- - - _- -

^{\ \} \

-

^\

-

\

-

- '+.

^\

-

^\

-

^\

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Y 1

- _- - -

- -

,20

F

- - -

- -

- -

y o - - - -

- -

- - 0

E

0 500 1000 1500

EMISSIONS (kt of

S02)

-

\

8 ^-

1 0 0 0

s

Z

\

\

\

\ Z

- -

4

-

A

500, -

F -

P - -

0 -

\ ^rt

\

\

I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 7 L I - ~ I I I I I I I I ~

%

0 200 400 600

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(a)

30w

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(a)

30w

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA 7

- _-

5 0

- - - _- - -

r 4 0

- - - - _-

- - - 1.30

- -

- - - - - -

120

-

- - - -

I 4 0 0 0 -

EMISSIONS (kt of S02) I

I

- -

I

I

- -

Czechoslov.

z

1 0 0 0 -

Z

u - -

s ^{- - -}

e ^- -

0

n \

L

-

0 \

%.

³⁰⁰⁰

-

'.

^\

8 _-

^\ _\

8 -

. _- - -

^{\ \}

. -

E - -

--

2000

- _-

^\ \

r ^- -

^\ _\

\

1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 r , l l

0

- _-

5 ^{- -}

0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 500 2000 2 5 0 0

\

\

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 3095

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S02)

, ^France

NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, year 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c) IIASA

y50

- - - _-

- -

ⁿ

-

hl

-

₀

:40

v,

- -

^rC

-

⁰

- -

- _C

-

_Z

f 3 0

-

⁰

-

₀

- -

⁰

- - -

w

-

-20 _- g

-

^{U 0}

- -

- - d

I

8000-

I I

- -

I

I

- -

n

-

b -

x ⁶⁰⁰⁰ --

\

B ^- _-

C

-

0

-

- - - - -

.- -

E -

-4000 - _-

P -

I/)

-

l

\

L

\

u z - I 0 g

J

_u - -

+ P -

0

-

0

-

0

- -

a ^-

1 2000 1

I

i

11 111 11 I I 1 111 11 I I 1 7 1 1 1 I I I I I H I

IIlill"

^{l IIIIIII I}

0

\

\

\

\

0 9 0 0 ¹ 1 0 0 0 15CO 2 8 0 0

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1 9 8 0

emissions

2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7

(c)

IlASA

, F.R.

Germany

\

\

\

\

\

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1 9 8 0

emissions

2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7

(c)

IlASA

I

6000-

I

-

I

-

I

-

I

-

-

^I 0

- -

4 ^{- -}

German

D.R.

\

\

\

\

\ 1

~ 5 0

- - - - -

-

ⁿ

-

^hl

F 4 0

- -

^v-

-

⁰

- - - <

-

_Zi

f 3 0

- _-

⁰

-

- -

- - - -

0 0

C

w

-20 g

-

^{U 0}

- - - a

- z

-

:lo

Zi

?

- -

- -

0

if 4 0 0 0 -

8 -

.- - - - . - _E -

-

- - -

- -

V

P

v, 0 0

2000 -

a

3

-

z z -

Q

-

a - -

I-

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S02)

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

.

\

\

\

\

\

\

e ^{- -} _-

\ ^{\ \}

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0

zob'd

I I I I I

iz6d

I I I I J

4bb;

^{1 I 1}

>bbo

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1 9 8 0

emissions

2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7

(c)

IlASA

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S 0 2 )

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of

1 9 8 0

emissions

2 5 / 0 5 / 1 9 8 7

(c)

IlASA

Hungary

\

-

\

- -

\ ^\

- -

^\

-

\

800 - - - -

^{\ \}

-

\

-

^\

-

_\

- -

^\

400 - - _-

^\ \ \

- - -

-

^{\ \}

t

^\

-

^\

\

\

0 l , , l l l l l l I l l l I I I I l I l ~ - l l l l l l l l l

0 500 1000 1500 2000

L

- _-

- -

-

30

- - - - - -

- - - 20

- -

- -

- - - -

:lo

- -

- -

- -

-

0

EMISSIONS

(kt of

S 0 2 )

EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )

NATIONAL CO!3 FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 3095

reduction of 1980 emissions

25/05/1987

(c) IlASA

L

2000/ .\\\> ^{* -} _- ^-

^:lo

^{- -}

-

4 ^\

- - - ^-

o l l l l l l l l l , , l l l l l , l l l l l l , l

, , , , , , , , 1 1 , 1 1 1 , , , 1 : 1 , , 1 , , 1 ,

-

; ; , ; ~ , , ,

- -

0

0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(a)

3056

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c)

IlASA

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

, Netherlands

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

I

-

I

-

I

- -

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

( 8 )

3056

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c)

IlASA

- -

-

I

2500:

50

- _-

-

ⁿ

-

(V

-

₀

1.40

v,

- -

+

-

⁰

- -

- - 2

I.30 *

^.

-

⁰

- - _g

- -

⁷

-

^w

- -

^V)

1.20

I-

- -

[

U

a z

l o ?

_I

- 0

I

- -

2000 :

Q,

-

-? 3 _{- -}

6 r 5 o o i

.- - - -

. -

E -

V

- -

P - -

g ^1000:

0

- - - -

-

- -

- -

3 z 500:

J

3

P ^{- -} _-

0 -

\

\

\

\

\

\

J \

\

\

\

\

\

\

l l l l l l l l l , l l l l l l l , l , l l l l , l l l l , l , l l l l l , l , l s l l l l l l

\ ^\

0

100 200 300 400 500

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e o r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

1

1000:

-

I

I

- -

I

-

I

- _-

-

800:

Q,

-

.= ^{- -}

2

-

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e o r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA Norway

\

\

\

\

\

~ 5 0

- - - -

- - - - : 40

- - - -

750

- - - - _-

-

ⁿ

-

^C'J

L40 %

-

^%-

- -

⁰

- - - C

-

2

F30 a

-

0

0

-

0

- -

-

_V ^C

- -

-

^m

120 -

₀

- -

^U

- -

- _- a

z

:lo - 2

^Z

- - - - - 0

5000

I

8000 -

1 I

- -

I

-

I

- _-

n L _o

-

% ⁶⁰⁰⁰ I

\

i3 - -

. - - S - - .- -

E -

-4000 -

E - - -

0

-

0

- _-

a ^-

1 ²⁰⁰⁰ f

z < - -

$ ^- - - P ^- - -

0

- - - -

130 - - - - - - - - ,20 - _-

- - - - -

0

- - S 6004

. - - - -

.- E -

w

- -

P -

, ^Poland

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

_ I

\ ^{\ \ \} _\

I I I I I h I I I l I r l I I I l I I I 1 I ~ l 1 I I I I I I I " I ' I ' I ~ t I l I I I I I l

-.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

f ^{200: 400:}

^{, \}

1

^\

^{t l 0}

ⁱ

a ^{- -}

+ -

P - - - - -

0

0

-

J d

-

3

- -

z -

- - -

\

- -

\

- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I [ I I I 1 I I I I I , I l I I I I I 1 I

- 0

\

\

\

0 40 80 120 160

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IIASA

1

^I

1200j ^I

~ o r t u g a l

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(*) 30%

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

- ^{- -} _{- -}

^{5 0}

- -

^A

-

^N

i 4 0

%

-

+

- - _-

⁰

- - .T:

-

I

F30 -

0

- - - -

- -

0 0

7

w

t 2 0

- _-

₀

-

^U

- _-

- - _{- d z}

:lo - g

^I

- - _-

- -

0 2500

I 5000

1

I

-

I

-

I

- -

I

- - - -

n 4000 1

8 - -

< z ^{- - -}

C

-

o 3000

: - - -

- -

. - E - - - - _- -

- -

V

P g

²⁰⁰⁰

.I

0

J

-

4 3

- _-

z -

2

1 0 0 0 ~

5 - ^{- -} _{- -}

- -

0

\

\

\

\

\

\

\ ^{\ \ \ \}

I

^\ \

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

I I 1 I I I r I I r I I I I I l I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I ~

\

0 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0

NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(=) 30%

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c)

IlASA

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(=) 30%

reduction of

1980

emissions

25/05/1987 (c)

NASA

L

-

- - -

140 -

- - - _-

- - - : 30

- - - - - - - -

~ 2 0

- -

- -

- -

- -

:lo - - - - - - - _-

0

- - , Sweden

- - -

_\

- - -

\ ^\

- - - - -

^\ \

- - - - - _-

^\ _\

-

0 100 200 300 400

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

- - -

- - -

\

-

^L\ \

- - - - - - - -

-

\

\

\

-

\

^*

- - -

- - -

- .

-

^'..

L

- -

^'..

-.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(s)

30%

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

\ Switzerland

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)

NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY

(s)

30%

reduction of 1980 emissions 25/05/1987 (c) IlASA

c, ^\

~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 ~ ~

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3000

0

EMISSIONS (kt of S02)