Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Emission in Useful Energy Generation in the Heat-Generating Plant – Application of the Carbon Footprint Methodology

• Autorzy: Chłopek Zdzisław , Lasocki Jakub , Melka Krzysztof , Szczepański Krystian

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/130891

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The energy sector worldwide is a significant source of air pollutant emission. In Poland, the vast majority of heat and electricity is generated in coal-fired heat and power plants. There is a common belief that high greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector in Poland are mainly due to the technological processes involving the conversion of energy by burning fossil fuels. However, coal mining also causes a high environmental burden. This paper aimed to determine the carbon footprint of a typical hard coal-fired heating plant in Poland, taking into account mining of hard coal, its transport to the heating plant and useful energy generation in the heating plant. The investigation carried out allowed comparing the process steps and determining which of them is the dominant source of the greenhouse gas emissions. The obtained results show that hard coal mining and hard coal transport account for almost 65% and 5% of total equivalent carbon dioxide emission, respectively. Energy transformations in the heating plant account for 30% of total equivalent carbon dioxide emission, where approx. 29% is due to hard coal burning and 1% due to electricity consumption. The relative shares of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in total equivalent carbon dioxide emission account for approx. 91%, 4% and 5%, respectively.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

carbon dioxide; CO2; greenhouse gases; GHG; emission; energy generation; heat plant; coal; carbon footprint; CF

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 22, nr 2
• Strony: 144--154
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 32 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Chłopek Zdzisław

• Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering, Narbutta 84, 02-524 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Lasocki Jakub

• Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering, Narbutta 84, 02-524 Warszawa, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7157-6758

autor

Melka Krzysztof

• Institute of Environmental Protection – National Research Institute, Krucza 5/11D, 00-548 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Szczepański Krystian

• Institute of Environmental Protection – National Research Institute, Krucza 5/11D, 00-548 Warszawa, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. ADEME 2009. BP X30–323: Repository of Good Practices. French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management, Paris, France.
• 2. Aghahosseini A., Bogdanov D., Barbosa L.S.N.S., Breyer C. 2019. Analyzing the feasibility of powering the Americas with renewable energy and interregional grid interconnections by 2030. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 105, 187–205.
• 3. Agrawal K.K., Jain S., Jain A.K., Dahiya S. 2014. Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas thermal power plants using life cycle approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 11, 1157–1164.
• 4. Atkins M.J., Walmsley T.G., Philipp M., Walmsley M.R.W., Neale J.R. 2017. Carbon emissions efficiency and economics of combined heat and power in New Zealand. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 61, 733–738.
• 5. BSI 2011. Publicly Available Specification (PAS 2050). Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institute, London, United Kingdom. Available online: http://shop.bsigroup.com/upload/shop/download/pas/pas2050.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 6. De Souza Grilo M.M., Chaves Fortes A.F., Gonzaga de Souza R.P., Mendes Silva J.A., Carvalho M. 2018. Carbon footprints for the supply of electricity to a heat pump: Solar energy vs. electric grid. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 10, 023701.
• 7. Dias A.C., Arroja L. 2012. Comparison of methodologies for estimating the carbon footprint – case study of office paper. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 30–35.
• 8. EIB 2020. Project carbon footprint methodologies for the assessment of project GHG emissions and emission variations. Version 11.1. Available online: https://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_project_carbon_footprint_methodologies_en.pdf. (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 9. EMEP/EEA 2019. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019 (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 10. Gai Z-j., Zhao J-g., Zhang G. 2018. Typical calculation and analysis of carbon emissions in thermal power plants. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 128, 012176.
• 11. Garcia R., Freire F. 2014. Carbon footprint of particleboard: A comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 199–209.
• 12. Gonzalez-Salazar M.A., Kirsten T., Prchlik L. 2018. Review of the operational flexibility and emissions of gasand coal-fired power plants in a future with growing renewables. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1497–1513.
• 13. Houghton J.T., Ding Y., Griggs D.J., Noguer M., van der Linden P.J., Dai X., Maskell K., Johnson C.A. (eds.) 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_FM.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 14. INFRAS AG 2010. Handbuch für Emissionsfaktoren des Strassenverkehrs. Version 3.1.
• 15. IPCC 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 16. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 17. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 18. ISO 14067:2018. Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and guidelines for quantification. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 19. JRC 2011. Analysis of Existing Environmental Footprint Methodologies for Products and Organizations: Recommendations, Rationale, and Alignment. Deliverable 1 to the Administrative Arrangement between DG Environment and Joint Research Centre No. N 070307/2009/552517, including Amendment No 1 from December 2010. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eussd/pdf/Deliverable.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 20. KOBiZE 2017. Calorific values (CV) and CO2 emission factors (EF) in 2015 to be reported under the European Union Emission Trading System for 2018. Available online: https://www.kobize.pl/uploads/materialy/materialy_do_pobrania/monitorowanie_raportowanie_weryfikacja_emisji_w_eu_ets/WO_i_WE_do_stosowania_w_SHE_2018.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020) (in Polish).
• 21. KOBiZE 2019. CO2, SO2, NOx, CO and total particulate matter emission factors for electricity generation based on the information contained in the National Database on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Other Substances for 2018. Available online: https://www.kobize.pl/uploads/materialy/materialy_do_pobrania/wskazniki_emisyjnosci/Wskazniki_emisyjnosci_grudzien_2019.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020) (in Polish).
• 22. Myhre G., Shindell D., Bréon F.-M., Collins W., Fuglestvedt J., Huang J., Koch D., Lamarque J.-F., Lee D., Mendoza B., Nakajima T., Robock A., Stephens G., Takemura T., Zhang H. 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker T.F., Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V., Midgley P.M., Eds. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.
• 23. Pattara C., Russo C., Antrodicchia V., Cichelli A. 2016. Carbon footprint as an instrument for enhancing food quality: Overview of the wine, olive oil and cereals sectors. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97(2), 396–410.
• 24. Peter C., Fiore A., Hagemann U., Nendel C., Xiloyannis C. 2016. Improving the accounting of field emissions in the carbon footprint of agricultural products: A comparison of default IPCC methods with readily available medium-effort modeling approaches. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 791–805.
• 25. Schmied M., Knörr W. 2012. Calculating GHG Emissions for Freight Forwarding and 22 – Logistics Services in Accordance with EN 16258. European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT). Available online: https://www.clecat.org/media/CLECAT_Guide_on_Calculating_GHG_emissions_for_freight_forwarding_and_logistics_services.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 26. SMPO. EcoLeaf Environmental Labeling Program. Sustainable Management Promotion Organization. Available online: https://ecoleaf-label.jp/english (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 27. Soode E., Weber-Blaschke G., Richter K. 2013. Comparison of product carbon footprint standards with a case study on poinsettia (euphorbia pulcherrima). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(7), 1280–1290.
• 28. Statistics Poland 2018. Consumption of fuels and energy carriers in 2018. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/energy/consumption-of-fuels-and-energy-carriersin-2018,8,13.html (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 29. Wang S., Wang W., Yang H. 2018. Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10), 2060.
• 30. Whittaker C., Mcmanus, M.C., Hammond G.P. 2011. Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: A comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS 2050 methodologies. Energy Policy, 39(10), 5950–5960.
• 31. WRI/WBCSD 2006. Allocation of GHG emissions from a combined heat and power (CHP) plant guide to calculation worksheets (September 2006) v1.0. WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Initiative. Available online: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/CHP_guidance_v1.0.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
• 32. WRI/WBCSD 2011. Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Standard. World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://ghgprotocol.org/productstandard (accessed on 20 October 2020).

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).