EXTERNE NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
THE NETHERLANDS
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Contract JOS3-CT95-0010
FINAL REPORT
November 1997
Research funded in part by
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
in the framework of the
Non Nuclear Energy Programme
JOULE III
Authors:
C. Dorland
H.M.A. Jansen
R.S.J. Tol
D. Dodd
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like thank a number of people for their contribution to the Dutch national
implementation study. Dr. J. A. van Jaarsveld of the National Institute of Public Health and
Environmental Protection (RIVM) we would like to thank for his input in national atmospheric
modelling of air pollutants. Prof. E. van Ierland of the Wageningen Agricultural University
(LUW) we would like to thank for his input in the quantification of externalities of bioenergy
cultivation. Dr. Geurts of the UNA electricity company we would like to thank for making
available emission and technological data on the studied coal fuel cycle. Dr. A. Faaij of the
Department of Science, Technology and Society of the University Utrecht we would like to
thank for his the many discussions on biomass conversion technologies. We would also like to
thank all members of our national group of experts, formed especially for this project, for
valuable discussions and recommendations whenever this was needed: Henk Merkus of
VROM, Ekko van Ierland of LUW, Dr. J.A. van Jaarsveld and Drs. P. Uijt de Haag of the
RIVM, Ir. W. L.C. Weier of the KEMA, Drs. T. van Biert of the Sep, Drs. P. Lako and Drs. F.
van Oostvoorn of ECN, Prof. Dr. J.B. Opschoor of ISS and Drs. J. Feenstra of IVM.
The authors would also like to thank all members of the ExternE National Implementation
Project and the ExternE Core Project for their comments and helpful discussions. Special
thanks are due to Pedro Linares of CIEMAT in Spain, Mike Holland of ETSU in the UK and
Leo de Nocker of VITO in Belgium for their excellent co-ordination of this project and
patiently solving all problems. Furthermore, we would like to thank the authors in the ExternE
Core Project for preparing Appendices 1 to 8, which are part of the methodology chapter of
this report. Mike Holland of ETSU in the UK we thank especially for preparing the main text
of the methodology chapter though we took the liberty of adding a section on valuation
principles.
Finally we would like to thank the European Commission for their financial support for the
project from the JOULE programme.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
IVM
C. Dorland
H.M.A. Jansen
R.S.J. Tol
ECN
D. Dodd (Nuclear assessment)
ETSU
M. Holland (Methodology chapter)
LUW
E. van Ierland (Contribution to biomass cultivation impact analysis)
CONTENTS
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................9
0.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................9
0.1.1 Background and objectives..............................................................................................................9
0.2 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................................10
0.3 OVERVIEW OF THE FUEL CYCLES ANALYSED .............................................................................................11
0.3.1 The Dutch National Implementation ..............................................................................................11
0.3.2 The coal fuel cycle.........................................................................................................................12
0.3.3 The natural gas fuel cycle..............................................................................................................13
0.3.4 The biomass fuel cycle...................................................................................................................13
0.3.5 The nuclear fuel cycle....................................................................................................................14
0.4 AGGREGATION .......................................................................................................................................15
0.5 POLICY CASE STUDY ...............................................................................................................................17
0.6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................20
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................23
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................23
1.2 PUBLICATIONS FROM THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................................24
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................25
1.4 THE DUTCH NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................................................................26
1.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................26
1.4.2 Justification of the selection of fuel cycles .....................................................................................28
1.4.3 Related national studies.................................................................................................................28
2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................31
2.1 APPROACHES USED FOR EXTERNALITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................31
2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXTERNE METHODOLOGY ........................................34
2.3 DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................34
2.3.1 Stages of the fuel chain..................................................................................................................35
2.3.2 Location of fuel chain activities.....................................................................................................35
2.3.3 Identification of fuel chain technologies ........................................................................................36
2.3.4 Identification of fuel chain burdens ...............................................................................................36
2.3.5 Identification of impacts ................................................................................................................37
2.3.6 Valuation criteria ..........................................................................................................................38
2.3.7 Spatial limits of the impact analysis...............................................................................................38
2.3.8 Temporal limits of the impact analysis...........................................................................................38
2.4 ANALYSIS OF IMPACT PATHWAYS ...........................................................................................................39
2.4.1 Prioritisation of impacts ................................................................................................................39
2.4.2 Description of priority impact pathways ........................................................................................41
2.4.3 Quantification of burdens ..............................................................................................................43
2.4.4 Description of the receiving environment ......................................................................................44
2.4.5 Quantification of impacts ..............................................................................................................45
2.4.6 Economic valuation.......................................................................................................................47
2.4.7 Assessment of uncertainty..............................................................................................................48
2.5 PRIORITY IMPACTS ASSESSED IN THE EXTERNE PROJECT .........................................................................48
2.5.1 Fossil technologies ........................................................................................................................48
2.5.2 Nuclear technologies .....................................................................................................................49
2.5.3 Renewable technologies.................................................................................................................49
2.5.4 Related issues................................................................................................................................50
2.6 SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................50
3. COAL FUEL CYCLE ...............................................................................................................................53
3.1 DEFINITION OF THE COAL FUEL CYCLE, TECHNOLOGY AND SITE ................................................................53
3.1.1 Site description..............................................................................................................................54
3.1.2 Technology description..................................................................................................................56
3.2 OVERVIEW OF BURDENS ..........................................................................................................................61
3.2.1 Solid wastes...................................................................................................................................61
3.2.2 Atmospheric emissions...................................................................................................................62
3.2.3 Water emissions.............................................................................................................................69
3.2.4 Occupational accidents and diseases.............................................................................................70
3.3 QUANTIFICATION OF IMPACTS AND DAMAGES...........................................................................................71
3.3.1 Non power generation fuel cycle stages .........................................................................................71
3.3.2 Power generation ..........................................................................................................................72
3.4 SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................74
4. NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE...............................................................................................................79
4.1 DEFINITION OF THE GAS FUEL CYCLE, TECHNOLOGY AND SITE ..................................................................79
4.1.1 Site description..............................................................................................................................82
4.1.2 Technology description..................................................................................................................84
4.2 OVERVIEW OF BURDENS ..........................................................................................................................86
4.2.1 Solid wastes...................................................................................................................................86
4.2.2 Atmospheric emissions...................................................................................................................86
4.2.3 Water emissions.............................................................................................................................89
4.2.4 Occupational accidents and diseases.............................................................................................89
4.3 QUANTIFICATION OF IMPACTS AND DAMAGES...........................................................................................90
4.3.1 Non power generation fuel cycle stages .........................................................................................90
4.3.2 Power generation ..........................................................................................................................92
4.4 SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................94
5. BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE.........................................................................................................................99
5.1 DEFINITION OF THE BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE ................................................................................................99
5.1.1 Site description..............................................................................................................................99
5.1.2 Technology description................................................................................................................101
5.2 OVERVIEW OF BURDENS ........................................................................................................................113
5.2.1 Solid wastes.................................................................................................................................113
5.2.2 Atmospheric emissions.................................................................................................................114
5.2.3 Water and soil emissions .............................................................................................................120
5.2.4 Biomass production emissions .....................................................................................................120
5.2.5 Occupational accidents and diseases...........................................................................................121
5.3 QUANTIFICATION OF IMPACTS AND DAMAGES.........................................................................................122
5.3.1 Non-power generation fuel cycle stages.......................................................................................123
5.3.2 Power generation ........................................................................................................................128
5.4 SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ........................................................................................129
6. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE......................................................................................................................137
6.1 DEFINITION OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, TECHNOLOGY AND SITE ........................................................137
6.1.1 Site description............................................................................................................................139
6.1.2 Technology description................................................................................................................141
6.2 OVERVIEW OF BURDENS AND IMPACTS ...................................................................................................145
6.2.1 Mining and milling ......................................................................................................................145
6.2.2 Conversion ..................................................................................................................................146
6.2.3 Uranium enrichment....................................................................................................................146
6.2.4 Fuel fabrication...........................................................................................................................147
6.2.5 Power plant operation .................................................................................................................147
6.2.6 Power plant construction .............................................................................................................150
6.2.7 Power plant dismantling ..............................................................................................................150
6.2.8 Reprocessing ...............................................................................................................................150
6.2.9 Interim storage ............................................................................................................................151
6.2.10 Final disposal............................................................................................................................153
6.2.11 Transports .................................................................................................................................154
6.3 QUANTIFICATION OF THE IMPACTS AND DAMAGES ..................................................................................154
6.3.1 Mining and milling ......................................................................................................................154
6.3.2 Conversion ..................................................................................................................................155
6.3.3 Uranium Enrichment ...................................................................................................................156
6.3.4 Fuel fabrication...........................................................................................................................156
6.3.5 Power generation ........................................................................................................................157
6.3.6 Reprocessing ...............................................................................................................................159
6.3.7 Interim storage ............................................................................................................................160
6.3.8 Final disposal..............................................................................................................................161
6.3.9 Transport.....................................................................................................................................161
6.4 SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ........................................................................................162
7. AGGREGATION ....................................................................................................................................165
7.1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ........................................................................................................................165
7.1.1 Stack height test ..........................................................................................................................166
7.1.2 Flue gas temperature test ............................................................................................................168
7.1.3 Emission test ...............................................................................................................................170
7.1.4 Location test................................................................................................................................172
7.1.5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................176
7.2 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION IN THE NETHERLANDS..................................................................................177
7.3 AGGREGATION METHODS......................................................................................................................178
7.4 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................180
8. POLICY CASE STUDY..........................................................................................................................185
8.1 SCENARIOS ..........................................................................................................................................185
8.1.1 Coal Applications Study (2010 and 2030) ....................................................................................187
8.1.2 National Energy Investigation (2015) ..........................................................................................190
8.1.3 Third Energy Bill (2020)..............................................................................................................192
8.2 FUTURE POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES AND EMISSIONS .................................................................193
8.2.1 Coal, gas and oil .........................................................................................................................193
8.2.2 Nuclear .......................................................................................................................................196
8.2.3 Wind............................................................................................................................................196
8.2.4 Hydro ..........................................................................................................................................197
8.2.5 Photovoltaic ................................................................................................................................197
8.2.6 Biomass.......................................................................................................................................197
8.2.7 Municipal waste incineration and waste and manure fermentation ..............................................199
8.2.8 Selection of technologies for the scenarios ..................................................................................199
8.3 EXTERNALITIES OF FUTURE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION...........................................................................199
8.4 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................206
9. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................211
10. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................215
Executive Summary
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1 Introduction
0.1.1 Background and objectives
The use of energy causes damage to a wide range of receptors, including human health, natural
ecosystems, and the built environment. Such damages are referred to as external costs, as they
are not reflected in the market price of energy. These externalities have been traditionally
ignored.
However, there is a growing interest towards the internalisation of externalities to assist policy
and decision making. Several European and international bodies have expressed their interest in
this issue, as may be seen in the 5th Environmental Action Programme, in the White Paper on
Growth, competitiveness and employment, or the White Paper on Energy, all from the
European Commission. This interest has led to the development of internationally agreed tools
for the evaluation of externalities, and to its application to different energy sources.
Within the European Commission R&D Programme Joule II, the ExternE Project developed
and demonstrated a uniform methodology for the quantification of the externalities of different
power generation technologies. Under Joule III, this project has been continued with three
distinguished major tasks: 1. ExternE Core for the further development and updating of the
methodology, 2. ExternE National Implementation to create an EU-wide data set and 3.
ExternE-Transport for the application of the ExternE methodology to energy related impacts
from transport. The current report is the result of the ExternE National implementation project
for the Netherlands.
The objective of the ExternE National Implementation project is to establish a comprehensive
and comparable set of data on externalities of power generation for all EU member states and
Norway. The tasks include the application of the ExternE methodology to the most important
fuel cycles for each country as well as to update the already existing results; to aggregate these
site- and technology-specific results to more general figures. For countries already involved in
Joule II, these data have been applied to concrete policy questions, to indicate how these data
could feed into decision and policy making processes. Other objectives were the dissemination
of results in the different countries, and the creation of a network of scientific institutes familiar
with the ExternE methodology, data, and their application.
The National Implementation project has generated a large set of comparable and validated
results, covering more than 60 cases, for 15 countries and 11 fuel cycles. A wide range of
technologies have been analysed, including fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables. Fuel cycle
analyses have been carried out, determining the environmental burdens and impacts of all
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
stages. Therefore, apart from the externalities estimated, the project offers a large database of
environmental aspects of the fuel cycles studied.
An aggregation exercise has also been carried out, to extend the analysis to the whole
electricity system of each of the participant countries. The exercise has proved to be very
useful, although the results must be considered in most cases as a first approximation, which
should be carefully revised before being taken into consideration in decision making.
In spite of all the uncertainties related to the externalities assessment, the output of the project
might prove to be very useful for policy-making, both at the national and EU level. The results
obtained provide a good basis to start the study of the internalisation of the external costs of
energy, which has been frequently cited as one of the objectives of EU energy policy. Another
possibility is to use the results for comparative purposes. The site sensitivity of the externalities
might encourage the application of the methodology for the optimisation of site selection
processes, or for cost-benefit analysis of the introduction of cleaner technologies. The
usefulness of the application for policy making has been demonstrated through the analysis of a
wide variety of decision making issues carried out by those teams already involved in ExternE
under Joule II.
Further work is needed, however, to remove as much uncertainties as possible of the
methodology, and to improve aggregation methods for electricity systems. These
improvements are required if externality values are to be used directly for policy measures, not
only as background information.. The acceptability of these measures will depend on the
credibility of the externality values.
The current report is to be seen as part of a larger set of publications. The results of these
ExternE projects is published and made available in three different reports and publications.
The current report covers the results of the National Implementation for the Netherlands, and
is published by IVM. It contains all the details of the application of the methodology to the
coal, natural gas, biomass and nuclear cycles, aggregation, and a study on future externalities
from electricity production according to several scenarios, as an illustration of the use of these
results. The methodology is detailed in a separate report, published by the EC.
0.2 Methodology
The methodology used for the assessment of the externalities of the fuel cycles selected has
been the one developed within the ExternE Project (EC, 1995). It is a bottom-up methodology,
with a site-specific approach, that is, it considers the effects of an additional fuel cycle, located
in a specific place.
To allow comparison to be made between different fuel cycles, it is necessary to observe the
following principles:
1. Transparency, to show precisely how the work was done, the uncertainty associated to the
results, and the extent to which the external cost of any fuel cycle have been fully quantified.
Executive Summary
2. Consistency, with respect to the boundaries placed on the system in question, to allow valid
comparison to be made between different fuel cycles and different types of impact within a fuel
cycle.
3. Comprehensiveness, to consider all burdens and impacts of a fuel cycle, even though many
may be not investigated in detail. For those analysed in detail, it is important that the
assessment is not arbitrarily truncated.
These characteristics should be present along the stages of the methodology, namely: site and
technology characterisation, identification of burdens and impacts, prioritisation of impacts,
quantification, and economic valuation.
Quantification of impacts is achieved through the damage function, or impact pathway
approach. This is a series of logical steps, which trace the impact from the activity that creates
it to the damage it produces, independently for each impact and activity considered, as required
by the marginal approach.
The underlying principle for the economic valuation is to obtain the willingness to pay of the
affected individuals to avoid a negative impact, or the willingness to accept with respect to the
opposite. Several methods are available for this, which will be adopted depending on the case.
The total and average externalities associated with electricity generation according to the
different scenarios are estimated with the Years of Life lost (YOLL) based public health
mortality estimates (core) and ExternE mid range global warming damage estimate - 18-47
ECU/t CO2 (ExternE GW).
In a sensitivity analysis the externalities are also estimated with:
1. the Value of Statistical Life -VSL- instead of the YOLL approach for valuing public health
mortality impacts (sens 1) and with high global warming damage valuation (ExternE GW);
2. the YOLL approach for valuing public health mortality impacts (core) and with low global
warming damage valuation - IPCC GW (IPCC mid estimate - 6.0 ECU/t CO2);
3. the Value of Statistical Life -VSL- instead of the YOLL approach for valuing public health
mortality impacts (sens 1) and with low global warming damage valuation (IPCC GW).
0.3 Overview of the fuel cycles analysed
0.3.1 The Dutch National Implementation
In 1994 electricity in the Netherlands was mainly produced from natural gas (51%), coal
(27%), oil (4%), Nuclear (4%) and other sources (3%) such as; municipal waste incineration,
wind turbines, hydro power and photovoltaic cells. Some 11% of the electricity used was
imported from France and Norway. Oil use for electricity production will be phased out in the
coming decades. As for nuclear the public pressure has lead to closure of all production plants
in 1997. Whether or not nuclear energy will play a role in future electricity productions is still
unclear. Biomass, however, is seen as a major new fuel for electricity production, from national
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
cultivation as well as from import. In the coming decades other renewables (especially land and
sea based wind energy) will play a much larger role in electricity production in the Netherlands.
The fuel cycles analysed in this report were chosen with a view on the importance of the fuels
and technologies in the coming decade. Therefore, new technologies for coal, gas and biomass
electricity production are analysed. Nuclear fuel is not expected to be used for electricity
production in the next decade. The nuclear fuel cycle was also analysed as nuclear energy was
used up to 1997 and its use in the future is still uncertain. For the aggregation task location,
technical and emission data were gathered for all individual electricity production units in the
Netherlands in 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994. For the policy case study the externalities of future
electricity production in the Netherlands is analysed based on available scenarios up to the year
2030.
0.3.2 The coal fuel cycle
The E8-station in Amsterdam was chosen as the Dutch reference coal plant. The E8-station has
a net capacity of 630 MW which is representative for average electricity production capacity
from coal in the Netherlands. The station is situated near the highly populated monumental city
of Amsterdam. It became operational in 1994 and uses a conventional coal pulverised fuel (PF)
boiler. The most important environmental technological aspects are a 99.95% effective
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), a 92% effective flue gas desulphurisation (FGD), low NOx
burners and waste water treatment to reduce trace emissions to water. The coal used is
imported from Australia, the US, South Africa, Columbia, Poland and Indonesia.
The priority impacts are to human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming
and are caused by atmospheric emissions. The major air pollutants are SO2, NOx, CO2 and
primary particles from the power generation stage and CO2 emissions from coal transport.
Although primary particle emissions from the mining stage are quite large, it is expected that
their impact will not be too high, since they are emitted near ground and so they are quickly
deposited. Furthermore, they probably have a too large diameter to penetrate deeply into the
lungs and cause serious health effects. Occupational accidents from the mining stage also lead
to considerable damages.
Depending on the monetary valuation method used, Years of Life Lost (YOLL) or Value of
Statistical Life (VSL):
1. The human health damages due to aerosols (formed from NOx and SOx) each amount 10 25 % of the total damage.
2. Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions in the power generation stage and in up
and downstream stages are responsible for 40 - 80 % of the total damage.
3. Ozone related health and crop damages due to NOx emissions are roughly 4 - 20 % of the
total damage.
Upstream impacts other than from CO2 emissions are smaller, although the occupational
accidents of the mining are also significant. The total damages, based on the conservative 95%
confidence interval over all combinations of valuation, are in the range of 12 to 175
mECU/kWh with a best estimate range of 16 to 43 mECU/kWh. This is of the same order of
Executive Summary
magnitude as the private generation costs, even though the technology used is clean and the
plume from the power plant is not over the highest populated areas in the Netherlands.
0.3.3 The natural gas fuel cycle
The EC95/96-station in the Eemshaven (the far North of the country) was chosen as the Dutch
reference natural gas plant. The station has a capacity of 1700 MW which is the largest gas
plant in the Netherlands and one of the largest in Europe. The station is situated near the
German border in a lowly populated area. It has become operational in 1995/1996 and uses
five steam and gas turbines with low NOx burners (a CCGT process). This one of the most
advanced technologies available in 1995. The natural gas used is imported by pipeline from
Norway.
When selecting the priority impacts, those considered most relevant are those caused by the
atmospheric emissions from the power generation stage on human health, materials, crops and
ecosystems, and global warming. The major air pollutants are NOx and CO2.
The major damages of this fuel cycle are on human health, due to the air pollutant emissions
from the power generation stage. Depending on the monetary valuation method used, YOLL
or VSL:
1. Human health damages from aerosols (formed from NOx emissions) amount some 15 - 30
% of the total damage.
2. Ozone damages due to NOx emissions amount some 5 - 25 % of the total damage.
3. Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions contribute 40 - 50 % to the total damages.
Upstream impacts are small. The total damages, based on the conservative 95 % confidence
interval over all combinations of valuation, are in the range of 3 to 69 mECU/kWh with a best
estimate range of 4.9 to 14 mECU/kWh.. This is of the same order of magnitude as the private
generation costs, even though the technology used is clean and the plume from the power plant
is over a scarcely populated area in the Netherlands.
0.3.4 The biomass fuel cycle
Two fictional biomass fuel cycles are analysed; a wood co-firing (WCF) installation based on
the coal reference plant technology and location and a wood gasification (WG) plant fictionally
located at the natural gas reference plant site.
The biomass part of the WCF plant has a capacity of 20 MW while the WG plant has a
capacity of 36.5 MW. The characteristics of the WCF plant are equal to those already
discussed for the coal reference plant above. The WG plant uses a biomass integrated
gasifier/combined cycle (BIG/CC) process of the direct atmospheric gasification based on TSP
technology with low temperature gas cleaning. It uses a 70% effective FGD and a 100%
effective wet scrubber. The biomass used is for both plants is assumed to be grown in the
vicinity (within 50 km) of the production plants.
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
When selecting the priority impacts, those considered most relevant are those caused by the
atmospheric emissions from the transport and the power generation stage on human health,
materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming. The major air pollutants are SO2, NOx,
primary particles and CO2. Also occupational impacts lead to considerable damages..
The major damages of this fuel cycle are on human health, due to the air pollutant emissions,
specially SO2, NOx and primary particles from the transport and power generation stage. Other
upstream air emission related impacts are small. The transport and the power generation stage
are each responsible for roughly 50% of the damage. The total damages, based on the
conservative 95 % confidence interval over all combinations of valuation, are in the range of
3.5 to 18.3 mECU/kWh for the WCF fuel cycle and 5.1 to 23.1 mECU/kWh for the WG fuel
cycle. The best estimate ranges are 3.7 to 14.6 mECU/kWh for the WCF fuel cycle and 5.2 to
19.2 mECU/kWh for the WG fuel cycle. This is surprisingly high for electricity production with
a renewable energy source. The externalities could probably be lowered by lowering the
transport needs or shifting from truck or barge transport of biomass to shipping.
0.3.5 The nuclear fuel cycle
The fictional nuclear power plant analysed is a so called once through process with
reprocessing with a pressurised water reactor and is located at Borssele. The fictional plant is
assumed to be an updated version on the existing nuclear power plant at the same site. It is
assumed to have a capacity of 449 MW. The station is situated in a lowly populated area. The
uranium used is mined and converted in France, then enriched in the Netherlands, fabricated in
France, then used in the Netherlands for power generation, transported to France for
reprocessing and finally transported back to the Netherlands for interim and final storage.
Only the radiological impacts from all stages in the fuel cycle are analysed as this study was
performed as a scoping study in 1994 and could not be updated within this JOULE third
framework project stage.
The major identified damages of this fuel cycle are on public and occupational human health.
The total damages are estimated at around 7 mECU/kWh when using a 0% discount rate and a
time horizon of 100,000 years. The main damages are associated with mining and milling,
power generation but especially with reprocessing.
Adding the non-radiological public air emission related damages and the occupational damages
related to the normal operation of the plant and of transport would probably increase the total
damage estimate with several mECU/kWh. As mentioned before these damages are not
analysed in this study.
Executive Summary
0.4 Aggregation
From a policy and environmental science perspective it is important to know not only the
externalities of individual plants but more so total and the average externalities of the total
electricity production. For this aggregation two procedures are followed.
1. For non SO2, NOx and particle power generation emission related impacts, such as global
warming impacts, occupational health impacts, public health impacts in the other stages of
the fuel cycles and wind, nuclear and hydro damages, linear relation between burdens and
damages were used based on production capacity and fuel cycle type only.
2. For SO2, NOx and particle air emission related impacts simple aggregation rules are not
sufficient. Applying a multi-source version of the software used for the analyses of the
reference plants would be the ideal way forward. However, such a model was not available.
As it would be too time consuming to analyse all power stations separately with the single
source models, the aggregation was made performed by doing a sensitivity analysis. In this
analysis the influences of stack height, flue gas temperature, emission factor and location
on the damage estimates of SO2, NOx and particle emissions from the power generation
stage are analysed. The relations found were applied to all (around 90) individual electricity
production units in the Netherlands in 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
The results for the different combinations of valuation are given in Table 0.1and Table 0.2.
The subtotal average damages, based on the conservative 95 % confidence interval over all
combinations of valuation, are in the range of 17.1 to 93.3, 13,8 to 75.3, 12.3 to 66.7 and
11.4 to 59.6 mECU/kWh for 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. The best estimate
ranges are 17.1 to75.1, 13.8 to 57.5, 12.3 to 49.1 and 11.4 to 41.7 mECU/kWh for 1990,
1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. There seems to be a trend towards decreasing damages with
time. This was analysed further in the “Policy Case Study”. However, at present the average
externalities of electricity production in the Netherlands are estimated to be of the same order
of magnitude as the average private electricity production costs ( ± 40 mECU/kWh).
As a second sensitivity analysis the externalities of the SO2, NOx and particle emissions from
the power generation stages were analysed using simple linear relation between emission and
externality. The results from this analysis give 30 to 50 % lower damage estimates than the
more detailed analysis discussed above. It should be noted that the detailed analysis described
above is also rough as the equations used are based on 6 locations only and rough assumptions
on technical characteristics are used. However, this ‘detailed’ analysis probably gives a better
estimate of the damages than the ‘emission approach’ because the results for the reference
power plants indicate that location and technology are important damage parameters
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 0.1 Best estimate damages of electricity production in the Netherlands by applying location and
technology specific analysis in billion ECU/y.
Impact categories
1990
1992
1993
1994
Core + ExternE GW
1.11
0.86
0.73
0.64
• Power generation (I) a
0.69-1.8
0.70-1.8 0.71-1.8
0.72-1.9
• Power generation Global Warming
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
• Others b
Subtotal
2.0-3.1
1.8-2.9
1.7-2.8
1.6-2.7
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
6.21
4.81
4.14
3.43
• Power generation (I) a
0.69-1.8
0.70-1.8 0.71-1.8
0.72-1.9
• Power generation Global Warming
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
• Others b
Subtotal
7.1-8.2
5.7-6.9
5.1-6.2
4.4-5.5
Core + IPCC GW
1.11
0.86
0.73
0.64
• Power generation (I) a
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
• Power generation Global Warming
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.18
• Others b
Subtotal
1.51
1.25
1.15
1.06
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
6.21
4.81
4.14
3.43
• Power generation (I) a
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
• Power generation Global Warming
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.19
• Others b
Subtotal
6.63
5.23
4.57
3.86
a Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages.
b Other damages include all hydro, wind and nuclear damages, all occupational damages for fossil fuel cycles
and the public health and global warming damages outside the power generation stage of fossil fuel cycles.
Table 0.2 Best estimate average damages of electricity production in the Netherlands by applying
location and technology specific analysis in mECU/kWh.
1990
1992
1993
1994
Impact categories
Core + ExternE GW
12.6
9.4
7.9
6.94
• Power generation (I) a
7.9-20.4
7.7-20.0
7.6-19.7
7.7-20.1
• Power generation Global Warming
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
• Others b
Subtotal
22.8-35.3
19.3-31.6 17.8-29.9
16.9-29.3
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
70.4
52.9
44.5
37.0
• Power generation (I) a
7.9-20.4
7.7-20.0
7.6-19.7
7.7-20.1
• Power generation Global Warming
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
• Others b
Subtotal
80.7-93.3
63.0-75.3 54.6-66.7
47.2-59.6
Core + IPCC GW
12.6
9.4
7.9
6.9
• Power generation (I) a
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
• Power generation Global Warming
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
• Others b
Subtotal
17.1
13.8
12.3
11.4
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
70.4
52.9
44.5
37.0
• Power generation (I) a
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
• Power generation Global Warming
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
• Others b
Subtotal
75.1
57.5
49.1
41.7
Executive Summary
The sub-total and average externalities for the different fuel cycles are given in Table 0.3.
Table 0.3 Total and average mid range estimate externalities by fuel cycle for the Netherlands for
1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
1990
Sub-total damage in billion ECU/y
Coal
1.3 -1.9
0.53 -0.98
Natural gas
Oil
0.11 -0.25
Nuclear
0.028
Biomass + Waste
0.0021 -0.0028
6.1E-05
Wind
Hydro
1.8E-04
PV
n.q.
Import
0.046
Sub-total
2.0 -3.1
Average damage in mECU/kWh
Coal
52.6 -77.4
Natural gas
12.6 -23.5
Oil
34.8 -75.3
Nuclear
7.3
Biomass + Waste
2.6 -3.4
Wind
0.76
Hydro
2.3
PV
n.q.
Import
4.8
Average
23 -35
1992
1993
1994
0.97 - 1.5
0.59 - 1.1
0.13 - 0.27
0.028
0.0032 - 0.0042
6.2E-05
1.8E-04
n.q.
0.041
1.8 - 2.9
0.85 -1.4
0.57 -1.1
0.15 -0.32
0.028
0.0032 -0.0042
8.8E-05
1.8E-04
n.q.
0.050
1.7 -2.8
0.86 - 1.4
0.48 - 0.95
0.15 - 0.32
0.028
0.0032 - 0.0042
1.4E-04
1.8E-04
n.q.
0.051
1.6 - 2.7
42.3 - 66.3
13.1 - 24.5
31.7 - 68.3
7.3
2.6 - 3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
19 -32
35.7 -58.4
13.1 -24.6
33.5 -73.6
7.3
2.6 -3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
18 -30
34.0 - 57.3
11.6 - 22.7
37.4 - 82.6
7.3
2.6 -3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
17 - 29
A decrease in the externalities of coal fuelled electricity production is observed. This is mainly
due to a decrease in the average SO2, NOx and PM emissions. For the same reason also for
natural gas and oil fuelled electricity production a decrease in the externalities was expected.
Partly due to data inaccuracies and problems with several plants in 1992 and 1993 this is not
observed. For wind, nuclear, PV and hydro the central estimate of the externalities (the Core
human health and lower bound of the midrange ExternE-GW estimates) in 1995 was held
representative for all years analysed. It is clear that renewable electricity production has smaller
externalities than fossil fuel electricity production and that nuclear is probably somewhere
between these two.
0.5 Policy case study
In this policy case study the total and average externalities of different electricity production
scenarios for the Netherlands are estimated. This was done to see whether the decrease in the
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
externalities with time observed in the aggregation task will continue into the future or if
unforeseen steps are needed to maintain this decrease.
Up to the year 2004 the centralised electricity production is already planned by the “Combined
Electricity Producers” (Sep). The influence of these variations on the externality estimates for
the total and average electricity production up to 2004 will probably be small as the main part
of the production capacity used until 2004 is already existing and little new capacity will be
built. In the year 2030 all currently operational power plants will have been written off and
closed down.
For the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030 electricity production scenarios are analysed. Some
of the electricity production scenarios and the results are discussed shortly below.
•
2010/2030 scenarios
In the KIS-GO 2 scenario (a ‘coal use study’ scenario) no nuclear electricity production
takes place in the Netherlands and gas prices are linked to the oil price. However, the
KIS scenario is probably not very realistic as no policy on CO2 reduction is prescribed
in these scenarios. This means that in the scenarios no CO2 removal technologies are
implemented as these raise the internal costs considerably.
•
2015 scenario
In the European Renaissance (ER) scenario (a ‘National Energy Investigation’ scenario,
developed by the Central Planning Bureau) the European integration is successful, the
economic growth is high and a moderate CO2 tax is implemented leading to the
introduction of CO2 removal technologies.
•
2020 scenario
In the ‘Progressive low’ scenario (a ‘Third Energy Bill’ scenario) the policy is focused
on energy savings and decreased environmental burdens (especially CO2 reduction)
from energy use. Furthermore, there is a liberalised energy market, the Netherlands will
have a relative small energy intensive industry and will be a net importer of electricity.
Of these scenarios the ‘Progressive low’ scenario from the ‘Third Energy Bill’ and the
‘European Renaissance (ER)’ scenario from the ‘National Energy Investigation’ are especially
interesting as they are in line with current energy policy. In the scenarios:
1. The relative share of gas is high compared to all other scenarios;
2. The share of renewables is more than 10% of total electricity production;
3. The European integration is successful and also the Eastern European and the GOS
countries are members of an Energy Charter, and
4. The CO2 emission reduction policies will lead to implementation of CO2 removal
technologies.
Executive Summary
The average externality estimates are given in the next figure .
100.0
Combinations of valuation:
Core +ExternE GW
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
Core + IPCC GW
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
90.0
80.0
Scenarios:
70.0
2010/2030 KIS-GO 2 scenario
2015 European Renaissance scenario
2020 Progressive low scenario
mECU/kWh
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Year
Figure 0.1
Average damage estimates in mECU/kWh for electricity production in the
Netherlands for the different scenarios and the different combinations of valuation.
Based on the results it can be concluded that there is a trend towards decreasing total and
average externalities of electricity production in the next decades. In some scenarios (2015 ER
and 2020 Progressive low) the CO2 damages decrease because CO2 removal takes place while
in the KIS scenarios the amount of coal technology is increased leading to increasing CO2
damages. In all scenarios the emissions of other air pollutants (SO2 and NOx) decrease
considerably leading to a decrease in the damages to public health, materials, monuments and
crops. With the KIS scenario the ‘other’ impacts increase considerably as more coal is used
leading to increased coal mining occupational damages. The ‘other’ impacts in the 2020
Progressive low scenario are also high. This is due to the large amount of biomass transport
associated externalities.
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
0.6 Conclusions
This study is the first comprehensive attempt to estimate the externalities of electricity
production using a bottom-up approach which uses atmospheric dispersion modelling of air
pollutants in combination with stock at risk data, relevant exposure-response relations and
monetary valuation through a Willingness to Pay (WTP) approach. In this report the results of
the implementation of this approach, with some minor elaborations in certain fields, for the
Netherlands is given.
It was estimated that the externalities of electricity production with coal are roughly once as
high as with natural gas and nuclear while the externalities of biomass based electricity
production are even lower. Partial substitution of coal with biomass in coal technology
electricity plants and a shift from coal and natural gas based to biomass based electricity
production could thus decrease the externalities of the electricity sector. The main benefits are
due to reduced CO2 emissions.
It was found that the long-range (100-3000 km from the power plant) impacts of PM10, SO2
and NOx emissions from the power plant during normal operation were higher than expected.
The high damages of SO2 and NOx emissions are not due to these pollutants themselves but
due to ammoniumsulphate and -nitrate aerosols (particles) formed in the atmosphere causing
severe health impacts. Local impacts can, depending on the population density within a short
distance (0-100 km) from the power plant, also be substantial. This is especially the case for
PM related damages.
Furthermore, it was found that for fossil fuel cycles the global warming damages due to CO2
emissions dominate the overall damages. Partial substitution of coal with biomass in coal
technology electricity plants and a shift from coal and natural gas based to biomass based
electricity production could thus decrease the externalities of the electricity sector. The main
benefits are due to reduced CO2 emissions.
The externalities from non-power generation fuel cycle stages are found to be low relative to
the power generation stage externalities.
The externalities of electricity production at the reference coal and natural gas plants, although
still considered to be order of magnitude estimates, are comparable with the private costs of
electricity production in the Netherlands in 1997, even though the analysis represents the best
available technologies in 1995.
It was also found that the average externalities of electricity production in the Netherlands
between 1990 and 1994 were about as high as the average private costs though there were
indications of a trend towards decreasing externalities.
The results of the analysis of future average and total externalities show that the introduction
of strict CO2 reduction could lead to a decrease in the average externalities of up to 70% in the
next two decades relative to 1990 levels. Without any CO2 reduction policy the average
Executive Summary
externalities would probably decrease with only some 25% in the next three decades relative to
1990 levels.
Due to the large uncertainties in the estimates it is recommended to use the results provided by
this report only as background information and order of magnitude estimates of the
externalities associated with electricity production.
The results can be used directly for planning processes. For example; the optimisation of power
plants site selection and for choosing among different energy alternatives. Another possible use
of these results is in the field of cost-benefit analysis of environmentally-friendly technologies.
With the results a first attempt towards the integration of environmental aspects into energy
policy can be carried out. This information can also be helpful for establishing economic
incentives for pollution reduction.
Further research is required to refine the methodology and to remove the existing large
uncertainties.
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives of the project
The use of energy causes to a wide range of damage impacts, including human health, natural
ecosystems, and the built environment. Such damages are referred to as external costs, as they
are not reflected in the market price of energy. These externalities have been traditionally
ignored in policy making.
However, there is a growing interest towards the internalisation of externalities to assist policy
and decision making. Several European and international bodies have expressed their interest in
this issue, as may be seen in the 5th Environmental Action Programme, in the “White Paper on
Growth, competitiveness and employment”, or the “White Paper on Energy”, all from the
European Commission.
This interest has led to the development of internationally agreed tools for the evaluation of
externalities, and to its application to different energy sources.
Within the European Commission R&D Programme Joule II, the ExternE Project developed
and demonstrated a uniform methodology for the quantification of the externalities of different
power generation technologies. Launched in 1991 as a collaborative project with the US-DOE,
and continued afterwards by the EC as the ExternE project, it has involved more then 40
different European institutes from 9 countries, as well as scientists from the US. This resulted
in the first comprehensive attempt to use a consistent 'bottom-up' methodology to evaluate the
external costs associated with a wide range of different fuel cycles. The result was identified by
both the European and American experts in this field as currently the most advanced project
world-wide for the evaluation of external costs of power generation.
Under Joule III, this project was continued with three distinguished major tasks: ExternE Core
for the further development and updating of the methodology, ExternE National
Implementation to create an EU-wide data set and ExternE-Transport for the application of the
ExternE methodology to energy related impacts from transport. The current report is the result
of the ExternE National Implementation project for the Netherlands.
The objective of the ExternE National Implementation project is to establish a comprehensive
and comparable set of data on externalities of power generation for all EU member states and
Norway. The tasks include the application of the ExternE methodology to the most important
fuel cycles for each country as well as to update the already existing results; to aggregate these
site- and technology-specific results to more general figures. For countries already involved in
Joule II, these data have been applied to concrete policy questions, to indicate how these data
could feed into decision and policy making processes. Other objectives were the dissemination
23
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
of results in the different countries, and the creation of a network of scientific institutes familiar
with the ExternE methodology, data, and their application.
The data in this report results from the application of ExternE-methodology as developed
under Joule II. However, because our understanding of the impacts of environmental burdens
on humans and nature is improving continuously, this methodology (or more precisely, the
scientific inputs into the accounting framework) has been updated and further developed in
ExternE core. Consequently, the data established under Joule II have been updated to ensure
an overall consistent set of data.
The National Implementation project has generated a large set of comparable and validated
results, covering more than 60 cases, for 15 countries and 11 fuel cycles. A wide range of
technologies have been analysed, including fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables. Fuel cycle
analyses have been carried out, determining the environmental burdens and impacts of all
stages of production of electricity. Therefore, apart from the externalities estimated, the project
offers a large database on environmental aspects of the fuel cycles studied.
An aggregation exercise has also been carried out, to extend the analysis to the whole
electricity system of each of the participant countries. The exercise has proved to be very
useful, although the results must be considered in most cases as a first approach, which should
be carefully revised before being taken into consideration in practical decision making.
In spite of all the uncertainties related to the externalities assessment, the output of the project
can be very useful for policy-making, both at the national and EU level. The results obtained
provide a good basis to start the study of the internalisation of the external costs of energy,
which has been frequently cited as one of the objectives of EU energy policy. Another
possibility is to use the results for comparative purposes. The site sensitivity of the externalities
encourages the application of the methodology for the optimisation of site selection processes,
or for cost-benefit analysis of the introduction of cleaner technologies. The usefulness of the
application for policy making has been demonstrated through the analysis of a wide variety of
decision making issues carried out by those teams already involved in ExternE under Joule II.
1.2 Publications from the project
The current report is to be seen as a part of a larger set of publications. The results of these
ExternE projects are published and made available in three different reports and publications.
First, the current report covers the results of the national implementation for the Netherlands,
and is published by IVM. It contains all the details of the application of the methodology to the
coal, natural gas, biomass and nuclear cycles, aggregation, and a policy case study of the
development of the average externalities of electricity scenarios for the Netherlands until the
year 2030.
Secondly, the overall results of the ExternE project are being published by the EC-DGXII, in
line with the publication of the main results of the ExternE project of Joule II, which focused
24
Introduction
on the application for different fuel cycles. This set of publications covers the following
volumes :
1. ExternE methodology I: general: this volume gives a detailed overview of all the
methodological issues, ranging from air dispersion modelling, health and ecological impacts,
uncertainty and economic valuation; as well as aggregation. This volume is the result of
work performed in the Joule I and Joule II ExternE projects and work performed by a
group of experts (the core group) in the Joule III ExternE project.
2. ExternE National Implementation : this volume contains an overview and comparison of the
results of the implementation in all EU countries and Norway. The country results of
aggregation and the policy case studies are included in this volume. Whereas the full reports
are organised on a country by country basis, this summary report also contains an overview
of the results on a fuel cycle basis.
3. ExternE Transport : covers the application of the ExternE methodology to the
transportation sector through case studies in different EU countries performed in the Joule
III ExternE transport project.
Thirdly, this information can also be consulted from the ExternE website. This gives access to
the ExternE database, which contains all the information and data from the ExternE project. It
is kept at the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, and accessible through the Internet.
In the database, e.g., details on applications in other countries (e.g. for comparison of the same
fuel cycles in different countries) can be found. The ExternE website may be found at the
Internet address http://externe.jrc.es. As this website is the focal point for latest news on the
project, it will inform you on how to get the different reports from the project, as well as
information on the continuation of the ExternE project.
1.3 Structure of this report
The structure of this report reflects that it is part of a set of publications. In order to ease
comparison of results, all ExternE National Implementation reports have the same structure
and use the same way of presentation of fuel cycles, technologies and results of the analysis.
The common structure is especially important for the description of the methodology. Chapter
2 describes the general framework of the selected bottom-up methodology. The major inputs
from different scientific disciplines into that framework (e.g. information on dose-response
functions) are summarised in the methodological appendices to this report and are discussed at
full length in the separate methodology publication (see above). Because the methodological
issues are similar for the different fuel cycles studied, and for the application in different
countries, they are described in the appendices, which are the same for all National
Implementation reports. This structure allows an easy comparison between the different fuel
cycles, technologies and countries and it clearly reflects that all data were calculated using the
same methodology. Nevertheless, some country specific situations or data problems have
resulted in a few country specific methodological issues, which are discussed in separate
methodological appendices.
In order to improve readability, the main text of the chapters dealing with the application to the
different fuel cycles provide the overview of technology, fuel cycles, environmental burdens
25
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
and the related externalities. More detailed information (e.g. results for a specific type of
impact) and country specific extensions to the overall methodology is provided in appendices.
1.4 The Dutch National Implementation
1.4.1 Introduction
The Netherlands is situated along the North Sea at the border of Europe. It is a small country
compared to many other European countries (37,310 km2) with some 15 million inhabitants.
Especially in the western region of the Netherlands the population density is very high, up to
7000 people per km2 (see the figure below). The capital city is Amsterdam with 700,000
inhabitants.
The locations of the central electricity production in the Netherlands are given in Figure 1.2
Population density per km2
30 - 1 68
16 8 - 29 8
29 8 - 48 4
48 4 - 77 3
77 3 - 11 5 3
11 53 - 1 6 6 3
16 63 - 2 5 4 7
25 47 - 4 0 3 7
40 37 - 6 9 8 1
N
Figure 1.1 Population density in the Netherlands in 1991 (persons per km2).
26
Introduction
Eemshaven
LEEUWARDEN
Bergum
GRONINGEN
Hunze
Wieringermeer
Flevo/Lelystad
ZWOLLE
IJmuiden
Velsen
LELYSTAD
Centrale Hemweg
Almere
AMSTERDAM
Diemen
Harculo
ALMERE
Lage weide/Merwedekanaal
DEN HAAG
Maasvlakte
Westland
UTRECHT
De B-driehoek/Den Haag
ARNHEM
Galileistraat
ROTTERDAM Waalhaven
Dordrecht
Dodewaard
Nijmegen
NIJMEGEN
Amer
Moerdijk
MIDDELBURG Borssele
EINDHOVEN
Buggenum
ROERMOND
Maasbracht
MAASTRICHT
Figure 1.2 Power plant locations in the Netherlands (cities in capitals, power plants in bold).
In 1994 electricity was mainly produced from natural gas (51%), coal (27%), oil (4%), nuclear
(4%) and other sources (3%) such as; municipal waste incineration, wind turbines, hydro
power and photovoltaic cells. Some 11% of the electricity used was imported from France and
Norway. Oil use for electricity production will be phased out in the coming decades. As for
nuclear the public pressure has led to closure of all production plants in 1997. Whether or not
nuclear energy will play a role in future electricity productions is still unclear. Biomass,
however, is seen as a major new fuel for electricity production, both domestic and imported. In
27
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
the coming decades other renewables (especially land and sea based wind energy) will play a
much larger role in electricity production in the Netherlands.
1.4.2 Justification of the selection of fuel cycles
The fuel cycles assessed in this report have been selected according to two main criteria : the
need to aggregate results for the whole electricity sector, and the use of these results for
planning purposes.
According to the first criteria, all existing plants should have been analysed individually as the
project results show that externalities are very site specific. However, this was not possible
because of time and budget constraints. As the results from the previous projects have shown
that externalities of non-fossil fuel cycles available in the Netherlands can be expected to be
low, except for the nuclear fuel cycle, the coal, gas and nuclear fuel cycle were analysed. The
plants analysed were selected based on the most advanced technologies available in the
Netherlands at the time of this study.
For the aggregation work a sensitivity analysis of the externalities with respect to location,
emission strength, emission temperature and emission height was made. The results from this
sensitivity analysis were used for estimating the externalities of the individual fossil fuelled
plants in the Netherlands. As there was only one nuclear fuelled facility in operation in the
Netherlands in 1995 (the base year for this study) these externality estimates could be used
directly in the aggregation process. The externalities of the other non-fossil fuel cycles, i.e.
wind, hydro and PV, were taken from results from the Danish, Norwegian and German studies
respectively.
To comply with the second criterion not only externalities of current technologies but also
externalities of future technologies have to be analysed. In the near future biomass is expected
to be an important fuel for electricity production in the Netherlands. The externalities for the
most promising biomass fuel for electricity production, i.e. willow, for the two most promising
biomass fuelled technologies, i.e. gasification and co-firing, were also analysed in this Dutch
implementation study.
All results were used as input for the policy case study on estimating externalities of electricity
production according to different scenarios in the Netherlands until the year 2030.
1.4.3 Related national studies
Many studies on externalities of energy use, especially in transport, have been carried out for
the Netherlands. Examples are studies on:
1. Externalities of biomass based electricity production based on among others ExternE
results from the previous phase of the project and by Faaij and Meuleman (1996) and Faaij
(1997).
2. Marginal costs of impact reduction by Kaegeson (1993) and Dings (1996).
28
Introduction
3. Top-down approach for quantifying externalities of transport by Boneschanker and ’t Hoen
(1993) and Janse and Roos (1994).
IVM has also participated in the ExternE transport project in which the ExternE approach is
adapted and implemented on transport technologies. Furthermore, IVM has participated in a
project on cost-benefit analysis of emission reduction of SO2, NOx, PM10 and Lead for hot
spots in Europe (Olsthoorn, et al, 1997).
29
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
30
Methodology
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Approaches Used for Externality Analysis
The ExternE Project uses the ‘impact pathway’ approach for the assessment of the external
impacts and associated costs resulting from the supply and use of energy. The analysis
proceeds sequentially through the pathway, as shown in Figure 2.1. Emissions and other types
of burden such as risk of accident are quantified and followed through to impact assessment
and valuation. The approach thus provides a logical and transparent way of quantifying
externalities.
However, this style of analysis has only recently become possible, through developments in
environmental science and economics, and improvements in computing power has. Early
externalities work used a ‘top-down’ approach (the impact pathway approach being ‘bottomup’ in comparison). Such analysis is highly aggregated, being carried out at a regional or
national level, using estimates of the total quantities of pollutants emitted or present and
estimates of the total damage that they cause. Although the work of Hohmeyer (1988) and
others advanced the debate on externalities research considerably, the style of analysis was too
simplistic for adoption for policy analysis. In particular, no account could be taken of the
dependence of damage with the location of emission, beyond minor corrections for variation of
income at the valuation stage.
An alternative approach was the ‘control cost’ method, which substitutes the cost of reducing
emissions of a pollutant (which are determined from engineering data) for the cost of damages
due to these emissions. Proponents of this approach argued that when elected representatives
decide to adopt a particular level of emissions control they express the collective ‘willingnessto-pay’ of the society that they represent to avoid the damage. However, the method is entirely
self-referencing - if the theory was correct, whatever level of pollution abatement is agreed
would by definition equal the economic optimum. Although knowledge of control costs is an
important element in formulating prescriptive regulations, presenting them as if they were
damage costs is to be avoided.
Life cycle analysis (OECD, 1992; Heijungs et al, 1992; Lindfors et al, 1995) is a flourishing
discipline whose roots go back to the net energy analyses that were popular twenty years ago.
While there are several variations, all life cycle analysis is in theory based on a careful and
holistic accounting of all energy and material flows associated with a system or process. The
approach has typically been used to compare the environmental impacts associated with
different products that perform similar functions, such as plastic and glass bottles. Restriction
of the assessment to material and energy flows means that some types of externality (such as
the fiscal externalities arising from energy security) are completely outside the scope of LCA.
31
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
EMISSIONS
(e.g. tonnes/year of SO2)
DISPERSION
INCREASE IN AMBIENT
CONCENTRATIONS
(e.g. ppb SO2 for all affected
regions)
IMPACT
IMPACT
(e.g. change in crop yield)
CONCENTRATION
COST
Figure 2.1 An illustration of the main steps of the impact pathways methodology applied to the
consequences of pollutant emissions. Each step is analysed with detailed process models.
The ExternE method has numerous links to LCA. The concept of fuel cycle or fuel chain
analysis, in which all components of a given system are analysed ‘from cradle to grave’,
corresponds with the LCA framework. Hence for electric power fuel chains the analysis
32
Methodology
undertaken within the ExternE Project covers (so far as possible); fuel extraction,
transportation and preparation of fuels and other inputs; plant construction, plant operation
(power generation), waste disposal and plant decommissioning.
There are, however, some significant differences between externalities analysis as presented in
this study and typical LCA analysis. Life cycle analyses tend not to be specific on the
calculation of impacts, if they have attempted to quantify impacts at all. For example, the
‘classification factors’ identified by Heijungs et al (1992) for each pollutant are independent of
the site of release. For air pollution these factors were calculated with the assumption of
uniform mixing in the earth's atmosphere. While this can be justified for greenhouse gases and
other pollutants with long residence times, it is unrealistic for particulate matter, NOx, SO2 and
ozone (O3). The reason for this radical approximation lies in the choice of emphasis in LCA:
accounting for all material flows, direct and induced. Since induced flows occur at many
geographically different points under a variety of different conditions, it is simply not
practicable to model the fate of all emissions. In this sense, ExternE is much more ambitious
and precise in its estimates than LCA.
A second difference is that most LCA studies have a much more stringent view on system
boundaries and do not prioritise between different impacts. The ExternE analysts have to a
large extent decided themselves if certain stages of the fuel cycle, such as plant construction or
fuel transportation, can be excluded. Such decisions are made from experience of the likely
magnitude of damages, and a knowledge of whether a given type of impact is perceived to be
serious. [Note that it is recommended to quantify damages for any impact perceived to be
serious whether or not earlier analysis has suggested that associated damages will be
negligible]. What might be referred to as analytical ‘looseness’ is a consequence of the remit of
the ExternE project, which has as a final objective quantification of the externalities of energy
systems. As such the main emphasis of the study is quite properly on the impacts that are likely
(given current knowledge) to dominate the results. Externalities assessments based on the
ExternE methodology but conducted for other purposes may need to take a more truly holistic
perspective than has been attempted here.
The analysis presented in this report places its emphasis on the quantification of impacts and
cost because people care more about impacts than emissions. The quantification of emissions is
merely a step in the analysis. From this perspective the choice between externalities assessment
and conventional LCA is a matter of accuracy; uncertainties increase the further the analysis is
continued. In general terms, however, it is our view that the fuel chain analyses of the ExternE
Project can be considered a particular example of life cycle analysis.
33
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
2.2 Guiding Principles in the Development of the ExternE Methodology
The underlying principles on which the methodology for the ExternE Project has been
developed are:
Transparency, to show precisely how results are calculated, the uncertainty associated with
the results and the extent to which the external costs of any fuel chain have been fully
quantified.
Consistency, of methodology, models and assumptions (e.g. system boundaries, exposureresponse functions and valuation of risks to life) to allow valid comparisons to be made
between different fuel chains and different types of impact within a fuel chain.
That analysis should be comprehensive, we should seek to at least identify all effects that may
give rise to significant externalities, even if some of these cannot be quantified in either
physical or monetary terms.
In order to comply with these principles, much of the analysis described in this report looks at
the effects of individual power projects which are closely specified with respect to:
• The technologies used;
• The location of the power generation plant;
• The location of supporting activities;
• The type of fuel used;
• The source and composition of the fuel used.
Each of these factors is important in determining the magnitude of impacts and hence
associated externalities.
2.3 Defining the Boundaries of the Analysis
The starting point for fuel chain analysis is the definition of the temporal and spatial boundaries
of the system under investigation, and the range of burdens and impacts to be addressed. The
boundaries used in the ExternE Project are very broad. This is essential in order to ensure
consistency in the application of the methodology for different fuel chains.
Certain impacts brought within these boundaries cannot be quantified at the present time, and
hence the analysis is incomplete. However, this is not a problem peculiar to this style of
analysis; it simply reflects the existence of gaps in available knowledge. Our rule here is that no
impact that is known or suspected to exist, but cannot be quantified, should be ignored for
convenience. Instead it should be retained for consideration alongside whatever analysis has
been possible. Further work is needed so that unquantified effects can be better integrated into
decision making processes.
34
Methodology
2.3.1 Stages of the fuel chain
For any project associated with electricity generation the system is centred on the generation
plant itself. However, the system boundaries should be drawn so as to account for all potential
effects of a fuel chain. The exact list of stages is clearly dependent on the fuel chain in question,
but would include activities linked to the manufacture of materials for plant, construction,
demolition and site restoration as well as power generation. Other stages may need to be
considered, such as, exploration, extraction, processing and transport of fuel, and the
generation of wastes and by-products, and their treatment prior to disposal.
In practice, a complete analysis of each stage of a fuel chain is often not necessary in order to
meet the objectives of the analysis (see below). However, the onus is on the analyst to
demonstrate that this is the case - it cannot simply be assumed. Worth noting is the fact that
variation in laws and other local conditions will lead to major differences between the
importance of different stages in different parts of the world.
A further complication arises because of the linkage between fuel chains and other activities,
upstream and downstream. For example, in theory we should account for the externalities
associated with (e.g.) the production of materials for the construction of the plant used to
make the steel that is used to make turbines, coal wagons, etc. The benefit of doing so is,
however, extremely limited. Fortunately this can be demonstrated through order-of-magnitude
calculations on emissions, without the need for detailed analysis.
The treatment of waste matter and by-products deserves special mention. Impacts associated
with waste sent for disposal are part of the system under analysis. However, impacts associated
with waste utilised elsewhere (which are here referred to not a waste but as by-products)
should be considered as part of the system to which they are transferred from the moment that
they are removed from the boundaries of the fuel chain. It is of course important to be sure that
a market exists for any such by-products. The capacity of, for example, the building industry to
utilise gypsum from flue gas desulphurisation systems is clearly finite. If it is probable that
markets for particular by-products are already saturated, the ‘by-product’ must be considered
as waste instead. A further difficulty lies in the uncertainties about future management of waste
storage sites. For example, if solid residues from a power plant are disposed in a well
engineered and managed landfill there is no impact (other than land use) as long as the landfill
is correctly managed; however, for the more distant future such management is not certain.
2.3.2 Location of fuel chain activities
One of the distinguishing features of the ExternE study is the inclusion of site dependence. For
each stage of each fuel chain we have therefore identified specific locations for the power plant
and all of the other activities drawn within the system boundaries. In some cases this has gone
so far as to identify routes for the transport of fuel to power stations. The reason for defining
our analysis to this level of detail is simply that location is important in determining the size of
impacts. There are several elements to this, the most important of which are:
35
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
• Variation in technology arising from differing legal requirements (e.g. concerning the use of
pollution abatement techniques, occupational safety standards, etc.);
• Variation in fuel quality;
• Variations in atmospheric dispersion;
• Differences in the sensitivity of the human and natural environment upon which fuel chain
burdens impact.
The alternative to this would be to describe a ‘representative’ site for each activity. It was
agreed at an early stage of the study that such a concept is untenable. Also, recent
developments elsewhere, such as use of critical loads analysis in the revision of the Sulphur
Protocol within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UN ECE)
Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, demonstrate the importance attached
to site dependence by decision makers.
However, the selection of a particular series of sites for a particular fuel chain is not altogether
realistic, particularly in relation to upstream impacts. For example, although some coal fired
power stations use coal from the local area, an increasing number use coal imported from a
number of different countries. This has now been taken into account.
2.3.3 Identification of fuel chain technologies
The main objective of this project was to quantify the external costs of power generation
technologies built in the 1990s. For the most part it was not concerned with future
technologies that are as yet unavailable, nor with older technologies which are gradually being
decommissioned.
Over recent years an increasingly prescriptive approach has been taken to the regulation of new
power projects. The concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT), coupled with emission
limits and environmental quality standards defined by both national and international
legislation, restrict the range of alternative plant designs and rates of emission. This has made it
relatively easy to select technologies for each fuel chain on a basis that is consistent across fuel
chains. However, care is still needed to ensure that a particular set of assumptions are valid for
any given country. Across the broader ExternE National Implementation Project particular
variation has for example been found with respect to the control of NOx in different EU
Member States.
As stated above, the present report deals mainly with closely specified technology options.
Results have also been aggregated for the whole electricity generating sector, providing first
estimates of damages at the national level.
2.3.4 Identification of fuel chain burdens
For the purposes of this project the term ‘burden’ relates to anything that is, or could be,
capable of causing an impact of whatever type. The following broad categories of ‘burden’
have been identified:
36
Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solid wastes;
Liquid wastes;
Gaseous and particulate air pollutants;
Risk of accidents;
Occupational exposure to hazardous substances;
Noise;
Others (e.g. exposure to electro-magnetic fields, emissions of heat).
During the identification of burdens no account has been taken of the likelihood of any
particular burden actually causing an impact, whether serious or not. For example, in spite of
the concern that has been voiced in recent years there is no definitive evidence that exposure to
electro-magnetic fields associated with the transmission of electricity is capable of causing
harm. The purpose of the exercise is simply to catalogue everything to provide a basis for the
analysis of different fuel chains to be conducted in a consistent and transparent manner, and to
provide a firm basis for revision of the analysis as more information on the effects of different
burdens becomes available in the future.
The need to describe burdens comprehensively is highlighted by the fact that it is only recently
that the effects of long range transport of acidic pollutants, and the release of CFCs and other
greenhouse gases have been appreciated. Ecosystem acidification, global warming and
depletion of the ozone layer are now regarded as among the most important environmental
concerns facing the world. The possibility of other apparently innocuous burdens causing risks
to health and the environment should not be ignored.
2.3.5 Identification of impacts
The next part of the work involves identification of the potential impacts of these burdens. At
this stage it is irrelevant whether a given burden will actually cause an appreciable impact; all
potential impacts of the identified burdens should be reported. The emphasis here is on making
analysts demonstrate that certain impacts are of little or no concern, according to current
knowledge. The conclusion that the externalities associated with a particular burden or impact,
when normalised to fuel chain output, are likely to be negligible is an important result that
should not be passed over without comment. It will not inevitably follow that action to reduce
the burden is unnecessary, as the impacts associated with it may have a serious effect on a
small number of people. From a policy perspective it might imply, however, that the use of
fiscal instruments might not be appropriate for dealing with the burden efficiently.
The first series of ExternE reports (European Commission, 1995a-f) provided comprehensive
listings of burdens and impacts for most of the fuel chains considered. The tasks outlined in this
section and the previous one are therefore not as onerous as they seem, and will become easier
with the development of appropriate databases.
37
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
2.3.6 Valuation criteria
Many receptors that may be affected by fuel chain activities are valued in a number of different
ways. For example, forests are valued not just for the timber that they produce, but also for
providing recreational resources, habitats for wildlife, their interactions (direct and indirect)
with climate and the hydrological cycle, protection of buildings and people in areas subject to
avalanche, etc. Externalities analysis should include all such aspects in its valuation. Again, the
fact that a full quantitative valuation along these lines is rarely possible is besides the point
when seeking to define what a study should seek to address: the analyst has the responsibility
of gathering information on behalf of decision makers and should not make arbitrary decisions
as to what may be worthy of further debate.
2.3.7 Spatial limits of the impact analysis
The system boundary also has spatial and temporal dimensions. Both should be designed to
capture impacts as fully as possible.
This has major implications for the analysis of the effects of air pollution in particular. It
necessitates extension of the analysis to a distance of hundreds of kilometres for many air
pollutants operating at the ‘regional’ scale, such as ozone, secondary particles, and SO2. For
greenhouse gases the appropriate range for the analysis is obviously global. Consideration of
these ranges is in marked contrast to the standard procedure employed in environmental impact
assessment which considers pollutant transport over a distance of only a few kilometres and is
further restricted to primary pollutants. The importance of this issue in externalities analysis is
that in many cases in the ExternE Project it has been found that regional effects of air
pollutants like SO2, NOx and associated secondary pollutants are far greater than effects on the
local scale (for examples see European Commission, 1995c). In some locations, for example
close to large cities, this pattern is reversed, and accordingly the framework for assessing air
pollution effects developed within the EcoSense model allows specific account to be taken of
local range dispersion.
It is frequently necessary to truncate the analysis at some point, because of limits on the
availability of data. Under these circumstances it is recommended that an estimate be provided
of the extent to which the analysis has been restricted. For example, one could quantify the
proportion of emissions of a given pollutant that have been accounted for, and the proportion
left unaccounted.
2.3.8 Temporal limits of the impact analysis
In keeping with the previous section, impacts should be assessed over their full time course.
This clearly introduces a good deal of uncertainty for long term impacts, such as those of
global warming or high level radioactive waste disposal, as it requires a view to be taken on the
structure of future society. There are a number of facets to this, such as global population and
economic growth, technological developments, the sustainability of fossil fuel consumption and
the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic emissions.
38
Methodology
The approach adopted here is that discounting should only be applied after costs are quantified.
The application of any discount rate above zero can reduce the cost of major events in the
distant future to a negligible figure. This perhaps brings into question the logic of a simplistic
approach to discounting over time scales running far beyond the experience of recorded
history. There is clear conflict here between some of the concepts that underlie traditional
economic analysis and ideas on sustainability over timescales that are meaningful in the context
of the history of the planet. For further information, the discounting of global warming
damages is discussed further in Appendix V.
The assessment of future costs is of course not simply a discounting issue. A scenario based
approach is also necessary in some cases in order to describe the possible range of outcomes.
This is illustrated by the following examples;
• A richer world would be better placed to take action against the impacts of global warming
than a poorer one;
• The damages attributable to the nuclear fuel chain could be greatly reduced if more effective
treatments for cancer are discovered.
Despite the uncertainties involved it is informative to conduct analysis of impacts that take
effect over periods of many years. By doing so it is at least possible to gain some idea of how
important these effects might be in comparison to effects experienced over shorter time scales.
The chief methodological and ethical issues that need to be addressed can also be identified. To
ignore them would suggest that they are unlikely to be of any importance.
2.4 Analysis of Impact Pathways
Having identified the range of burdens and impacts that result from a fuel chain, and defined
the technologies under investigation, the analysis typically proceeds as follows:
• Prioritisation of impacts;
• Description of priority impact pathways;
• Quantification of burdens;
• Description of the receiving environment;
• Quantification of impacts;
• Economic valuation;
• Description of uncertainties.
2.4.1 Prioritisation of impacts
It is possible to produce a list of several hundred burdens and impacts for many fuel chains (see
European Commission, 1995c, pp. 49-58). A comprehensive analysis of all of these is clearly
beyond the scope of externality analysis. In the context of this study, it is important to be sure
that the analysis covers those effects that (according to present knowledge) will provide the
greatest externalities (see the discussion on life cycle analysis in section 2.1). Accordingly, the
analysis presented here is limited, though only after due consideration of the potential
39
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
magnitude of all impacts that were identified for the fuel chains that were assessed. It is
necessary to ask whether the decision to assess only a selection of impacts in detail reduces the
value of the project as a whole. We believe that it does not, as it can be shown that many
impacts (particularly those operating locally around any given fuel chain activity) will be
negligible compared to the overall damages associated with the technology under examination.
There are good reasons for believing that local impacts will tend to be of less importance than
regional and global effects. The first is that they tend to affect only a small number of people.
Even though it is possible that some individuals may suffer very significant damages these will
not amount to a significant effect when normalised against a fuel chain output in the order of
several Tera-Watt (1012 Watt) hours per year. It is likely that the most appropriate means of
controlling such effects is through local planning systems, which be better able than policy
developed using externalities analysis to deal flexibly with the wide range of concerns that may
exist locally. A second reason for believing that local impacts will tend to be less significant is
that it is typically easier to ascribe cause and effect for impacts effective over a short range than
for those that operate at longer ranges. Accordingly there is a longer history of legislation to
combat local effects. It is only in recent years that the international dimension of pollution of
the atmosphere and water systems has been realised, and action has started to be taken to deal
with them.
There are obvious exceptions to the assertion that in many cases local impacts are of less
importance than others;
• Within OECD states one of the most important exceptions concerns occupational disease,
and accidents that affect workers and members of the public. Given the high value attached
to human life and well-being there is clear potential for associated externalities to be large.
• Other cases mainly concern renewable technologies, at least in countries in which there is a
substantial body of environmental legislation governing the design and siting of nuclear and
fossil-fired plant. For example, most concern over the development of wind farms typically
relates to visual intrusion in natural landscapes and to noise emissions.
• There is the possibility that a set of conditions - meteorology, geography, plant design,
proximity of major centres of population, etc. - can combine to create local air quality
problems.
The analysis of certain upstream impacts appears to create difficulties for the consistency of the
analysis. For example, if we treat emissions of SO2 from a power station as a priority burden,
why not include emissions of SO2 from other parts of the fuel chain, for example from the
production of the steel and concrete required for the construction of the power plant?
Calculations made in the early stages of ExternE using databases, such as GEMIS (Fritsche et
al, 1992), showed that the emissions associated with material inputs to fossil power plants are
2 or 3 orders of magnitude lower than those from the power generation stage. It is thus logical
to expect that the impacts of such emissions are trivial in comparison, and can safely be
excluded from the analysis - if they were to be included the quantified effects would be
secondary to the uncertainties of the analysis of the main source of emissions. However, this
does not hold across all fuel chains. In the reports on both the wind fuel chain (European
Commission, 1995f) and the photovoltaic fuel chain (ISET, 1995), for example, it was found
40
Methodology
that emissions associated with the manufacture of plant are capable of causing significant
externalities, relative to the others that were quantified.
The selection of priorities partly depends on whether one wants to evaluate damages or
externalities. In quite a few cases the externalities are small in spite of significant damages. For
example, if a power plant has been in place for a long time, much of the externality associated
with visual and noise impacts will have been internalised through adjustments in the price of
housing. It has been argued that occupational health effects are also likely to be internalised.
For example, if coal miners are rational and well informed their work contracts should offer
benefits that internalise the incremental risk that they are exposed to. However, this is a very
controversial assumption, as it depends precisely upon people being both rational and well
informed and also upon the existence of perfect mobility in labour markets. For the present
time we have quantified occupational health effects in full, leaving the assessment of the degree
to which they are internalised to a later date.
It is again stressed that it would be wrong to assume that those impacts given low priority in
this study are always of so little value from the perspective of energy planning that it is never
worth considering them in the assessment of external costs. Each case has to be assessed
individually. Differences in the local human and natural environment, and legislation need to be
considered.
2.4.2 Description of priority impact pathways
Some impact pathways analysed in the present study are extremely simple in form. For
example, the construction of a wind farm will affect the appearance of a landscape, leading to a
change in visual amenity. In other cases the link between ‘burden’ (defined here simply as
something that causes an ‘impact’) and monetary cost is far more complex. To clearly define
the linkages involved in such cases we have drawn a series of diagrams. One of these is shown
in Figure 2.2, illustrating the series of processes that need to be accounted for from emission of
acidifying pollutants to valuation of impacts on agricultural crops. It is clearly far more
complex than the pathway suggested by Figure 2.1.
A number of points should be made about Figure 2.2. It (and others like it) do not show what
has been carried out within the project. Instead they illustrate an ideal - what one would like to
do if there was no constraint on data availability. They can thus be used both in the
development of the methodology and also as a check once analysis has been completed, to gain
an impression of the extent to which the full externality has been quantified. This last point is
important because much of the analysis presented in this report is incomplete. This reflects on
the current state of knowledge of the impacts addressed. The analysis can easily be extended
once further data becomes available. Also, for legibility, numerous feedbacks and interactions
are not explicitly shown in the diagrammatic representation of the pathway.
41
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
I
Emission
II
Transport and atmospheric chemistry
Contribution of dry deposition
to total acidity of system
Foliar uptake
Dry deposition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Wet deposition
1. Soil acidification
2. Mobilization of heavy
metals and nutrients
Foliar necrosis
Physiological damage
Chlorosis
Pest performance
Leaching
III
IV
1. Root damage
Interactions
2. Leaching from foliage
3. Nutrient loss from soil
4. Nutritional balance
V
5. Climate interactions
6. Growth stimulation
7. Climate interactions
8. etc...
6. Pest performance
7. etc...
1. Growth
2. Biomass allocation
3. Appearance
VI
4. Death
5. Soil quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
Value of produce
Land prices
Breeding costs
Soil conditioning costs
VII
Figure 2.2 The impact pathway showing the series of linkages between emission of acidifying
pollutants and ozone precursors and valuation of impacts on agricultural systems.
42
Methodology
2.4.3 Quantification of burdens
The data used to quantify burdens must be both current and relevant to the situation under
analysis. Emission standards, regulation of safety in the workplace and other factors vary
significantly over time and between and within different countries. It is true that the need to
meet these demands creates difficulties for data collection. However, given that the objective
of this work is to provide as far as possible an accurate account of the environmental and social
burdens imposed by energy supply and use, these issues should not be ignored. It is notable
that data for new technologies can change rapidly following their introduction. In addition to
the inevitable refinement of technologies over time, manufacturers of novel equipment may be
cautious in their assessment of plant performance. As an example of this latter point, NOx
emission factors for combined cycle gas turbine plant currently coming on stream in several
countries are far lower than was suggested by Environmental Statements written for the same
plant less than five years ago.
All impacts associated with pollution of some kind require the quantification of emissions.
Emission rates of the ‘classical’ air pollutants (CO2, SO2, NOx, CO, volatile organic
compounds and particulate matter) are quite well known. Especially well determined is the rate
of CO2 emission for fuel using equipment; it depends only on the efficiency of the equipment
and the carbon/hydrogen ratio of the fuel - uncertainty is negligible. Emissions of the other
classical air pollutants are somewhat less certain, particularly as they can vary with operating
conditions, and maintenance routines. The sulphur content of different grades of oil and coal
can vary by an order of magnitude, and hence, likewise, will emissions unless this is
compensated for through varying the performance of abatement technologies. The general
assumption made in this study is that unless otherwise specified, the technology used is the best
available according to the regulations in the country of implementation, and that performance
will not degrade. We have sought to limit the uncertainty associated with emissions of these
pollutants by close identification of the source and quality of fuel inputs within the study.
The situation is less clear with respect to trace pollutants such as lead and mercury, since the
content of these in fuel can vary by much more than an order of magnitude. Furthermore, some
of these pollutants are emitted in such small quantities that even their measurement is difficult.
The dirtier the fuel, the greater the uncertainty in the emission estimate. There is also the need
to account for emissions to more than one media, as pollutants may be passed to air, water or
land. The last category is the subject of major uncertainty, as waste has historically been sent
for disposal to facilities of varying quality, ranging from simple holes in the ground to wellengineered landfills. Increasing regulation relating to the disposal of material and management
of landfills should reduce uncertainty in this area greatly for analysis within the European
Union, particularly given the concept of self-sufficiency enshrined in Regulation 259/93 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste into, out of and within the European
Community. The same will not apply in many other parts of the world.
The problem becomes more difficult for the upstream and downstream stages of the fuel chain
because of the variety of technologies that may be involved. Particularly important may be
43
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
some stages of fuel chains such as biomass, where the fuel chain is potentially so diverse that it
is possible that certain activities are escaping stringent environmental regulation.
The burdens discussed so far relate only to routine emissions. Burdens resulting from accidents
also need to be considered. These might result in emissions (e.g. of oil) or an incremental
increase in the risk of injury or death to workers or members of the public. Either way it is
normally necessary to rely upon historical data to quantify accident rates. Clearly the data
should be as recent as possible so that the rates used reflect current risks. Major uncertainty
however is bound to be present when extreme events need to be considered, such as the
disasters at Chernobyl and on the Piper Alpha oil rig in the North Sea. To some extent it is to
be expected that accident rates will fall over time, drawing on experience gained. However,
structural changes in industries, for example through privatisation or a decrease in union
representation, may reverse such a trend.
Wherever possible data should be relevant to the country where a particular fuel chain activity
takes place. Major differences in burdens may arise due to different standards covering
occupational health, extension of the distance over which fuel needs to be transported, etc.
2.4.4 Description of the receiving environment
The use of the impact pathway approach requires a detailed definition of the scenario under
analysis with respect to both time and space. This includes:
• Meteorological conditions affecting dispersion and chemistry of atmospheric pollutants;
• Location, age and health of human populations relative to the source of emissions;
• The status of ecological resources;
• The value systems of individuals.
The range of the reference environment for any impact requires expert assessment of the area
influenced by the burden under investigation. As stated above, arbitrary truncation of the
reference environment is methodologically wrong and will produce results that are incorrect. It
is to be avoided as far as possible.
Clearly the need to describe the sensitivity of the receiving environment over a vast area
(extending to the whole planet for some impacts) creates a major demand on the analyst. This
is simplified by the large scale of the present study - which has been able to draw on data held
in many different countries. Further to this it has been possible to draw on numerous databases
that are being compiled as part of other work, for example on critical loads mapping.
Databases covering the whole of Europe, describing the distribution of the key receptors
affected by SO2, NOx, NH3 and fine particles have been derived or obtained for use in the
EcoSense software developed by the study team.
In order to take account of future damages, some assumption is required on the evolution of
the stock at risk. In a few cases it is reasonable to assume that conditions will remain roughly
constant, and that direct extrapolation from the present day is as good an approximation as
any. In other cases, involving for example the emission of acidifying gases or the atmospheric
44
Methodology
concentration of greenhouse gases this assumption is untenable, and scenarios need to be
developed. Confidence in these scenarios clearly declines as they extend further into the future.
2.4.5 Quantification of impacts
The methods used to quantify various types of impact are discussed in depth in the report on
the study methodology (European Commission, 1998). The functions and other data that we
have used are summarised at the back of this report in Appendices I (describing the EcoSense
software), II (health), III (materials), IV (ecological receptors), V (global warming effects) and
VI (other impacts), VII (economic issues) and VIII (uncertainty). The complexity of the
analysis varies greatly between impacts. In some cases externalities can be calculated by
multiplying together as few as 3 or 4 parameters. In others it is necessary to use a series of
sophisticated models linked to large databases.
Common to all of the analysis conducted on the impacts of pollutants emitted from fuel chains
is the need for modelling the dispersion of pollutants and the use of a dose-response function of
some kind. Again, there is much variation in the complexity of the models used (see Appendix
I). The most important pollutant transport models used within ExternE relate to the
atmospheric dispersion of pollutants. They need to account not only for the physical transport
of pollutants by the winds but also for chemical transformation. The dispersion of pollutants
that are in effect chemically stable in the region of the emission can be predicted using Gaussian
plume models. These models assume source emissions are carried in a straight line by the wind,
mixing with the surrounding air both horizontally and vertically to produce pollutant
concentrations with a normal (or Gaussian) spatial distribution. The use of these models is
typically constrained to within a distance of 100 km of the source.
Air-borne pollutant transport of course extends over much greater distances than 100 km. A
different approach is needed for assessing regional transport as chemical reactions in the
atmosphere become increasingly important. This is particularly so for the acidifying pollutants.
For this analysis we have used receptor-orientated Lagrangian trajectory models. The outputs
from the trajectory models include atmospheric concentrations and deposition of both the
emitted species and secondary pollutants formed in the atmosphere.
A major problem has so far been the lack of a regional model of ozone formation and transport
within fossil-fuel power station plumes that is applicable to the European situation. In
consequence a simplified approach has been adopted for assessment of ozone effects
(European Commission, 1998).
The term ‘dose-response’ is used somewhat loosely in much of this work, as what we are really
talking about is the response to a given exposure of a pollutant in terms of atmospheric
concentration, rather than an ingested dose. Hence the terms ‘dose-response’ and ‘exposureresponse’ should be considered interchangeable. A major issue with the application of such
functions concerns the assumption that they are transferable from one context to another. For
example, some of the functions for health effects of air pollutants are still derived from studies
in the USA. Is it valid to assume that these can be used in Europe? The answer to this question
45
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
is to a certain degree unknown - there is good reason to suspect that there will be some
variation, resulting from the affluence of the affected population, the exact composition of the
cocktail of pollutants that the study group was exposed to, etc. Indeed, such variation has been
noted in the results of different epidemiological studies. However, in most cases the view of
our experts has been that transference of functions is to be preferred to ignoring particular
types of impact altogether - neither option is free from uncertainty.
Dose-response functions come in a variety of functional forms, some of which are illustrated in
Figure 2.3. They may be linear or non-linear and contain thresholds (e.g. critical loads) or not.
Those describing effects of various air pollutants on agriculture have proved to be particularly
complex, incorporating both positive and negative effects, because of the potential for certain
pollutants, e.g. those containing sulphur and nitrogen, to act as fertilisers.
Non-linear
Response
Non-linear with
fertilisation effect
Linear, no threshold
Linear, with
threshold
Dose
Figure 2.3 A variety of possible forms for dose-response functions.
Ideally these functions and other models are derived from studies that are epidemiological assessing the effects of pollutants on real populations of people, crops, etc. This type of work
has the advantage of studying response under realistic conditions. However, results are much
more difficult to interpret than when working under laboratory conditions, where the
environment can be closely controlled. Although laboratory studies provide invaluable data on
response mechanisms, they often suffer from the need to expose study populations to
extremely high levels of pollutants, often significantly greater than they would be exposed to in
the field. Extrapolation to lower, more realistic levels may introduce significant uncertainties,
particularly in cases where there is reason to suspect that a threshold may exist.
46
Methodology
The description and implementation of exposure-response relationships is fundamental to the
entire ExternE Project. Much of the report on methodology (European Commission, 1998) is,
accordingly, devoted to assessment of the availability and reliability of these functions.
2.4.6 Economic valuation
The rationale and procedures underlying the economic valuation applied within the ExternE
Project are discussed in Appendix VII and in more detail in the methodology report (European
Commission, 1998). The approach followed is based on the quantification of individual
‘willingness to pay’ (WTP) for environmental benefit.
A limited number of goods of interest to this study - crops, timber, building materials, etc. - are
directly marketed, and for these valuation data are easy to obtain. However, many of the more
important goods of concern are not directly marketed, including human health, ecological
systems and non-timber benefits of forests. Alternative techniques have been developed for
valuation of such goods, the main ones being hedonic pricing, travel cost methods and
contingent valuation (Appendix VII). All of these techniques involve uncertainties, though they
have been considerably refined over the years.
Especially the valuation of public mortality impacts and global warming damages were shown
to play a crucial role in the overall damage estimation. The preference of the ExternE working
group is to use the Years of Life Lost (YOLL) valuation estimates for quantifying the mortality
impacts. Another approach is to use the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) directly for valuing
public health impacts due to air emissions. The YOLL values are derived from the VSL by
evenly dividing the VSL over the average life expectancy of the exposed population. This last
assumption means that the VSL is age dependent which can not be concluded from the
available scientific literature. The ExternE Core group has decided to use the YOLL approach
for the core analysis. According to the authors of this report it is still unclear which approach is
to be preferred.
With respect to the global warming damages the ExternE working group estimates a different
range of damages per tonne greenhouse gas emitted as does the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). In the IPCC estimates a differentiated VSL for different regions in the world is
used while in the ExternE global warming valuation a single VSL for the whole world
population is assumed. This assumption is not in line with normal economic theory nor with
policy perceptions and economic markets in the world.
The base year for the valuation described in this report is 1995, and all values are referenced to
that year. The unit of currency used is the ECU. The exchange rate was approximately 1 ECU
to US$1.25 in 1995.
The central discount rate used for the study is 3%, with upper and lower rates of 1% and 15%
also used to show sensitivity to discount rate. The rationale for the selection of this range and
best estimate, and a broader description of issues relating to discounting, was given in an
earlier report (European Commission, 1995b).
47
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
2.4.7 Assessment of uncertainty
Uncertainty in externality estimates arises in several ways, including:
• The variability inherent in any set of data;
• Extrapolation of data from the laboratory to the field;
• Extrapolation of exposure-response data from one geographical location to another;
• Assumptions regarding threshold conditions;
• Lack of detailed information with respect to human behaviour and tastes;
• Political and ethical issues, such as the selection of discount rate;
• The need to assume some scenario of the future for any long term impacts;
• The fact that some types of damage cannot be quantified at all.
It is important to note that some of the most important uncertainties listed here are not
associated with technical or scientific issues, instead they relate to political and ethical issues,
and questions relating to the development of world society. It is also worth noting that, in
general, the largest uncertainties are those associated with impact assessment and valuation,
rather than quantification of emissions and other burdens.
Traditional statistical techniques would ideally be used to describe the uncertainties associated
with each of our estimates, to enable us to report a median estimate of damage with an
associated probability distribution. Unfortunately this is rarely possible without excluding some
significant aspect of error, or without making some bold assumption about the shape of the
probability distribution. Alternative methods are therefore required, such as sensitivity analysis,
expert judgement and decision analysis. In this phase of the study a more clearly quantified
description of uncertainty has been attempted than previously. Further discussion is provided in
Appendix VIII, though it is worth mentioning that in this area of work uncertainties tend to be
so large that additive confidence intervals usually do not make sense; instead one should
specify multiplicative confidence intervals. The uncertainties of each stage of an impact
pathway need to be assessed and associated errors quantified. The individual deviations for
each stage are then combined to give an overall indication of confidence limits for the impact
under investigation.
2.5 Priority Impacts Assessed in the ExternE Project
2.5.1 Fossil technologies
The following list of priority impacts was derived for the fossil fuel chains considered in the
earlier phases of ExternE. It is necessary to repeat that this list is compiled for the specific fuel
chains considered by the present study, and should be reassessed for any new cases. The first
group of impacts are common to all fossil fuel chains:
1. Effects of atmospheric pollution on human health;
2. Accidents affecting workers and/or the public;
48
Methodology
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Effects of atmospheric pollution on materials;
Effects of atmospheric pollution on crops;
Effects of atmospheric pollution on forests;
Effects of atmospheric pollution on freshwater fisheries;
Effects of atmospheric pollution on unmanaged ecosystems;
Impacts of global warming;
Impacts of noise.
To these can be added a number of impacts that are fuel chain dependent:
10. Impacts of coal and lignite mining on ground and surface waters;
11. Impacts of coal mining on building and construction;
12. Resettlement necessary through lignite extraction;
13. Effects of accidental oil spills on marine life;
14. Effects of routine emissions from exploration, development and extraction from oil and gas
wells.
2.5.2 Nuclear technologies
The priority impacts of the nuclear fuel chain to the general public are radiological and nonradiological health impacts due to routine and accidental releases to the environment. The
source of these impacts are the releases of materials through atmospheric, liquid and solid
waste pathways.
Occupational health impacts, from both radiological and non-radiological causes, were the next
priority. These are mostly due to work accidents and radiation exposures. In most cases,
statistics were used for the facility or type of technology in question. When this was not
possible, estimations were taken from similar type of work or extrapolated from existing
information.
Impacts on the environment of increased levels of natural background radiation due to the
routine releases of radionuclides have not been considered as a priority impact pathway, except
partially in the analysis of major accidental releases.
2.5.3 Renewable technologies
The priority impacts for renewables vary considerably from case to case. Each case is
dependent upon the local conditions around the implementation of each fuel chain. For the
wind fuel chain (European Commission, 1995f) the following were considered:
1. Accidents affecting the public and/or workers;
2. Effects on visual amenity;
3. Effects of noise emissions on amenity;
4. Effects of atmospheric emissions related to the manufacture of turbines and construction
and servicing of the site.
Whilst for the hydro fuel chain (European Commission, 1995f) another group was considered:
49
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Occupational health effects;
Employment benefits and local economic effects;
Impacts of transmission lines on bird populations;
Damages to private goods (forestry, agriculture, water supply, ferry traffic);
Damages to environmental goods and cultural objects.
2.5.4 Related issues
It is necessary to ask whether the study fulfils its objective of consistency between fuel chains,
when some impacts common to a number of fuel chains have only been considered in a select
number of cases. In part this is due to the level of impact to be expected in each case - if the
impact is likely to be large it should be considered in the externality assessment. If it is likely to
be small it may be legitimate to ignore it, depending on the objectives of the analysis. In general
we have sought to quantify the largest impacts because these are the ones that are likely to be
of most relevance to questions to which external costs assessment is appropriate.
2.6 Summary
This Chapter has introduced the ‘impact pathway’ methodology of the ExternE Project. The
authors believe that it provides the most appropriate way of quantifying externalities because it
enables the use of the latest scientific and economic data.
Critical to the analysis is the definition of fuel chain boundaries, relating not only to the
different stages considered for each fuel chain, but also to the:
• Location of each stage;
• Technologies selected for each stage;
• Identified burdens;
• Identified impacts;
• Valuation criteria;
• Spatial and temporal limits of impacts.
In order to achieve consistency it is necessary to draw very wide boundaries around the
analysis. The difficulty with successfully achieving an assessment on these terms is slowly being
resolved through the development of software and databases that greatly simplify the analysis.
The definition of ‘system boundary’ is thus broader than is typically used for LCA. This is
necessary because our analysis goes into more detail with respect to the quantification and
valuation of impacts. In doing so it is necessary to pay attention to the site of emission sources
and the technologies used. We are also considering a wider range of burdens than is typical of
LCA work, including, for example, occupational health effects and noise.
The analysis requires the use of numerous models and databases, allowing a logical path to be
followed through the impact pathways. The functions and other data originally used by
ExternE were described in an earlier report (European Commission, 1995b). In the present
50
Methodology
phase of the study this information has been reassessed and many aspects of it have been
updated (see European Commission, 1998). It is to be anticipated that further methodological
changes will be needed in the future, as further information becomes available particularly
regarding the health effects of air pollution and global warming impacts, which together
provide some of the most serious impacts quantified under the study.
51
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
52
Coal Fuel Cycle
3. COAL FUEL CYCLE
In this chapter the externalities of the Dutch reference coal fuel cycle are analysed. First the
technologies and the sites of the different stages in the fuel cycle are discussed. Then the
burdens are quantified followed by an estimation of the impacts and damages. Finally the
results are summarised and discussed.
3.1 Definition of the coal fuel cycle, technology and site
At the moment there are nine coal-fired power plants in the Netherlands (Table 3.1). The mean
capacity of these stations is 514 MW (the demonstration plant excluded). One new coal-fired
power plant will come in production within the next seven years. Of these stations, two are
most suitable for this project, viz., the "Amer" station (No.7 in Table 3.1) and the "Amsterdam" station (No.9). As these stations became operational in 1993 and 1994 respectively, they
represent the latest technology on coal-fired electricity production in the Netherlands. These
stations are designed to meet current standards, the conditions of the Large Combustion Plant
Directive of the European Community (EC,1988) and other, national legislation.
The E8-station in Amsterdam was chosen as the Dutch reference plant and the externalities
associated with energy production at this plant were investigated in this project. The main
reasons for this choice are: the E8-station has a net capacity of 600 MW which is
representative for average electricity production capacity from coal in the Netherlands and the
station is situated near the highly populated monumental city of Amsterdam. The officially
approved Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) of this station contained much useful information for this project (EIA,1988).
Table 3.1 Coal-fired Power plants in the Netherlands.
Number Place
Capacity
In production
Existing stations
1.
Donge
645 MW
1980
2.
Nijmegen 602 MW
1981
2007
3.
Buggenum
223 MW
1986
4.
Maasvlakte
518 MW
1987
5.
Borssele
403 MW
1987
6.
Maasvlakte
518 MW
1988
7.
Donge
600 MW
1993
8.
Buggenum
Demonstration* 1993
9.
Amsterdam
600 MW
1994
New station
10.
Borssele
600 MW
* Integrated gasification combined cycle
2002
Out of production
2009
2000
2014
2014
2014
2019
2019
2027
53
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
This coal fuel cycle was the first fuel cycle to be studied in the Dutch national implementation
work for the ExternE project four years ago. All results have since been updated up to
developments in the ExternE methodology in September 1997 as described in the methodology
section of this report.
The stages in the coal fuel cycle are shown in Figure 3.1.
Plant
construction
Coal mining
Limestone
extraction
Fuel transport
Power
generation
ELECTRICITY
Wastes
Limestone
transport
Plant
dismantling
Figure 3.1 Stages in the coal fuel cycle (Linares et al., 1997).
3.1.1 Site description
3.1.1.1 Coal mining
The coal used in the Netherlands originates from several countries. The United Coal Importing
Bureau for Electricity Companies in the Netherlands - GKE (1993) states that in 1993 the coal
imported in the Netherlands was divided over the six countries presented in Table 3.2.
According to the GKE the 1,300,000 tonne coal, yearly imported for the E8-station, can be
calculated as if it were an average mixture of the coal input from these countries (Table 3.2).
The GKE does not expect major variation in coal supply in the near future.
3.1.1.2 Limestone extraction
The limestone imported in the Netherlands originates from Belgium/Luxembourg (94.8%) and
Germany (4.3%). The lime(stone) used at the E8-station for 100% originates from Belgium.
54
Coal Fuel Cycle
3.1.1.3 Power generation
The E8-station is built on the site of the "Centrale Hemweg" in the western part of the city of
Amsterdam (Figure 3.2 and Figure 1.2). The site is within the industrial area "Westelijk Havengebied" and located near the North Sea Canal which is adjacent to the North Sea (about 20
km). The nearest residential area is 2 km away from the E8-station. At the moment the
"Centrale Hemweg" site consists of three gas fired Power plants: the E5 (125 MW), the E6
(124 MW) and the E7(599 MW). The E8-station (600 MW) will replace the E5- and E6stations.
With the construction of the E8-station the following constructions were built:
• the land used (circa 1.05 ha) is already in use as an industrial site,
• one cooling tower of 120 m high,
• one stack of 175 m high and a diameter of 7 m,
• a maximum height of other buildings:
one building of 100 m, one building of 51 m and one building of 39 m.
Because of the dismantling of the E5 and the E6-stations the physical landscape experienced
minor changes with the construction of the E8-station.
Furthermore, the E8-station has been connected to existing electricity transmission lines.
The coal used at the E8-station is transported through a closed conveyer belt from a nearby
located coal terminal (in the western harbour area of the city of Amsterdam) to the coal storage
of the "Centrale Hemweg" (with a capacity of about 70,000 tonne). Water is sprinkled over the
stored coal. The water used is collected and re-used. Storage capacity for limestone, gypsum,
pulverised fly ash (2 closed silos with a 60,000 tonne capacity each) and furnace bottom ash is
also present on the "Centrale Hemweg" site.
The "Centrale Hemweg" is located in a large industrial area and no new infrastructure had to
be built. Most of the required bulk materials are transported by water.
55
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Figure 3.2
Location of the E8-station with reference to the "Westelijk Havengebied" industrial area of the city of Amsterdam (EIA, 1988).
3.1.2 Technology description
3.1.2.1 Coal mining
In 1993 the coal used at the E8-station mainly originated from Australia, the United States,
South Africa, Columbia, Poland and Indonesia (see Table 3.2). The GKE (1993) assumes the
coal import in the near future (the next ten years) will probable not be much different from the
current situation. Ybema and Okken (1993) forecast that for the years 2000 to 2040, Australia,
the United States and South Africa will be the main coal supplying countries for the Netherlands. This is actually in line with the GKE prognoses.
Very diverse techniques are used for coal mining in the actual originating countries. It is not
possible to give a full analysis of all these coal mining activities in this study. Ybema and Okken
(1993) assumed that 50% of this coal is surface mined and 50% is underground mined. This
assumption is also used for further analysis in this study.
56
Coal Fuel Cycle
Coal from the actual originating countries is imported to the Netherlands by ocean-going
vessels. With a capacity of the ocean-going vessels of around 120,000 tonne the electricity production at the E8-station will lead to an additional coal transport of 10.8 ship movements a
year. From Table 3.2 the average transport distance is calculated at 13,800 km (one way journey). The ships will be loaded with coal or other materials at ports in other countries. They
seldom return to their last port of departure. It is assumed that the ships, on average, travel an
extra 3,400 km (25%) unloaded due to the coal transport to the coal terminal. The total
average transport distance therefore is set at 17,200 km.
The ships transporting coal come directly from sea and do not visit other harbours first. The
coal shipped in is stored and mixed at a terminal (OBA) next to the "Centrale Hemweg" site
(see 'kolenoverslag' Figure 3.2). The facilities for unloading coal, mixing the coal and transporting the coal from the coal terminal to the E8-station were already existing before the E8station was built.
Table 3.2
Country
Coal import for the E8-station.
Ports
One way
distance
(in km)
Australia
New Castle/Abbot point 21,000
United States Hampton road
7,300
South Africa Richards Bay
12,000
Columbia
Puerto Bolivar
8,400
Poland
Gdansk
1,200
Indonesia
Tanjung Bara
16,000
Source:
Average % of Average input for
input over 1993 the E8-station
(in t/y)
41
533,000
20
260,000
11
143,000
10
130,000
9
117,000
9
117,000
GKE (1993)
The average chemical composition of the coal used at the E8-station is not known. However,
the composition of a coal mixture - specified on the basis of 50% U.S., 30% Australia, 13%
Poland and 7% German coal - was known. The composition and the criterion values of this
coal mixture are given in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. According to the GKE the composition of
this coal resembles the average composition of the coal mixture used at the E8-station in 1993,
except for the sulphur content which is around 0.6% on average.
57
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 3.3 Expected values of the composition of coal specified on the basis of 50% US, 30%
Australia, 13% Poland and 7% German.
Expected values
Criterion values
Unit
Gross calorific value
27
min. 25
MJ/k
a
C value
75
%
Ash value
11
max. 15 - 20
%
Sulphur value
1
max. 1.5
%
Nitrogen value
max. 1.7
%
Chlorine value
0.12
max. 0.2
%
Fluoride value
100
mg/k
a
Source: "Information bulletin emission registration no. 2", the Ministry of Housing, Physical
Planning and Environment", Den Haag, the Netherlands, November 1990.
Source: EIA (1988)
Table 3.4 Expected trace elements composition of coal specified on the basis of 50% US, 30%
Australia, 13% Poland and 7% German.
Element
Quantity
Element
Quantity
(in mg/k)
(in mg/k)
Arsenic
7
Molybdenum
3
Barium
350
Nickel
15
Beryllium
4
Selenium
3
Cadmium
0.15
Thorium
5
Chromium
20
Uranium
1.5
Copper
20
Vanadium
35
Lead
15
Zinc
30
Mercury
0.25
Source: EIA (1988)
3.1.2.2 Limestone extraction
Limestone is extracted from surface mines at Jemelle in Belgium. For analysing the impacts due
to transport of lime, the actual delivering country Belgium will be used. The lime is transported
to the E8-station straight from the milling site "Hermalle sous Huy". First the limestone was
transported from "Jemelle" (the extraction site) to "Hermalle sous Huy" by truck (100 km
return journey). The 29,300 t/y of limestone imported for the E8-station will be shipped in by
boat every 3-4 days. The ships will have a cargo capacity (in silos) of 300 - 400 t/ship. This
will give rise to an additional limestone transport of 73 to 98 ship movements a year. The
transport distance is calculated at 400 km (return journey) because these ships return to their
port of departure unloaded (Lhoist, personal communication).
58
Coal Fuel Cycle
3.1.2.3 Power generation
The E8-station technically resembles the UK reference power plant ("West-Burton B"). The
"West-Burton B" plant was investigated for the methodology development. Technical data are
listed in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Other technical data of the "E8-station".
Technical data
Gross electricity production (GEP)
Sent out electricity production
Produced electricity
Average full load hours (over 25 years)
Average load factor (over 25 years)
Thermal efficiency
Expected lifetime
Value
680
630
3.97 * 109
6305
72
44
25
Unit
MW/y
MW/y
kWh/y
h/y
%
%
years
Source: EIA (1988)
The E8-station uses a conventional coal pulverised fuel (PF) boiler. The most important
environmental technological aspects are:
• 99.95% effective electrostatic precipitator (ESP);
• 92% effective flue gas desulphurisation (FGD);
• to ensure a NOx concentration in the flue gas of less than 400 mg/m3 the furnace is
built with, among others:
- a spacious fireplace
- low NOx burners,
- an upper air valve, and
- special burning technical supplies;
• waste water treatment to reduce trace emissions to water.
Bulk materials input for building and operating
The required bulk materials fall in two categories:
• building materials;
• inputs for operating the E8-station.
Building materials
The amount of building materials needed for the construction of the E8-station were not
quantified in the EIA (1988). The available data for the German reference coal fuel cycle are
assumed to give a good approximation of the construction materials input and will therefore be
used in this analysis.
59
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The construction material input is (CFC, 1994):
• Steel
63,000 t
• Concrete 175,000 t
• Others
2,200 t
Inputs for operating the E8-station
The most important inputs for operating the E8-station are listed in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Average yearly bulk inputs for the E8-station.
Input
Average amount
Coal
1,300,000
Limestone
29,300
Cooling system water
670,000
Suppletion water for FGD
750,000
Bottom ash cooling water
14,600
Other water (sanitary, etc.)
not quantified
Unit
t/y
t/y
m3/y
t/y
m3/y
Source: EIA (1988)
To start the electricity production phase, furnace gas is used. The amount of gas burned, as
well as the emissions in this phase, can be neglected in comparison with the emission from the
station when coal fuelled. However, if prices of coal would rise it is possible to switch the
station to a 100% gas-fuelled process. The gas can be transported to the E8-station through an
already existing pipeline. Therefore, no further attention is paid to gas supply impacts. The gas
fueled externalities of the plant are not analysed as this was not the research objective of the
present study.
The main water consumption of the E8-station can be divided into water from the distribution
system and water from the North Sea Canal. They are discussed below.
Water from the distribution system
The 40 m3 /day (= 14,600 m3/y) water use for the bottom ash cooling is tap water. Tap water is
also used for sanitary and other hygienic purposes. This water consumption is relatively low
and not quantified in the EIA.
Water from the "North Sea Canal"
The two main water consumption purposes are:
• Cooling water: max. 670,000 m3/y and
• Water supply for FGD: 360,000 - 750,000 t/y (=m3/y)
This water is discharged into the North Sea Canal after treatment. Small amounts of water for
the coal storage facility will evaporate to the atmosphere.
60
Coal Fuel Cycle
3.2 Overview of burdens
The burdens analysed for this fuel cycle are the atmospheric emissions of pollutants from
transport and the mining and power generation stage, water emissions and solid wastes from
power generation, and occupational and public accidents from the fuel cycle stages.
3.2.1 Solid wastes
Only information on solid wastes of the power generation stage was readily available.
The main solid wastes in the power generation stage are fly ash, gypsum and furnace bottom
ash. Their source and quantity are listed in Table 3.7. They are marketable products.
Table 3.7 By-products, their source and quantity.
Product
Source
Fly ash
ESP
Gypsum
FGD
Furnace bottom ash
furnaces
Quantity (in t/y)
128,000
50,400
8,200
Source: EIA (1988), UNA (1996)
Fly ash
Fly ash is transported directly to customers by ship. The two silos on the site have a storage
capacity of 60,000 tonne. Most of the fly ash is transported by ships with a 1000 tonne
capacity. About 100 ships will load from the silos yearly. During transport and loading on the
E8 premises no emissions take place (EIA, 1988). The market for fly ash will probably be
secured up to the year 2010 if the number of coal fired power plants will not exceed 40% of
the total number of power plants. Otherwise, large permanent storage facilities will have to be
built. The externalities associated with this are not analysed into more detail in this study.
Gypsum
Moist gypsum is stored in silos with a capacity of 5000 tonne. It is sold and transported by ship
or truck. During transport, storage and loading on the E8 premises no gypsum emissions take
place (EIA, 1988). The market for gypsum will probably be secured up to the year 2010 if the
number of coal-fired power plants will not exceed 40% of the total number of power plants. It
will be definitely be secured if this figure will stay around 30% (EIA, 1988).
Furnace bottom ash
Moist furnace bottom ash from the closed silo is transported by ships of 1000 tonne capacity.
This results in 8.2 loads a year. It is transported to a silo by a conveyer belt. According to the
EIA (1988), no emissions take place during transport, storage and loading on the E8-station
premises.
The market for furnace bottom ash is probably secured up to 1995. After this date it is foreseen
that supply will exceed the demand. Large permanent storage facilities are therefore necessary.
61
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Because of the lack of data on this subject the impacts of the construction and operation of
these facilities are not taken into account in this study.
3.2.2 Atmospheric emissions
3.2.2.1 Coal mining and preparation
Due to the lack of data on emissions from coal mining in countries like Columbia, it is difficult
to analyse this damage category. The greenhouse gas emissions of coal mining in and transportation from the actual countries of origin are approximated by using data from the US (1994)
and a study on forecasts of coal imports of the Netherlands by Ybema and Okken (1993). It is
assumed that half of the coal used in the Netherlands is surface mined and half is underground
mined.
Ybema and Okken (1993) built a model for calculating the emission factors and emissions due
to post coal mining activities, coal mining and coal preparation. The average methane emission
factors for surface mining and underground mining is calculated at 1.1 m3/t (or 0.733 kg/t) coal
and 17 m3/t (or 8.66 kg/t) coal respectively. The lower heating value of the average coal is
taken to be 29.31 GJ/t. For the calculation of the emission per kWh electricity produced in the
E8-station the difference in lower heating value of the expected coal composition used at
present and the expected coal composition of the coal used between 2000 and 2040 is
neglected.
Methane emissions due to coal mining have also been analysed in the emission inventorystudies in the US (US, 1994), Australia (Australia, 1994) and Poland (Poland, 1994) and a
greenhouse gas emission study performed in Austria (ACC, 1993). The range in methaneemissions for the expected Dutch average coal import for the years 2000-2040 calculated from
these studies is listed in Table 3.8. The energy use for coal mining, washing and transport to
the harbour will be discussed in the coal transport section below because they are only given as
a total for all processes. As other studies showed these emissions are relatively low compared
to the power generation stage emissions they were not quantified (Linares et al., 1997).
62
Coal Fuel Cycle
Table 3.8 Emissions to air from coal-mining and preparation and transport for the E8-station
(in g/MWh)
Source
SO2 NOx Particles
CO2
CH4
(in m3/MWh)a
b
Coal mining
n.q. n.q. n.d.
2.3-3.4
b
Coal preparation
n.q. n.q. n.d.
n.q.
Coal transport
n.q. n.q. n.d.
79,300b
n.q.
Lime extraction
n.q. n.q. n.d.
n.q.
n.q.
Lime transport
0.13 1.1
0.0071
72.9
n.q.
n.q.
=
not quantified but expected to be low relative to power generation emissions.
This is confirmed by the results observed by the Spanish coal fuel cycle analysis
(Linares, 1997).
n.d. =
not determined but could be significant.
a
=
the average density of methane is 0.67 kg/m3.
B
=
the average CO2 emissions of preparation, the energy consumption of mining,
the coal transport to ports and the emissions due to inorganic and biogenic
oxidation in coal piles and swirling are included in emissions due to transport.
3.2.2.2 Coal transport
The emissions of the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 are the only emissions accounted for in
this section as other studies showed these emissions are relatively low compared to the power
generation stage emissions (Linares et al., 1997) and impacts can not be estimated with current
knowledge.
As discussed previously the average transport distance of the coal imported is calculated at
17,200 km. The energy use for coal mining, coal washing and transport to port was calculated
as a world average of 2% of the CO2 coefficient of coal (Ybema and Okken, 1993). The total
CO2 emission is assumed to be 55.67 kg/t coal produced (the lower heating value of this coal is
taken to be 29.31 GJ/t). Research performed by Okken (1989 and 1992), Blonk et al (1991)
and Kram et al (1991) support these findings. The low and high estimates of the total CO2emission of coal mining, washing, preparation and transportation given in this literature are
listed in Table 3.8.
3.2.2.3 Limestone extraction
Data on emissions from limestone extraction were not readily available for the actually used
limestone imported from Belgium. As other studies showed these emissions are relatively low
compared to the power generation stage emissions (Linares et al., 1997), they were not
quantified
3.2.2.4 Limestone transport
According to the EIA (1988), lime is transported to silos and loaded and unloaded under high
pressure. No limestone emissions take place at these stages. The lime transport from Belgium
to the E8-station will be by barge; the emission factors given in the methodology report are
63
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
probably good estimates and therefore used in this study. The transport distance is estimated to
be 400 km (return journey). The calculated total emissions due to limestone transport are given
in Table 3.8.
3.2.2.5 Power generation stage
The major emissions to air by the E8-station can be divided into flue gas, fly ash from storage,
coal dust from open storage and in-house transport. They are dealt with below. Smaller
emissions to air, e.g. from the unit for emergency power, have not been taken into account because they are expected to be negligible in comparison to the emissions mentioned above.
Flue gas
The emission factors for the E8-station are listed in Table 3.9. The values mentioned in this
table relate to the flue gas finally emitted to the atmosphere and may differ slightly with the use
of a different coal composition. The E8-station flue gas emission to air (when coal fired) is 500
m3/s with a temperature of 60 oC. The velocity of the flue gas output at maximum capacity is
20 m/s. The stack is 175 meter high with a diameter of 7 meters.
Table 3.9 Expected E8-station flue gas composition a.
Pollutant
Emission factor
Total emissionFlue gas emission
for 3.97*109 kWh/y
(g/kWh)
(109g/y)
(103 mg/m3)
CO2
900 b
3575
315
N2O
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
Particles
0.017
0.067
0.006
SO2
0.411
1.63
0.144
NOx c
<0.714
<2.83
<0.250
n.q.
not quantified.
a
Emissions of CO and SO3 from the E8-station are so low that they can not be
detected (smaller then 10 ppm - EIA).
b
The CO2 is about 18% of the total flue gas.
c
Measured as NO2.
Source: UNA (1996)
A very small part of the fly ash is emitted with the flue gas. This leads to trace elements
emissions to the atmosphere. The exact composition of the elements in the flue gas depends on
many factors, one of them being the exact coal composition. Table 3.10 and Table 3.11 present
the expected average of inorganic elements emissions in the emitted fly ash, the gas phase of
the emitted flue gas and the total emitted with the flue gas. The average expected emissions of
organic compounds are listed below in Table 3.12. The values do not originate from E8-station
measurements however, but stem from measurements in the flue gas of a comparable power
plant in the Netherlands (the "Amer-Centrale"). However the "Amer-Centrale" has no FGD.
64
Coal Fuel Cycle
The effect of an FGD after ESP is currently being investigated but yet unknown1. All emitted
dust is assumed to be respirable dust.
Table 3.10 Emission of elements in emitted fly ash in the flue gas.
Elements
In emitted fly ash
(t/y)
Al
aluminium
12.7
Ca
calcium
0.86
Fe
iron
4.95
K
potassium
1.41
Mg
magnesium
0.45
Na
sodium
0.27
P
phosphorus
0.18
Si
silicon
20.7
Ti
titanium
0.55
Sources: UNA (1996), KEMA (1994)
Fly ash from storage
The fly ash is transported to closed silos trough a emission free closed transport line. Emission
of fly ash dust from the storage in the two silos (60.000 tonne each) is 0.264 t/y (EIA, 1988).
Emission takes place due to ventilation of the silos through dust-filters. Dispersion modelling
of this dust emission was not possible due to the lack of data. The impacts could therefore not
be analysed.
Coal from open storage
The coal is transported from the coal terminal OBA to the E8-station storage through a closed
transport system. From an open storage pit the coal is mechanically put on a closed conveyer
belt to the coal mills. At the mills there is a not quantified amount of waste pyrites. A maximum
of 50 mg/m3 filtered ventilation gas is emitted from the mill-silos (EIA, 1988). The falling
height of the coal is not more than 1 m at any place, to prevent dust formation. At the open
storage place the coal is sprinkled with water to prevent dust formation. Emissions from open
storage at the site are not quantified but are not allowed to be visible. The water used is collected and recycled.
According to the EIA (1988) no effects are expected at distances further than 1500 m from the
station, deposition at 2000 m from the station is smaller than 1 g/m2 per month. Within 500 m
from the station some effects are expected2. As for fly ash dust dispersion, coal dust dispersion
could not be modelled due to the lack of data. The impacts are therefore not analysed in this
study.
1
KEMA performs the investigation.
2
These results come from an investigation by TNO.
65
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 3.11 Emission of trace elements in emitted fly ash, in the gas phase and total in the flue
gas.
Elements
In emitted
Emitted in
Total emitted
fly ash
the flue gas
with flue gas
(t/y)
(t/y)
(t/y)
As
arsenic
0.020
0.020
B
boron
0.017
6.0
6.0
Ba
barium
0.32
0.32
Be
beryllium
0.0041
0.0041
Br
bromine
0.0018
6.0
6.0
Cd
cadmium
0.00068
0.00068
Ce
cerium
0.013
0.013
Cl
chlorine
0.0032
128
128
Co
cobalt
0.0086
0.0086
Cr
chromium
0.010
0.010
Cs
cesium
0.00068
0.0007
Cu
copper
0.025
0.025
Eu
europium
0.00023
0.00023
F
fluorine
0.16
32
32
Ge
germani-um
0.0050
0.0050
Hg
mercury
0.000014
0.20
0.20
I
iodine
0.60
0.60
La
lantha-num
0.0055
0.0055
Mn
manga-nese
0.074
0.074
Mo
molybde-num
0.0055
0.0055
Ni
nickel
0.027
0.027
Pb
lead
0.047
0.047
Rb
rubidium
0.011
0.011
Sb
antimony
0.0045
0.0045
Sc
scandium
0.0023
0.0023
Se
selenium
0.012
0.30
0.31
Sm
samarium
0.0014
0.0014
Sr
strontium
0.12
0.12
Th
thorium
0.0027
0.0027
Tl
thallium
0.0014
0.0014
U
uranium
0.0018
0.0018
V
vanadium
0.054
0.054
W
tungsten
0.0023
0.0023
Zn
zinc
0.11
0.11
Source: EIA (1988)
66
Coal Fuel Cycle
Table 3.12 Expected organic compounds composition of the flue gas.
Organic compound
Concentration in flue gas
(mg/m3)
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
< 10
Lower carbonacids
< 1
Aromatic hydrocarbons
< 5
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
< 5
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's)
< 1-4
* 75% Phenanthrene
* 1 ng/m3 Benzo-a-pyrene
Source: EIA (1988)
In-house transport (workers, etc.)
Data are not available. As the relative contribution of these impacts is expected to be negligible
compared to the impacts of power generation emissions, these emissions are not dealt with.
3.2.2.6 Power plant construction
Specific data on emissions due to construction and dismantling are not readily available for the
E8-station. It is assumed that for the E8-station the same amount of building materials have
been used as for the German reference Power plant at Lauffen (CFC, 1994). It has also been
assumed that the transport used is 100% truck. The transport distance is assumed to be 100 km
(return journey). Emissions to air due to construction are given in Table 3.13. Data on other
emissions are not readily available (CFC, 1994).
Table 3.13 Emissions due to transport of construction and dismantling of the E8-station (in
g/MWh) and the emission factor (in g/(t * km) for truck transport.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
a
Emission factors :
Truck transport
0.11
2.0
0.13
96
Construction or Dismantling
Truck
0.026
0.49
0.033
23.3
a
Source: (Dorland et al., 1997) Truck transport: : Transport task Amsterdam to Schiphol highway
transport task (1990 puller >16 t).
3.2.2.7 Power plant dismantling
There are no emission data on the dismantling of the E8-station nor for the Lauffen plant.
Therefore, it is assumed here that emissions due to dismantling the E8-station are equal to the
emission due to the construction. Dismantling dust emissions at the site may be substantial but
have not been quantified as most of the dust emitted is probably non-respirable (larger than 10
micron) and it probably does not disperse over large distances. Therefore, these dust emission
impacts are expected to be negligible.
67
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
3.2.2.8 Transport of waste materials
The transport distance of the main solid waste materials, i.e. fly ash, gypsum and furnace bottom ash, to the customer is estimated at an average of 200 km (return journey). Transport
takes place by barge. Emission factors for barge transport and the resulting emissions per MWh
electricity produced are given in Table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Emission (in g/MWh) and emission factor (in g/(t * km)) for barge transport of
waste materials.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
Emission factor barge transport a
0.045
0.36
0.0024
24.7
Emission from transport of:
fly ash
0.29
2.3
0.015
159
gypsum
0.11
0.91
0.0061
63
furnace bottom ash
0.019
0.15
0.0010
10
total waste
0.42
3.4
0.022
232
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998) Barge transport: Transport task Rotterdam to Nijmegen (Push
vessel).
The emissions of SO2, NOx and particles from transport are small relative to these emissions
from the power generation phase. The impact of these emissions will, therefore, not be
investigated in this study. The impacts of CO2 emissions from transport however are taken into
account as the impacts can be estimated.
3.2.2.9 Summary of air emissions
The air emissions in the different stage of the coal fuel cycle are summarised in the next table.
Table 3.15 Summary of air emissions of the coal fuel cycle in g/MWh.
Fuel cycle stage
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
1. Coal mining
n.q.
n.q.
n.d.
b
2. Coal transport
n.q.
n.q.
n.d.
79,300
3. Limestone extraction
n.q.
n.q.
n.d.
n.q.
4. Limestone transport
0.13
1.1
0.0071
72.9
5. Power generation
411
714
17
900,000
6. Power plant construction
0.026
0.49
0.033
23.3
7. Power plant dismantling
0.026
0.49
0.033
23.3
8. Waste transport
0.42
3.4
0.023
232
b = included in transport emission estimate.
n.q. = not quantified but expected to be low relative to power generation emissions.
n.d. = not determined but could be significant.
68
Coal Fuel Cycle
3.2.3 Water emissions
Only emissions to water from the power generation stage were readily available. The emissions
to water are presented in Table 3.16. The two prominent water discharges in the harbour are
cooling system water and purified waste water arising from FGD (IEA, 1988). The water in the
harbour area is in open contact with the North Sea Canal.
Table 3.16 Overview of discharges to water of the E8-station.
Type of water
Amount
First discharged to
3
Cooling water
max. 31 m /s
harbour
FGD waste water
max. 40 m3/h
cooling-water
Water from the neutralisation cellar
max. 50 m3/h
cooling-water
3
(2 x 100 m /week)
Water from the bottom ash silos
max. 600 m3/a
recycled or to residue well
Scrub and rinse water boiler
max. 750 m3/a
residue well
Scrub and rinse water without coal-dust max. 750 m3/a
cooling-water
Drainage coal storage
max. 1000 m3/a
residue well
3
Collected water fly ash storage
max. 2500 m /a
residue well
(only in extreme wet years)
Residue well
max. 1350 m3/a
waste water treatment
(sometimes 3500 m3/a) or cooling-water
Boiler cleaning water
max. 2000 m3
cooling-water
(max. once a year)
(1900 m3)
Source: EIA (1988)
Cooling water
With respect to cooling water it is estimated that the maximum twenty-four hours average heat
release is 716 MW (th.). Given an average oxygen loss of 0.5 mg/l within the cooling water
flow, the discharged water still meets the water quality standard for oxygen (5 mg/l). In order
to prevent bacterial depositions on condensers and growth of molluscs on cooling water supply
pipes, 1.5 mg/l active chlorine will be added to the cooling water at a daily frequency of 5 * 15
minutes (that is 5 * 280 kg total chlorine = 1400 kg/day). If necessary, once a year during a
period of two or three weeks, chlorine will be continuously added to the cooling system water
to combat the molluscs. This quantity is estimated at 35,000 kg chlorine (EIA, 1988).
With northerly to easterly wind in winter, foggy conditions can occur in the "Jan van Riebeek"
harbour as a result of these heat emissions. This has no serious environmental impacts and
under the assumption that no higher accident rates are caused by the fog, this aspect can be
neglected in this study (EIA, 1988).
FGD waste water
The waste water from the FGD is purified at the E8-station in a sewage treatment plant. The
pH of the treated water is between 7 and 9 and the suspended matter will be less than 20 mg/l.
The composition of the purified FGD waste water is presented in Table 3.17. Besides the
69
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
target and guarantied values of the various elements also the concentrations of chlorine and
fluoride are given in this table.
Table 3.17 Expected composition of FGD waste water.
Element
Target values (in mg/l) Guarantied values (in mg/l) Quantity (in g/h)
Arsenic
20
(max. 40)
50
1.6
Cadmium
1
(max. 2)
10
0.08
Chromium
15
(max. 30)
200
1.2
Copper
10
(max. 20)
50
0.8
Mercury
1
(max. 2)
10
0.08
Nickel
15
(max. 30)
200
1.2
Lead
50
(max. 100)
100
4
Zinc
50
(max. 100)
200
4
Chlorine
10 - 25 g/l
400 kg/h
Fluorine
1 - 2.5 g/l
40 kg/h
Source: EIA (1988)
3.2.4 Occupational accidents and diseases.
Occupational health effects are divided into two categories; accidents and occupational
diseases. Whereas the latter relate mainly to coal mining, the former relate to coal mining,
limestone extraction, transport and power plant construction, operation and dismantling.
The method with which the impacts are estimated for each individual fuel cycle stage is given
in the appendix to the coal fuel cycle. In Table 3.18 the results are summarised.
Table 3.18 Occupational accidents and disease in the coal fuel cycle stages in cases per TWh.
Fuel cycle stage
Fatal
Major
Minor
accidents
accidents
accidents
& diseases
& diseases
& diseases
Coal mining
0.32
3.0
52
Limestone extraction
0.000050
0.0010
0.0273
Coal transport
0.035
0.21
4.97
Limestone transport
0.0015
0.014
0.39
Power plant construction
0.0092
0.24
8.5
Power plant operation
0.0085
0.21
8.8
Power plant dismantling
0.0012
0.028
0.91
Operation- and waste
material transport
0.0064
0.019
1.1
70
Coal Fuel Cycle
3.3 Quantification of impacts and damages
The priority impacts that should be considered in this fuel cycle are shown in the next table.
Table 3.19 Priority impacts of the coal fuel cycle.
Impacts
Coal mining/
Transport
Limestone extraction
Global warming
x
x
Public health
x
Occupational health
x
x
Crops
x
Forests
x
Ecosystems
x
Materials
x
Noise
x
x
Visual impact
x
Generation
Construction
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
In the next sections the impacts and damages are given by fuel cycle stage. The non power
generation fuel cycle stages are discussed together.
3.3.1 Non power generation fuel cycle stages
The impacts considered most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases,
effect of atmospheric emissions on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global
warming impacts. There are other impacts that could give rise to damages, such as impacts of
coal mining on ground water and impacts of water and soil emissions. These impacts are not
considered here as there is no good methodology to analyse nor to quantify them. They are
also probably very local and thus expected to be relatively low.
Occupational accidents and diseases occur in all stages of the coal fuel cycle. The summary of
the impacts was given in Table 3.18. Fatal, major and minor accidents and diseases are valued
at 3.1 MECU, 95,050 ECU and 6,970 ECU per occurrence respectively. For a discussion on
the valuation we refer to the methodology part of this report. The resulting damage estimates
are given in Table 3.20.
The global warming damages in the non-power generation fuel cycle stages are quantified by
using the damage estimates from the ExternE core assessment for different discount rates (1, 3
and 5%) and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The low,
mid and high estimates are given. The low and high estimate give an indication of the range of
model uncertainty of the impacts. For a description of the methodology see the methodology
part of this report. The results are given in Table 3.21.
71
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 3.20 Occupational health damages in the non-power generation fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh.
Fuel cycle stages
Fatal
Major
Minor
accidents
accidents
accidents
& diseases
& diseases
& diseases
Coal mining
0.99
0.28
0.36
Limestone extraction
0.00016
0.00010
0.00019
Coal transport
0.11
0.020
0.035
Limestone transport
0.0047
0.0013
0.0027
Power plant construction
0.029
0.023
0.059
Power plant dismantling
0.0036
0.0027
0.0063
Operation- and waste
material transport
0.020
0.0018
0.0079
A methodology for analysing the impacts and damages related to non CO2 emissions in the non
power generation fuel cycle stages is not given in this study. However, for transport related
emissions (stages 5, 7, 8 and 9) a methodology was developed in the ExternE transport study
(ExternE transport, 1997). In this study the ExternE accounting framework was adjusted to fit
transport emission specific questions such as low to the ground emission dispersion. The
results from this study for the Netherlands are used here (Dorland et al., 1997). The impacts
are too diverse and many to be mentioned here. The core (based on Years of Life Lost YOLL) damage results are given in Table 3.22. The damage estimates based on VSL (Value of
Statistical Life) are on average higher than the YOLL estimate by:
• a factor 30 for acute mortality impacts (as with NOx ozone damages);
• a factor 4 higher for chronic mortality impacts (the main sulphate, nitrate and particle
damages).
3.3.2 Power generation
As with the non power generation stage also in the power generation stage itself the impacts
considered most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases, by effects of
atmospheric emissions on human health, materials, monuments, crops and ecosystems, and
global warming impacts. The individual impacts and damages are given in the appendix to the
coal fuel cycle. The global warming damages are given in Table 3.21.
Also with the power generation damages due to SO2, NOx and particles the damage estimates
based on VSL are on average higher than the YOLL estimate by the same factors as given
above:
72
Coal Fuel Cycle
Table 3.21 Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions in the coal fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh and ECU/t.
Fuel cycle stage
1. Coal mining
2. Coal transport
4. Limestone extraction
5. Limestone transport
6. Power generation
7. Power station construction
8. Power station dismantling
9. Waste transport
TOTAL
Total non power generation
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
ExternE - 1%
ExternE - 3%
ExternE - 5%
IPCC
mECU/kWh
low
mid
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
1.8
3.7
0.62
1.4
0.29
0.68
0.12
0.48
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
0.0016 0.0034
0.00057 0.0013
0.00026 0.00062
0.00011 0.00044
20
42
7.0
16
3.2
7.7
1.4
5.4
0.00052 0.00109
0.00018 0.00042
8.4E-05 0.00020
3.5E-05 0.00014
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0051 0.0108
0.0018 0.0042
0.0008 0.0020
0.0003 0.0014
22
46
7.6
18
3.5
8.3
1.5
5.9
1.8
3.7
0.62
1.4
0.29
0.68
0.12
0.48
high
b
b
b
b
11
4.2
2.0
3.0
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
0.0102
0.0039
0.0018
0.0027
126
48
23
34
0.00326
0.00125
0.00059
0.00088
0
0
0
0
0.0325
0.0124
0.0059
0.0087
137
52
25
37
11
4.3
2.0
3.0
ECU/t
low
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
mid
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
high
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
b included in Coal transport.
73
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 3.22 Core (YOLL) particles, SO2 and NOx emission damages from the non power
generation fuel cycle stages.
Fuel cycle stage
Particles
SO2
NOx
a
a
mECU/kWh kECU/t mECU/kWh kECU/t mECU/kWh kECU/t a
1. Coal mining
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
2. Coal transport
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
4. Limestone extraction
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
5. Limestone transport
0.0021
293
0.0012
9.3
0.0066
6.2
7. Power plant construction
0.026
384
0.00026
10.0
0.0030
6.2
8. Power plant dismantling
0.026
384
0.00026
10.0
0.0030
6.2
9. Waste transport
0.009
293
0.0042
9.3
0.021
6.2
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998): Barge transport: the Rotterdam to Nijmegen transport task (1990 push
vessel). Truck transport: the Amsterdam to Schiphol transport task (1990 puller >16 t).
Impacts of emissions to water could not be quantified because of the lack of relevant exposureresponse functions and valuation methods for water ecosystems. As these impacts are probably
local only, and thus probably relatively small, they are not considered here.
With respect to solid wastes it should be kept in mind that they are marketable and thus should
be treated as by-products. Therefore, externalities arising from these wastes should not be
attributed to the coal fuel cycle. They are not considered here.
Noise and visual amenity losses are not analysed because the methodology to do so is not well
enough established in the project. These impacts are probably small as a relative small number
of people are affected. A short summary of the damages is given in the next section.
3.4 Summary and interpretation of results
The core externality estimates are based on the Years Of Life lost (YOLL) approach for
valuing mortality impacts. The summary results in mECU/kWh are given in Table 3.23. In the
Sensitivity 1 analysis the same set of functions as in the core assessment is used but now
mortalities are valued with the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) approach. In the Sensitivity 2
analysis additional exposure-response functions on health, ecosystems and forests are added on
which scientists are in disagreement or for which impacts there is no agreement on the
monetary valuation.
The global warming damages are quantified by using the damage estimates from the ExternE
core assessment and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In
the ExternE range the low and high estimate represents the lower and upper “boundary” of the
so called “Conservative 95% confidence interval” (the low 5% and high 1% discount rate
estimates). The mid range represents the so called “mid 3% and mid 1% discount rate
estimates”. For the IPCC estimates the mid estimate represents the best guess at a 3% discount
rate. For a further discussion see the global warming appendix.
74
Coal Fuel Cycle
The results have to be interpreted as order of magnitude estimates of the geometric mean of
the damages for each category. The geometric standard deviation ( g) classes A, B and C
represent ranges of multiplication factors 2.5-4, 4-6 and 6-10 respectively.
Table 3.23 Damages of the coal fuel cycle.
mECU/kWh
Core a
Sensitivity 1 b Sensitivity 2 b
POWER GENERATION
Public health
- Mortality
- PM10
- SO2 d
- NOx e
- NOx (via ozone)
- Morbidity
- PM10, SO2 d and NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
Public accidents
Occupational health
Crops
- SO2
- NOx (via ozone)
Ecosystems
Forest
Materials f
Monuments f
Noise
Visual impacts
Global warming c
low
mid
high
OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES
Public health
Outside EU
Inside EU
Occupational health Outside EU
Inside EU
Ecological effects
Road damages
e
g
0.25
0.93
0.93
B
2.7
9.3
9.3
B
3.5
12.7
15.7
B
0.29
10.5
10.5
B
0.81
0.81
1.95
A
0.52
0.52
0.52
B
ng
ng
ng
A
0.11
0.11
0.11
A
6.8E-03
6.8E-03
9.7E-03 B
0.25
0.25
0.25
B
iq
iq
1.2E-03 B
nq
nq
1.6E-03 B
0.15
0.15
0.15
B
0.0024
0.0024
0.0024 B
ng
ng
ng
B
ng
ng
ng
B
ExternE range IPCC range
C
3.2
1.4
16-42
5.4
C
C
126
34
nq
nq
nq
0.075
0.33
0.37
B
1.8
1.8
1.8
A
0.16
0.16
0.16
A
ng
ng
ng
B
ng
ng
ng
A
ExternE range IPCC range
Global warming c
C
0.29
0.12
low
1.4-3.7
0.48
C
mid (3% discount rate)
11
3.0
C
high
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
d
Mainly impacts due to sulfates formed from SO2 in the atmosphere and direct SO2 impacts.
e
Mainly impacts due to nitrates formed from NOx in the atmosphere.
f
Including damage estimates estimated with extended methodology.
ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant
75
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The direct and indirect (aerosols) local range (100*100 km around the power plant) public
health impacts due to SO2 and NOx emissions are about 1/3 of the total public health impacts
in the regional range (the whole of Europe). The contribution of the local range impacts is high
because of the high local range population density and the assumption that the exposureresponse functions are linear with both pollutants and are assumed not to have a threshold
under which no impacts take place. The impacts outside the regional range increase
exponentially with the distance from the plant as the population exposed grows exponentially,
the pollutants disperse over large distances and, as for the local range, the linear exposureresponse function and the no threshold assumptions (Dorland et al, 1995a).
Occupational health effects occur at all stages of the coal fuel cycle. To the extent that labour
markets function perfectly, occupational health effects are internal rather than external effects
in the sense that they are reflected in salary and pension payments or other compensations;
therefore they are included in the electricity price. However, to date there is no available data
on the functioning of the labour markets of the energy sector. Therefore, the occupational
health costs analysed in this study are assumed to be external damage costs. The main
occupational health impacts in the coal fuel cycle are associated with coal mining outside
Europe (partly in developing countries). As it is not probable that labour markets in developing
countries function perfectly, the assumption that these impacts are not internalised is probably
justified.
The global warming impacts are estimated to be oft the same order of magnitude as the public
health damages. With respect to the global warming damages the results show the IPCC
estimates are roughly a factor 3 lower than the lower bound of the midrange estimates obtained
by the core group on global warming in this project. The reason for the observed difference is
the higher value of a statistical life used in the ExternE estimates (a factor 1-1.5 higher than in
IPCC) and the fact that in the ExternE estimates all world citizens are valued equally while in
IPCC a regional differentiated valuation is used.
Furthermore, it is clear that damages to monuments, materials, forests, crops and ecosystems
are probably relatively small compared to the public health and the global warming damages.
With respect to the non quantified public accident, noise and visual impacts it is expected these
are negligibly low compared to the public health impacts. This results from analyses performed
in the Spanish, the Greek and the Italian national implementation studies. Therefore, no
attempt was made to analyse these damages.
For the power generation stage the damages are also estimated in ECU/t pollutant emitted, see
Table 3.24.
The results indicate that especially the impacts from NOx and particle emissions are very high
per tonne of emitted pollutant. The reason for these high numbers is the high public health
impacts due to aerosols and particles in the air. The global warming impacts per tonne
pollutant of CO2 are relatively small. However, the overall damage is large due to the very high
emission of CO2.
76
Coal Fuel Cycle
Table 3.24 Damage estimates of the power generation stage in ECU/t pollutant emitted.
Pollutant
Core a
Sensitivity 1 b
Sensitivity 2 b
SO2
NOx
PM10
NOx (via ozone)
CO2 c
7,581
5,480
16,576
1,500
ExternE range
33,342
18,468
55,854
1,500
IPCC range
35,236
22,680
55,866
1,500
low
3.6
1.5
mid (3% discount rate)
18-47
6.0
high
140
38
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
g
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
Comparison of the damage estimates in Sensitivity 1 and 2 indicates that inclusion of the
health, ecosystem and forest exposure-response functions which were not included in the core
list of functions (used for both the Core analysis and the Sensitivity 1 analysis), does not lead
to a significant increase in the damage estimates. Because of this and the disagreement about
the functions or the valuation the Sensitivity 2 estimates are not included in the overall
summary below.
The sub-total damage estimates are given for combinations of valuation:
1. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
2. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
3. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming damage estimates and
4. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming damage estimates.
The results are given in Table 3.25.
Table 3.25 Sub total damage estimates of the coal fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
IPCC range
IPCC range
ExternE range ExternE range
global warming global warming global warming global warming
14
41
12
39
28-56
55-83
16
43
148
175
47
74
g
C
C
C
The total damages, based on the conservative 95% confidence interval over all combinations of
valuation, are in the range of 12 to 175 mECU/kWh with a best estimate range of 16 to 43
77
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
mECU/kWh. The externalities are of the same order of magnitude as the current average coal
based electricity production costs - 38 mECU/kWh (Hilten et al., 1994).
78
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
4. NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE
4.1 Definition of the gas fuel cycle, technology and site
At the moment there are 63 public gas-fired power stations in the Netherlands (Table 2.1).
They are operated by four public electricity companies: EPON, EPZ, EZH and UNA. Together
they have a capacity of 13200 MW (with a mean of 210 MW). Twelve new gas-fired power
units, with a mean capacity of 306 MW, are planned to become operational within the next five
years or have just become operational. Of these stations the five 335 MW units being built at
the Eemshaven are most suitable for the ‘Dutch gas fuel cycle’ as:
The units will be operational in 1995 and 1996
The units are combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants while all other planned gasfired stations are combined heat-power/CCGT or city warming/CCGT plants; and
They represent the latest technology on gas-fired electricity production in the Netherlands.
Since the five stations are identical and built at one site they are regarded as one large plant
(hereafter called the 'EC 95/96 plant').
The stations are designed to meet current standards, the conditions of the Large Combustion
Plant Directive of the European Community (EC,1988), national legislation and legislation and
agreements concerning the safe exploitation of the vulnerable surroundings of the Eemshaven
(EIA, 1991).
The Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA, 1991) of this plant, which has been officially
approved, contains much useful information for this project.
79
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 4.1 Gas-fired power stations in the Netherlands.
Number
Place
Capacity
Type
Existing stations
EPON
1.
Almere 64 MW
CH/STEG
2.
Almere 54 MW
CH/STEG
3.
Bergum
332 MW
COMBI
4.
Bergum
332 MW
COMBI
5.
Eemshaven 695 MW
COMBI
6.
Lelystad
180 MW
CONV
7.
Lelystad
184 MW
CONV
8.
Lelystad
498 MW
COMBI
9.
Lelystad
22 MW
GT
10.
Harculo
336 MW
COMBI
11.
Harculo
350 MW
COMBI
12.
Hengelo
52 MW
GT
13.
Hengelo
50 MW
GT
14.
Groningen
125 MW
CONV
15.
Groningen
125 MW
CONV
16.
Groningen
125 MW
CONV
17.
Groningen
125 MW
CONV
18.
Groningen
17 MW
GT
Year in
production
Year out of
production
1987
1993
2015
2020
1974
1975
1977
1968
1969
1974
1974
1972
1982
1968
1968
1966
1966
1970
1970
1968
2005
2005
2005
1996
1996
2005
2002
2000
2008
1997
1997
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
EPZ
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Donge
Donge
Borssele
Donge
Maasbracht
Maasbracht
414 MW
414 MW
18 MW
121 MW
638 MW
640 MW
CONV
CONV
GT
STEG
CONV
CONV
1971
1972
1972
1976
1977
1978
1995
1995
1999
2002
2005
2005
EZH
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Delft
Delft
Delft
Delft
Den Haag
Dordrecht
Dordrecht
Rotterdam-B
Rotterdam-G
Rotterdam-W
Rotterdam-W
Rotterdam-R
Rotterdam-R
24 MW
23 MW
23 MW
23 MW
78 MW
150 MW
167 MW
81 MW
209 MW
319 MW
332 MW
25 MW
25 MW
GT
GT
GT
GT
SV
CONV
COMBI
SV
CH/STEG
COMBI
COMBI
SV
SV
1974
1975
1974
1974
1982
1965
1968
1986
1988
1971
1972
1982
1982
2005
2005
2005
2005
2010
1996
1998
2015
2014
1997
1998
2010
2010
80
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
Table 4.1 continued.
Number
Place
Capacity
Type
Year in
production
Year out of
production
Existing stations
UNA
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Diemen
Diemen
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
Utrecht-LW
Utrecht-LW
Utrecht-M
Utrecht-M
Utrecht-M
Purmerend
Velsen
184 MW
184 MW
125 MW
124 MW
599 MW
18 MW
129 MW
265 MW
96 MW
102 MW
224 MW
69 MW
26 MW
CONV
CONV
CONV
CONV
COMBI
GT
CONV
COMBI
CH/STEG
CH/STEG
CH/STEG
SV
GT
1970
1970
1966
1968
1978
1971
1969
1976
1978
1984
1989
1989
1975
1996
1996
1992
1994
2005
1995
1995
2005
2004
2010
2020
2020
2000
New stations
EPON
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Eemshaven
Eemshaven
Eemshaven
Eemshaven
Eemshaven
Nijmegen
335 MW
335 MW
335 MW
335 MW
335 MW
250 MW
STEG
STEG
STEG
STEG
STEG
CHP/STEG
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1999
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
EPZ
57.
58.
Moerdijk
Geleen
339 MW
230 MW
CHP/STEG
CHP/STEG
1997
1997
2023
2023
EZH
59.
60.
61.
Rotterdam-R 225 MW
Den Haag
100 MW
Rotterdam-G 350 MW
CHP/STEG
CH/STEG
CHP/STEG
postponed
1997
postponed
2023
UNA
62.
63.
Utrecht-LW 247 MW
Diemen
249 MW
CHP/STEG
CHP/STEG
postponed
postponed
Source: KEMA (1992)
STEG
CHP
CH
CONV
GT
COMBI
= steam and gas turbine
= combined heat and power
= city heating
= steam kettle and turbine
= gas turbine
= steam kettle with coupled gas turbine
81
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The stages in the gas fuel cycle are shown in Figure 4.1.
Plant
construction
Gas extraction
Gas transport
Gas preparation
Power
generation
ELECTRICITY
Plant
dismantling
Figure 4.1
Stages in the gas fuel cycle.
4.1.1 Site description
4.1.1.1 Gas extraction and treatment
In 1994, 78.3 billion m3 natural gas was produced in the Netherlands. 70% of this production
came from onshore fields and 30% from the Continental Shelf (Oil and Gas, 1995). Around
38.3 billion m3 of this produced gas was exported to Germany, Belgium , France, Italy and
Switzerland. In 1993, 2.9 billion m3 natural gas was also imported from Norway (Gasunie,
1993).
The natural gas used at the EC95/96 station is imported from Norway. The natural gas used in
the EC95/96 plant is transported trough a pipeline. The pipeline is mainly located at the sea
bed. In Norway the natural gas for the EC95/96 is extracted off-shore on the continental shelf
and treated onshore.
4.1.1.2 Power generation
The power plant is built at the Eemshaven in the North of the Netherlands, see Figure 1.2 and
Figure 4.2. Of the 25 by 25 km area around the plant 37% is land and about 63% is water. Of
the land some 64% is in use as agricultural land, 14% is in use as grass land, 6% is industrial
area, 3% is water on land, 5% is built and 8% is in use in other ways (such as forest, camping
82
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
sites etc.). The Eemshaven is located on the boarder of vulnerable wetland. Therefore, all water
related emissions, including thermal emissions to the water ecosystem, are restricted. At a
distance further than 1.7 km from the plant no water temperature change due to the plant heat
emissions to water can be measured. No people live in the direct vicinity of the site (within 5
km). This leads to very small risks of accidents to the public. The site is surrounded by sand
hills on the west side so that from this side direct impacts in the form of visual intrusion and
amenity loss are not expected. However, visual intrusion impacts might occur for (water)
tourists and people living to the east of the plant.
Figure 4.2 The location of the EC 96/97 power plant with respect to the direct surroundings in
the North of the Netherlands (EIA, 1991).
Before the EC 95/96 plant was built electricity production and other small industrial activities
were already situated at the Eemshaven site. Therefore, no new infrastructure had to be built.
83
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The EC 95/96 plant is situated in one building block of around 200 m long and 45 m high with
five stacks rising 15 m above the building. The building of the EC 95/95 station at that site
leads to an enlargement of the power plant site.
4.1.2 Technology description
4.1.2.1 Gas extraction
The natural gas used at the EC95/96 station is imported from Norway by pipeline. It is called
Ekofisk natural gas and has an upper caloric value of 45.2 MJ/m3 and a fuel value of 41.0
MJ/m3 (EIA, 1991). The composition of the gas is given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Expected composition of the gas used at the EC 95/96 plant.
Component
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Pentane
Nitrogen (N2)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Volume %
83.9
9.2
3.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
Source: EIA (1991)
4.1.2.2 Power generation
The EC 95/96 gas fired plant uses five steam and gas turbine units. The most important
components of the units are:
•
low NOx burner chamber with a gas turbine;
•
non fired, heat recovery steam boiler;
•
a steam turbine with a condenser and
•
an electricity generator.
The gas turbine drives the steam turbine, an electricity generator and an air compressor in
which air is pressurised for the gas burner chamber. The hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine
are fed into the heat recovery steam boiler (HRSB) where water is evaporated and cooled
exhaust gases are emitted through a chimney. The steam is transmitted to the steam turbine
which drives the second electricity generator. With the CCGT process the thermal efficiency is
raised from 42% (typical for a Dutch conventional gas plant) to 54%. The steam is condensed
in the condenser and the water is recycled to the gas kettle (EIA, 1991).
Other technical data are listed in Table 4.3.
84
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
Table 4.3 Other technical data of the "EC 95/96 plant".
Technical data
Installed capacity
Sent out electricity production
Produced electricity
Average full load hours (over 25 years)
Expected lifetime
Value
1700
1669
10.9 * 109
6544
30
Unit
MW/y
MW/y
kWh/y
h/y
y
Source: EIA (1991)
Bulk materials input for building and operating
The required bulk materials fall in two categories:
•
building materials
•
inputs for operating the EC 95/96 plant
Building materials
The amount of building materials needed for the construction of the EC 95/96 plant have not
been quantified in the EIA. The data presented in the natural gas methodology report (GFC,
1994) for the West Burton plant in the UK, upgraded on a production capacity basis, are
therefore assumed to be representative for the EC 95/96 plant. They are given in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Building material input for construction of the EC 95/96 plant.
materials
concrete
reinforcing steel
structural steel
cladding and roofing
quantity
34,000 t
4,250 t
5,950 t
34,000 m2
Source: GFC (1994)
No data on surfacing materials, sand and coarse aggregates are given. It is assumed that the
same amounts as for the coal plant analysed in the Dutch coal fuel cycle (the E8-station) per
MW capacity installed, is used. This amounts in total to 1,000,000, 250,000 and 500,000
tonnes surfacing material, sand and coarse aggregates respectively.
Inputs for operating the EC 95/96 plant
The most important inputs for operating the EC 95/96 plant are listed in Table 4.5.
85
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 4.5 Average yearly bulk inputs for the EC 95/96 plant.
Input
Average amount
Gas
1.8 * 109
Cooling water (for condenser)
0.83 * 109
Other water (sanitary, etc.)
not quantified
Unit
m3/y
m3/y
Source: EIA (1991)
The cooling water consumption for the EC 95/96 plant comes from and is discharged to the
Eems-Dollard estuary.
The gas turbines are cooled with H2 in a closed system. Leakages are supposed to be small and
not quantified in the EIA (1991).
In order to start the electricity operation, oil is used. The amount of oil burned, as well as the
emissions of this process, can be neglected in comparison with the full load hours of the station
when it is gas fuelled.
4.2 Overview of burdens
The burdens analysed for this fuel cycle are the atmospheric emissions of pollutants from
transport and the mining and power generation stage, water emissions and solid wastes from
power generation, and occupational and public accidents from the fuel cycle stages.
4.2.1 Solid wastes
Operating the EC 95/96 plant could lead to a 50% increase in the silt attraction to the
Eemshaven per year. This results in erosion of marine ecosystems elsewhere. At present
150,000 m3 silt is dredged from the Eemshaven per year. This silt is dumped in a 60 ha area in
the Eems-Dollard estuary. In total 5 million tonne of silt is sedimented in the estuary yearly.
The impacts on the estuary system are not completely known but some impacts on the flora
and fauna are expected. Currently silt consumers' markets are investigated.
Due to the lack of knowledge the impact of sedimentation can not be quantified. Therefore,
this impact category is not further analysed in this study.
4.2.2 Atmospheric emissions
4.2.2.1 Power generation
The major emissions to air by the EC 95/96 plant are the exhaust gas emissions. The yearly
average emission values given in Table 4.6 relate to the total of the five stacks. The total
exhaust gas emission of the EC 95/96 plant is 7.13*106 Nm3/h dry and 7.63*106 Nm3/h wet
86
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
with a temperature of 70oC. It is assumed that all stacks (60 meters high and 7.7 meters in
diameter) emit an equal share of the emissions.
Smaller emissions to air, such as from the unit for emergency power, starting up the plant and
H2 emission from the turbine cooling system have not been taken into account because they are
expected to be negligible in comparison to the emissions mentioned above.
Table 4.6 Emissions from the EC 95/96 plant.
Parameter
Emission factor
CO2
NOx
(in g/kWh)
410
0.312
Total emission
for 10.9 * 109 Kwh/y
(in 109g/y)
4,479
3.41
Source: EIA (1991)
Transport of operation (workers, etc.)
Data on emissions from transporting workers to the station are not available. The methodology
report states that they are unknown and likely negligible in comparison to emissions in other
stages in the gas fuel cycle (EC, 1998).
4.2.2.2 Power plant construction and dismantling
Specific data on emissions with construction and dismantling are not available for the EC 95/96
plant. No data on these emissions from the UK reference power station at West Burton (GFC,
1994) nor from other sources are available. Therefore, data from the coal fuel cycle are used.
As with the coal fuel cycle it is assumed that all building materials, listed in Table 4.4, are equal
to the wastes after dismantling, and transported by truck over 100 km (return journey). The
truck emission factors and the resulting emissions are given in Table 4.7.
Dismantling dust emissions at the site may be substantial but have not been quantified as most
of the dust emitted is probably non-respirable (larger than 10 micron) and it probably does not
disperse over large distances. Therefore, these dust emission impacts are expected to be
negligible.
Table 4.7 Emissions due to transport of construction and dismantling of the E8-station (in
g/MWh) and the emission factor (in g/(t * km)) for truck transport.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
Emission factors a:
Truck transport
0.11
2.0
0.13
96
Construction or Dismantling
Truck
0.013
0.24
0.016
11.3
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998) : Truck transport Tiel “other road” transport task for a puller built in
1990.
87
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
4.2.2.3 Gas extraction, preparation and transport
From the gas methodology report (GFC, 1994) it can be concluded that emissions to air from
gas extraction, preparation and transportation are low in comparison to the emissions due to
operating the gas fired plant. Data on these emissions were not readily available. Because of
the expected high impacts of greenhouse gas emissions the results presented in the
methodology report for the gas fuel cycle (corrected for the gas use at the West-Burton plant
relative to the gas use at the EC 95/96 plant) are held to be representative for the Dutch gas
fuel cycle. The in the methodology report quantified and for the EC 95/96 plant recalculated
emissions are given in Table 4.8. Other impacts of gas extraction, preparation and
transportation, apart from occupational impacts, could not be quantified and valued in the
methodology report and, therefore, they will not be analysed further in this study.
Table 4.8 Global warming gas emissions from activities related to gas extraction, preparation
and transportation for the Dutch gas fuel cycle in g/MWh.
Activity
CO2
CH4
Offshore extraction
4,600
80
- Flaring
150
n.q.
Onshore treatment/processing
1,500
80
Pipeline leakage
15
46
n.q. = not quantified
Source: GFC (1994)
4.2.2.4 Summary of air emissions
The air emissions in the different stage of the coal fuel cycle are summarised in the next table.
Table 4.9 Summary of air emissions of the gas fuel cycle in g/MWh.
Fuel cycle stage
SO2
NOx
Particles
1. Gas extraction
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
- Gas flaring
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
2. Gas onshore processing
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
3. Gas transport (pipeline leakage)
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
4. Power plant construction
0.013
0.24
0.016
5. Power generation
n.q.
312
n.q.
6. Power plant dismantling
0.013
0.24
0.016
n.q. = not quantified but expected to be low.
88
CO2
4,600
150
1,500
15
11.3
410,000
11.3
CH4
80
80
46
n.q.
n.q
n.q
n.q
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
4.2.3 Water emissions
Emission to water from plant operation is mainly cooling water from the condenser. Because
the cooling system is cleaned by using balls, only occasionally small amounts of chemicals are
needed for supplementary cleaning. The bulk emissions to water are given in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Overview of bulk discharges to water from the EC 95/96 plant.
thermal emission
27.7 * 106 GJ/y
component
amount
unit
chlorine (Cl )
5000
kg/y
natrium (Na+)
1350
kg/y
ammonium (NH+)
750
kg/y
salt:
50
kg/y
- silicates
- ammonium and natrium salt
Source: EIA (1991)
With respect to thermal emissions the EIA states that at a distance further than 1.7 km from the
plant no water temperature change due to the plant heat emissions to water can be measured.
Impacts could not be analysed because relevant data were not readily available. Therefore, this
subject will not be analysed further for the EC 95/96 plant.
4.2.4 Occupational accidents and diseases
Occupational health effects are divided into two categories; accidents and occupational
diseases. All fuel cycle stages are analysed.
The gas extraction in Norway was analysed in the German national implementation report
(GGFC, 1995). Data on occupational health effects related to the gas extraction phases only,
were not available. Therefore, data on oil and gas extraction and offshore operation are used.
The results in the German study are scaled on gas consumption basis per TWh electricity
produced to fit the characteristics of the EC 95/96 plant. The results are given in Table 4.11.
Risk data related to all other occupational health impacts are assumed to be equal to the
impacts analysed in the UK gas fuel cycle report (GCF, 1994). This is probably a good
assumption because the gas is also transported by pipeline in the UK and possible impacts
related to power station construction, operation and dismantling will probably not differ much
between a plant in the UK and The Netherlands. For offshore activities other than the
operation stage it is assumed that the situation in the UK is similar to the situation in Norway.
Again the UK results are scaled to the EC 95/96 plant on gas consumption basis per TWh
electricity produced. The resulting estimates for the EC 95/96 are given in Table 4.11.
89
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 4.11 Dutch natural gas fuel cycle occupational accident
produced.
Fuel cycle stage
Activity
Fatal
Accidents
& diseases
Gas extraction
Offshore drilling
0.00012
Offshore development 0.0017
Offshore operation
0.0025
Offshore major events 0.012
(gas exploration)
Gas treatment operation
Processing
0.000052
Gas transport
Pipeline construction 0.00025
Power plant construction Construction
0.0025
Power plant operation
Operation
0.00067
Power plant dismantling
Dismantling
0.000013
rates per TWh electricity
Major
Accidents
& diseases
0.0029
0.052
0.108
n.q.
Minor
Accidents
& diseases
0.020
0.24
0.987
n.q.
0.0019
0.0076
0.078
0.024
0.0039
0.020
0.037
0.37
0.25
0.0018
Several impacts, like musculo-skeletal injury, long term exposure to chemicals and offshore
diving impacts, could not be quantified.
4.3 Quantification of impacts and damages
The priority impacts that should be considered in this fuel cycle are shown in the next table.
Table 4.12 Priority impacts of the gas fuel cycle.
Impacts
Gas and limestone
Gas
Transport Generation Construction
preparation
extraction
Global warming
x
x
x
x
x
Public health
x
x
x
Occupational health
x
x
x
x
x
Crops
x
x
Forests
x
x
Ecosystems
x
x
x
Materials
x
x
Noise
x
x
x
x
Visual impact
x
x
x
x
In the next sections the damages are given by fuel cycle stage. The non power generation fuel
cycle stages are discussed together.
4.3.1 Non power generation fuel cycle stages
The impacts considered most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases,
atmospheric emissions on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems and global warming
90
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
impacts. There are other impacts that could give rise to damages, such as impacts of water
emissions at sea or pipeline breaking but as there are no data available for quantifying them.
Occupational accidents and diseases occur in all stages of the gas fuel cycle. The summary of
the impacts was given in Table 4.11. Fatal , major and minor accidents and diseases are valued
at 3.1 MECU, 95,050 ECU and 6,970 ECU respectively. For a discussion on the valuation we
refer to the methodology part of this report. The resulting damage estimates are given in Table
4.13.
Table 4.13 Occupational health damages in the non-power generation gas fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh.
Fatal
Major
Minor
Fuel cycle stage
Activity
accidents
accidents
accidents
& diseases & diseases & diseases
Gas extraction
Offshore drilling
0.00037
0.00028
0.00014
Offshore operation
0.0078
0.010
0.0069
Offshore development
0.0053
0.0049
0.0017
Offshore major events
0.037
n.q.
n.q.
related to gas exploration
Gas preparation
Gas treatment operation
0.00016
0.00018
0.00014
Gas transportation
Pipeline construction
0.00078
0.00072
0.00026
Power plant construction Construction
0.0078
0.0074
0.0026
Power plant dismantling Dismantling
0.000040 0.00037
0.000013
n.q. =
not quantified
The non quantified costs for offshore major and minor accident costs in the table are expected
to be small in comparison to the fatal accident costs.
The global warming damages in the non-power generation fuel cycle stages are quantified by
using the damage estimates from the ExternE core assessment for different discount rates (1, 3
and 5%) and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The low,
mid and high estimates are given. The low and high estimate give an indication of the range of
model uncertainty of the impacts. For a description of the methodology see the methodology
part of this report. The results are given in Table 4.14.
91
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
A methodology for analysing the impacts and damages related to non CO2 emissions in the non
power generation fuel cycle stages is not given in this study. However, for transport related
emissions (stages 5, 7, 8 and 9) a methodology was developed in the ExternE transport study
(ExternE transport, 1997). In this study the ExternE accounting framework was adjusted to fit
transport emission specific questions such as low to the ground emission dispersion. The
results from this study for the Netherlands in the Rotterdam to Nijmegen transport case study
have been used here (Dorland et al., 1997). The impacts are to diverse and many to be
mentioned here. The core (Years of Life Lost -YOLL- based) damage results are given in
Table 4.15. The damage estimates based on VSL (Value of Statistical Life) are on average
higher than the YOLL estimate by:
• a factor 30 for acute mortality impacts (as with NOx ozone damages);
• a factor 4 for chronic mortality impacts (the main sulphate, nitrate and particle damages).
4.3.2 Power generation
As with the non power generation stage also in the power generation stage itself the impacts
considered most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases, atmospheric
emissions on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming impacts. The
individual impacts and damages are given in the appendix to the gas fuel cycle. The global
warming damages are given in Table 4.14.
Also with the power generation damages due to SO2, NOx and particles the damage estimates
based on VSL are on average higher than the YOLL estimate by the same factors as given
above.
Impacts of emissions to water could not be quantified because of the lack of relevant exposureresponse functions and valuation methods for water ecosystems. These impacts are probably
local only but can be significant as the power station is built on the border of a very vulnerable
wetland.
Noise and visual amenity losses are not analysed because the methodology to do so is not well
enough established in the project. These impacts are probably small as a relative small number
of people are affected.
A short summary of the damages is given in the next section.
92
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
Table 4.14 Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions in the gas fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh and ECU/t.
Fuel cycle stage
mECU/kWh
ECU/t
low
mid
high
low mid high
1. Gas extraction
ExternE - 1%
0.10
0.21
0.64 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.036
0.083
0.25
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.017
0.039
0.12
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.0069
0.028
0.17
1.5
6.0 37.5
Gas flaring
ExternE - 1%
0.0033 0.0070
0.021 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.0012 0.0027 0.0080
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.00054 0.0013 0.0038
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.00023 0.00090 0.0056
1.5
6.0 37.5
2. Gas onshore processing
ExternE - 1%
0.033
0.070
0.21 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.012
0.027
0.080
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.0054
0.013
0.038
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.0023
0.009
0.06
1.5
6.0 37.5
3. Gas transport
n.q.
n.q. 22.1 46.7 139.8
(pipeline leakage)
ExternE - 1%
n.q. *
ExternE - 3%
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
1.5
6.0 37.5
4. Power generation
ExternE - 1%
9.1
19.1
57.3 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
3.2
7.4
21.9
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
1.5
3.5
10.3
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.62
2.5
15.4
1.5
6.0 37.5
5. Power station construction
ExternE - 1%
0.00025 0.00053 0.0016 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3% 0.000088 0.00020 0.00061
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5% 0.000041 0.00010 0.00029
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.000017 0.000068 0.00042
1.5
6.0 37.5
6. Power station dismantling
ExternE - 1%
0.00025 0.00053 0.00158 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3% 0.000088 0.00020 0.00061
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5% 0.000041 0.00010 0.00029
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.000017 0.000068 0.00042
1.5
6.0 37.5
TOTAL
ExternE - 1%
9.2
19.4
58.2 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
3.3
7.5
22.3
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
1.5
3.5
10.5
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.63
2.5
15.6
1.5
6.0 37.5
Total non power generation
ExternE - 1%
0.14
0.29
0.88 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.049
0.11
0.34
7.8 18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.023
0.054
0.16
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.0094
0.038
0.24
1.5
6.0 37.5
* n.q. = not quantified
93
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 4.15 Particles, SO2 and NOx emission damages from the non power generation gas fuel
cycle stages.
Fuel cycle stage
Particles
SO2
NOx
a
a
mECU/kWh kECU/t mECU/kWh kECU/t mECU/kWh kECU/t
a
1. Gas extraction
Gas flaring
2. Gas onshore processing
3. Gas transport
(pipeline leakage)
5. Power plant construction
6. Power plant dismantling
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
n.q.
189
7.1
6.2
0.000089
0.0015
189
7.1
6.2
0.000089
0.0015
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998) : Truck transport Tiel “other road” transport task for a puller built in
1990.
n.q. = not quantified
0.0030
0.0030
4.4 Summary and interpretation of results
The core externality estimates are based on the Years Of Life Lost (YOLL) approach for
valuing mortality impacts. The summary results in mECU/kWh are given in Table 4.16. In the
Sensitivity 1 analysis the same set of functions as in the core assessment is used but now
mortalities are valued with the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) approach. In the Sensitivity 2
analysis additional exposure-response functions on health, ecosystems and forests are added on
which scientists are in disagreement or for which impacts there is no agreement on the
monetary valuation.
The global warming damages are quantified by using the damage estimates from the ExternE
core assessment and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In
the ExternE range the low and high estimate represents the lower and upper “boundary” of the
so called “Conservative 95% confidence interval” (the low 5% and high 1% discount rate
estimates). The mid range represents the so called “mid 3% and mid 1% discount rate
estimates”. For the IPCC estimates the mid estimate represents the best guess at a 3% discount
rate. For a further discussion see the global warming appendix.
The results have to be interpreted as order of magnitude estimates of the geometric mean of
the damages for each category. The geometric standard deviation ( g) classes A, B and C
represent ranges of multiplication factors 2.5-4, 4-6 and 6-10 respectively.
It is clear that especially the power generation stage public human health impacts due to
aerosols formed from NOx emissions are high.
The direct and indirect local range (100*100 km2 around the power plant) public health
impacts due to NOx emission are about 1/10 of the total public health impacts in the regional
range (the whole of Europe). The reason for the high contribution of damages outside the local
range is due to the assumption that the exposure-response functions are linear and do not have
94
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
a threshold below which no impact takes place, the exponential growing population exposed
with the distance from the plant and the dispersion of pollutants over large distances and
chemical conversion in the atmosphere. The relative small share of the direct impacts due to
NOx is due to the relative low population density in the local range (Dorland et al, 1995b).
Table 4.16 Damages of the natural gas fuel cycle.
mECU/kWh
Core a Sensitivity 1 b Sensitivity 2 b
POWER GENERATION
Public health
- Mortality
- PM10
- SO2 d
- NOx e
- NOx (via ozone)
- Morbidity
- PM10, SO2 d and NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
Public accidents
Occupational health
Crops
- SO2
- NOx (via ozone)
Ecosystems
Forest
Materials f
Monuments f
Noise
Visual impacts
Global warming c
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES
Public health
Outside EU
Inside EU
Occupational health Outside EU
Inside EU
Ecological effects
Road damages
e
1.6
6.0
6.7
0.13
4.6
4.6
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.23
ng
ng
ng
6.1E-03
6.1E-03
6.1E-03
0.11
0.11
0.11
iq
iq
6.6E-07
nq
nq
4.5E-04
0.018
0.018
0.018
nq
nq
nq
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ExternE range IPCC range
1.5
0.62
7.4
2.5
57
15
g
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
9.1E-03
0.034
0.038
B
A
0.095
0.095
0.095
A
nq
nq
nq
B
ng
ng
ng
A
ExternE range IPCC range
Global warming c
0.023
9.4E-03
C
low
0.11-0.29
0.038
C
mid (3% discount rate)
0.88
0.24
C
high
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
d
Mainly impacts due to sulfates formed from SO2 in the atmosphere and direct SO2 impacts.
e
Mainly impacts due to nitrates formed from NOx in the atmosphere.
f
Including damage estimates estimated with extended methodology.
ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant
95
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Occupational health effects occur at all stages of the gas fuel cycle. To the extent that labour
markets function perfectly, occupational health effects are internal rather than external effects
in the sense that they are reflected in salary and pension payments or other compensations;
therefore they are included in the electricity price. However, to date there is no available data
on the functioning of the labour markets of the energy sector. Therefore, the occupational
health costs analysed in this study are assumed to be external damage costs. The main
occupational health impacts in the gas fuel cycle are associated with offshore gas extraction in
Norway. The assumption that these impacts are not internalised is probably not a good
assumption but as the damages are low excluding them would not change the overall damage
estimates.
The global warming impacts are estimated to be of the same order of magnitude as these public
health damages. With respect to the global warming damages the results show the IPCC
estimates are roughly a factor 3 lower than the lower bound of the midrange estimates obtained
by the core group on global warming in this project. The reason for the observed difference
comes from the higher value of a statistical life used in the ExternE project (a factor 1-1.5
higher than in IPCC) and the fact that in the ExternE estimates all world citizens are valued
equally while in IPCC a regional differentiated valuation is used.
Furthermore, it is clear that damages to monuments, materials, forests, crops and ecosystems
are probably relatively small compared to the public health and the global warming damages.
With respect to the non quantified public accident, noise and visual impacts it is expected these
are negligibly low compared to the public health impacts. This resulted from analyses
performed in the Spanish, the Greek and the Italian national implementation studies. Therefore,
no attempt was made in analysing these damages.
For the power generation stage the damages are also estimated in ECU/t pollutant emitted, see
Table 4.17.
The results indicate that the impacts from NOx emissions are very high per tonne pollutant
emitted. The reason for these high numbers are the high public health impacts due to aerosols
in the air. Per tonne pollutant the global warming impacts of CO2 are relatively small.
However, the overall damage is large due to the very high emission factors associated with
fossil fuel burning without CO2 removal.
Comparison of the damage estimates in Sensitivity 1 and 2 indicates that inclusion of the
health, ecosystem and forest exposure-response functions, which were not included in the core
list of functions (used for both the Core analysis and the Sensitivity 1 analysis), does not lead
to a significant increase in the damage estimates. Because of this and the disagreement about
the functions or the valuation the Sensitivity 2 estimates are not included in the overall
summary of the damages below.
96
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle
Table 4.17 Damage estimates of the power generation stage in ECU/t pollutant emitted.
Pollutant
Core a
Sensitivity 1 b
Sensitivity 2 b
SO2
NOx
PM10
NOx (via ozone)
CO2 c
5,916
1,494
ExternE range
19,946
15,731
IPCC range
22,249
15,731
low
3.6
1.5
mid
18-47
6.0
high
140
38
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
g
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
The sub-total damage estimates are given for four combinations of valuation:
1. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
2. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
3. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming damage estimates and
4. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming damage estimates.
The results are given in Table 4.18
Table 4.18 Sub total damage estimates of the gas fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
ExternE range ExternE range
IPCC range
IPCC range
global warming global warming global warming global warming
3.9
13
3.1
12
9.9-22
19-31
4.9
14
61
69
18
27
g
C
C
C
The total damages, based on the conservative 95 % confidence interval over all combinations
of valuation, are in the range of 3 to 69 mECU/kWh with a best estimate range of 4.9 to 14
mECU/kWh. The externalities are of the same order of magnitude as the current average
natural gas based electricity production - 30 mECU/kWh (Hilten et al., 1994).
97
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
98
Biomass Fuel Cycle
5. BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE
5.1 Definition of the biomass fuel cycle
In the Netherlands agriculture is very intensive. The pesticide and fertiliser use per hectare
agricultural land and the income per hectare in the Netherlands are one of the highest in the
world. Therefore it will be difficult for biomass, a labour and land intensive crop, to compete
with a cheap energy source like natural gas for electricity production. The possibility of using
biomass in the energy production in the Netherlands is largely depending on climate policy
(reduction of CO2 emission) and the future availability of agricultural land for biomass
production. It is expected that 0.10-0.19 respectively 0.25-0.47 million hectares of agricultural
land will become available for the growth of energy crop in the years 2000 and 2015
respectively. The low estimates are for a low availability of agricultural land (28,000 hectare
per year) while the high estimates are for a high availability of agricultural land (41,000 hectare
per year). This could lead to a total biomass yield of 52 - 69 PJ per year in the year 2000 and
87-140 PJ per year in the year 2015 (Steetskamp et al., 1994). 140 PJ per year is equal to 5%
of the total energy use (2700 PJ/year) in the Netherlands in 1992. Use of biomass waste and
‘cascade’ use could lead to 12% of the total energy supply needed. Due to import of biomass
this percentage could be even higher (Lysen et al., 1992).
5.1.1 Site description
No commercially operated biomass plant is stationed in the Netherlands at the moment. Two
biomass plants are analysed in this report (a gasification plant and a co-firing plant). Therefore,
two location assumptions are made. The possible locations are given in Figure 5.1. Under
normal circumstances the biomass power stations would probably be situated near the biomass
production site for minimisation of high biomass transport costs.
The first is the gasification plant which was fictionally situated at the site of the reference
natural gas plant site (see Figure 1.2 and Figure 4.2) in the Eemshaven area in the North of the
Netherlands. This is also the location of the gas fired plant analysed in the gas fuel cycle study
of this report. This site is surrounded by agricultural land which could become available for
future biomass production. For more information on the site we refer to the gas fuel cycle
chapter.
99
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Figure 5.1
Overview of the parts of the Netherlands with high (clay soil - shaded part) and
low (peat soil - grey part) yields possibilities (Steetskamp et al., 1994).
The biomass co-firing plant chosen for this study is the reference coal fuel cycle, see Chapter
3). The plant was chosen as results from Dutch studies on biomass co-firing have shown that
truck transport distances of the fuel up to 100 km will become economically feasible in the next
decade (Steetskamp et al., 1994; Biewinga and Bijl, 1996). It is argued that the biomass might
also be transported over large distances by ships (Abbas, 1997). Within 50 km from the power
plant large areas of agricultural land could become available for future biomass production.
Because the site chosen for the relatively small gasification plant is already a small scale
industrial area, the construction of the will not change the appearance of the site very much.
The co-firing plant is already an existing plant in a heavy industrialised area. Co-firing will
therefore not change the appearance of the site. However, changes of the agricultural land into
forest production land will change the landscape considerably.
100
Biomass Fuel Cycle
5.1.2 Technology description
This section on technology description will start with a discussion of the selection of the type
of biomass analysed in this study. Then the power generation technologies will be discussed.
In the fuel cycle stages are given in Figure 5.2. For the 100% biomass fuel cycle the coal route
is not included.
Plant
construction
Biomass
production
Biomass
transport
Coal
mining
Coal
transport
Limestone
extraction
Limestone
transport
Power
generation
ELECTRICITY
Wastes
Plant
dismantling
Figure 5.2 Stages of the biomass fuel cycles (shaded only applicable for the WCF fuel cycle).
5.1.2.1 Biomass production
In the Netherlands production of traditional agricultural crops, such as wheat, for energy crops
is held to be too expensive in comparison to the oil, gas and coal prices. Research has shown
that in the year 2000 straw, poplar and miscanthus are economically feasible energy crops with
a price around Dfl. 8/GJ (Lysen et al., 1992) .
In agriculture the yield is limited by physiological and climatological factors. The ideal energy
crop would:
• Have a high growth speed;
• Have most of its biomass above the ground because harvesting is then cheapest;
• Have low nutrient values;
• Be perennial and not annual crops because perennials need little or no tillage and preferably
no ploughing;
• Start growing early in the year and stop growing late in the year;
101
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
•
•
•
•
Be harvested dry with which costs of transportation can be minimised;
Have a high resilience to diseases;
Be highly competitive to undergrowth and
Have a low water use and high resilience to drought.
Most of these characteristics are related to high yields and low costs of production.
Traditionally high yields are associated with intensive growth techniques but low costs are
related to extensive growth techniques. A combination of these two characteristics is
somewhat unusual. Some yield data for several crops grown in the Netherlands are given in
Table 5.1. Among traditional agricultural crops no good candidates are found. The
characteristic of perennial leads to two possible candidates: woody crops and reed like crops.
However, woody crops, i.e. trees, are not C4 plants and thus do not have a high growth speed.
There is a large experience with growing trees, however.
Table 5.1 Yield data for some possible energy crops in the Netherlands.
Yield (tonne dry material/ha*y)
Estimate
LEIa Zeijtsb
Biewingac
Soil type
Clay Peat North NL
Year for estimate
1991 1993 1993 1996 2020
Crop
Winterwheat (seed)
6.6
7.6
6.5
5.9
7.1
Winterwheat (straw)
3.9
6.2
5.3
4.1
4.9
Sugarbeet (carrot)
15.1 15.1 13.0 11.8 14.9
Sugarbeet (loaf)
5.4
3.8
3.2
2.9
3.7
Rape (seed)
3.1
3.8
3.2
2.8
3.9
Rape (straw)
4.4
3.1
3.0
2.6
3.6
Silage maize
(all except root)
11.5 14.6 12.5 14.8 15.3
Hemp (stem)
14.3 12.2 10.7 13.0
Reed (stem)
16.1 13.8
Miscanthus (stem)
12.3 10.6 8.1
9.8
Poplar (wood)
10.0 10.0 8.6
7.0
Willow (wood)
13.2 11.3 7.8
a
Source: LEI (1992)
b
Source: Zeijts et al. (1994)
c
Source: Biewinga and Bijl (1996)
d
Source: Lysen et al. (1992)
e
Source: Kaltschmitt and Weise (1993)
f
For Kornermaise with different dry material content
g
Source: NRLO (1983a)
8.5
9.5
Lysend Kaltschmitte
(Data for
2000 Germany)
6.6
3.9
15.0
5.4
3.7
5.3
10.6 (9-13)
11.5
10g
15.0
(6.7-10.6)f
9.6 (5-43)
15.2 (9-13)
and (20-30)
13.5 (12-15)
-
15.0
-
-
According to Lysen et al., 1992) the yield might change due to technological developments
influencing yields, new harvesting techniques, new crop protection techniques and new
fertilisers.
102
Biomass Fuel Cycle
For Rape an annual increase of 2% in the LEI estimate is held possible between 1991 and
2000. The LEI estimate on the poplar yield was derived from experimental work performed by
the ‘Dorschkamp’ in Wageningen (the Netherlands). The total yield during the experiments
(including leaves and roots) was estimated at 20 t/ha*y.
For poplar around 25-30% of the dry biomass is located in the leaves while another 25-30% is
located in the roots. Research performed by the NRLO (1983b) concluded that the yield of
wood in osier land (i.e. wicker) with a short rotation cycle (6-7 years) would probably not be
higher than 13 tonne dry material/ha*y. Recent research performed in Sweden with willow
(Salix viminalis) production shows that in the Netherlands a yield of 20 tonne dry material/ha*y
in branches and trucks could be feasible (Perrtu, 1987). Poplar yields of 16 tonne dry
material/ha*y are given by results from tests with short rotation growth techniques in the U.S.
(Kenney et al., 1991). Other researchers suggest that yields in the order of 20-30 tonne dry
material/ha*y are possible for poplar and willow. According to Biewinga and Bijl (1996) the
actual yield levels in 1996 and the attainable yield levels in 2020 are lower than the yield levels
mentioned in any other study. They state that yields in experiments are often higher than in
practice. They calculate high attainable poplar and willow yields of up to 13.2 tonne dry
matter/ ha*year for production in Portugal. The estimates of Lyssen et al. (1992) for the year
2000 are used in this study because future biomass use in electricity production is considered
and the research mentioned above indicates that these yield figures are feasible.
Miscanthus is a C4 type plant but is perennial. One problem of the perennial C4 type plants is
that, quite different from one year C4 type plants, they are not highly sensitive to a critical
temperature below which growth stops. In winter months a decrease in the plants biomass has
been measured in Germany however. According to the experiments in Denmark and research
performed by Darwinkel et al., (1982) yields of 15-20 tonne dry material/ha*y are feasible. In
Lysen et al. (1992) study the miscanthus yield was set at 16 tonne dry material/ha*y.
The estimated yields on clay soils in the year 2000 and the 1991 costs of production both
including and excluding personnel costs used for this study are given in Table 5.2.
The energy input for production of the crops is calculated by the use of fertilisers, agricultural
machines and crop protection (pesticides, etc.). The energy output is obtained by calculating
multiplying the energy content of the dry biomass with the dry yield. The energy input data for
1991 and expected energy content data for 2000 are given in Table 5.3. The costs per GJ are
also given in the table.
103
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.2 Yield in 2000 and production costs in 1991.
Crop
Production costs
Production costs
Yielda
incl. labour costs
excl. labour costs
Dfl./ha*y
Dfl./ha*y
tonne d.m./ha*y
Winter wheat (seed)
4326
3356
6.6
b
Winter wheat (straw)
200
3.9
Sugarbeet (carrot)
6465
4466
15.1
Sugarbeet (loaf)
5.4
Rape (seed)
4115
3172
3.7
Rape (straw)b
270
5.3
Silage maize (all except root) 4089
2992
11.5
Hemp (stem)
Reed (stem)
Miscanthus (stem)
2274
2145
16.0
Poplar (wood)
2115
1988
15.0
2115
1988
15.0
Willow (wood)c
a
The yield data are primarily the data from the NOVEM studies described above.
b
For wheat- and rape-straw only the costs of pressing are given.
c
Assumed equal to poplar.
Source: Lysen et al. (1992)
Table 5.3 Energy data for energy crops in the Netherlands.
Crop
Energy
input Ia
1991
GJ/ha*y
20.2
5.3
25.1
Energy Ratio
content content/
2000
input
GJ/ha*y
112
5.5
59
11.1
280
11.2
Cost
Energy Electricity
input IIb producedc
Prod/
Input
Dfl/GJ
kWh/ha*y kWh/ha*y
Winter wheat (seed)
38.6
Winter wheat (straw)
3.4
644
6649
10.3
Sugarbeet (carrot)
23.1
Sugarbeet (loaf)
Rape (seed)
17.8
101
5.7
40.7
Rape (straw)
8.8
80
9.1
3.4
1069
6649
6.2
Silage maize
(all except root)
24.1
196
8.1
20.9
Hemp (stem)
Reed (stem)
Miscanthus (stem)
17.3
272
15.9
8.4
2044
30865
15.1
Poplar (wood)
16.3
270
16.6
7.8
2033
30759
15.1
Willow (wood)
16.3
270
16.6
7.8
2033
30759
15.1
a
Energy input data without transportation, storage, condensing and drying.
b
Energy data with energy use from transportation, storage, condensing and drying.
c
Assuming that the electricity is produced in a 30 MWe biomass gasification STEG installation.
Source: Lysen et al. (1992)
104
Biomass Fuel Cycle
The costs of natural gas and coal in the year 2000 are expected to be Dfl. 10.5 and 8.2 per GJ
respectively. Therefore it is probable that only straw, miscanthus, poplar and willow are
economically feasible. The other forms of biomass can only become economically feasible if the
unused parts would be used for other purposes. From the possible electricity production
potential the energy input needed and the production/input ratio for straw, miscanthus, poplar
and willow, Table 5.3. It is clear that straw is not a very good biofuel for electricity production.
Biewinga and Bijl (1996) predict the actual and attainable energy data (in GJ fossil fuel
equivalent per ha) for both co-firing in a 10% biomass fired 500 MW conventional coal plant
and in a 50 MW STEG plant; see Table 5.4. As Biewinga and Bijl use low crop yield data for
their calculations the energy output is higher if the yield expectancy used in this study would be
implemented. These corrected estimates are also given in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Actual and attainable energy data (in GJ fossil per ha) for co-firing a and 100%
gasification b electricity production in the north of the Netherlands. EI = energy input, EO =
energy output, R = EO-EI ratio, Cf = correction factor and R’ = corrected output/input ratio.
Crop
Biewinga and Bijl (1996)
Corrected to yield
Actual
Attainable
for the year 2000
EI
EO
R
EI
EO
R
Cf
R’.
Co-firing
Silage maize
(all except root)
88
271 3.1
74
306 4.1
0.78
2.4
Hemp (stem)
62
196 3.1
62
261 4.2
1.1
3.3
Miscanthus (stem)
50
148 3.0
49
197 4.0
2.0
5.9
Poplar (wood)
42
128 3.1
41
171 4.2
2.1
6.6
Willow (wood)
46
143 3.1
45
190 4.2
1.9
6.0
Gasification
Silage maize
(all except root)
29
278 9.6
29
315 10.9 0.78
7.5
Hemp (stem)
20
201 10.0 21
247 11.8 1.1
10.8
Miscanthus (stem)
18
152 8.4
18
184 10.2 2.0
16.7
Poplar (wood)
14
132 9.4
14
162 11.6 2.1
20.2
Willow (wood)
15
146 9.7
15
179 11.9 1.9
18.7
a
10% biomass co-firing in a 500 MW coal fired conventional plant.
b
A 50 MW STEG installation.
Source: Biewinga and Bijl (1996)
The production costs of miscanthus, poplar and willow are the lowest of the crops mentioned
in Table 5.2 and the energy yields are high. The breakdown of the energy use during the
production and transport stages for these crops is given in Table 5.5.
In recent biomass electricity production planning, the electricity companies seem to have a high
preference for willow (Gigler and Sonneveld, 1997; DE, 1997). As the composition and energy
related data for miscanthus, poplar, willow and are very similar (see Table 5.6 and the previous
105
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
section), the results for many other types of biomass will be comparable with the results for
willow. The composition of poplar thinnings listed in Table 5.6 is taken to be representative for
this average “wood” composition. This “average wood” will be studied in more detail in this
study. Both plant types are also considered though the energy input/output ratios for
gasification plants are much higher than for co-firing plants. The reason for considering both
options is that the electricity producers experiment with both plant types at the moment and
consider them as equally feasible options.
For willow, poplar and miscanthus a more detailed analysis of the input of nutrients and plant
protection is given in the appendix to the biomass fuel cycle.
106
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.5 Production, storage, drying and transport data for Miscanthus (M), Poplar (P) and Willow (W).
Production
Seedlings
Fertiliser
N
P2O5
K2O
Protection
Machines (diesel)
Manure
Chipping
CO2 emissionnon transport
Product
Yield (50% moisture)
Yield (16% moisture)
Yield (dry)
Energy content
Transport (truck)
transport costs
loading and unloading
energy use
Unit
1991a
M
P/ W
1996b
M
GJ/ha*y
P
1.6
0.1
1.6
GJ/ha*y
kg/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
kg/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
kg/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
GJ/ha*y
5.3
82
0.3
20
1.1
126
0.1
8.8
8.1
125
0.6
40
1.0
120
0.4
6.0
kg/ha*y
569.6
580.9
t/ha
t/ha
t/ha
GJ/t
19.0
16.0
17.0
Dfl/tkm
Dfl./t
MJ/tkm
GJ/ha*y
0.20
4.0
2.0
conversion process
GJ/ha*y
a
Source:
Lysen
et
al.
(1992)
b
Source:
W
2020b
M
P
W
0.29
0.29
1.6
0.29
0.29
2.5
2.3
2.9
3.4
0.0
1.2
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.08
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.02
6.0
0.0
1.3
0.012
6.0
0.0
1.4
0.02
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.01
6.0
2.0
1.5
0.01
6.0
1.8
1.7
920
700
730
1000
660
750
8.1
7.0
7.0
9.8
8.5
9.5
0.46
0.56
0.63
0.56
0.68
0.76
35.8
31.1
34.5
34.7
30.1
33.4
30.0
15.0
18.0
0.20
4.0
2.0
Biewinga and Bijl (1996)
107
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.6 Composition, energy content and expected costs of specific loads of biomass.
Moisture
Ash
Miscanthusa Poplar
Willowb
Black Oak
Douglas
Pine
Eucalyptus
Thinningsc
Unitd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50wt % wm
1.6
1.3
0.9- 3.2
wt % dm
Vollatiles
Fixed carbons
1.4
0.1
0.29
0.76
1.32
81.6
16.8
82.3
16.4
73.1-81.3
17.3-24.5
85.6
13.0
87.3
12.6
82.54
17.17
81.4
17.8
-
wt % dm
wt % dm
LHV
HHV
17.6
18.8
18.2
19.4
18.8-20.0
17.4
18.6
19.1
20.4
18.8
20.0
18.2
19.4
15.5 (a.r.)
19.2
MJ/kg dm
MJ/kg dm
Components
C
H
O
N
S
Cl
49.0
6.0
42.4
0.57
0.1
0.28
48.5
5.85
43.7
0.47
0.01
0.10
48.0-49.5
5.6- 6.1
41.2-44.6
0.2- 0.9
0.02- 0.13
0.002-0.13
49.0
6.0
43.5
0.15
0.02
-
50.6
6.2
43.0
0.06
0.02
-
49.3
6.0
44.36
0.06
0.03
0.01
49.0
5.9
44.0
0.3
0.01
0.13
49.10
6.00
44.30
0.48
0.01
0.10
wt % dm
wt % dm
wt % dm
wt % dm
wt % dm
wt % dm
42.9
50
ECU/dt
ECU/dt
Costs
Minimum
Maximum
a
Shoots only
b
Range from different loads
c
Value for poplar wood thinnings (Faaij et al.,1995b)
d
wt % dm = weight % dry material, dt = dry tonne
Source: Doorn (1995)
108
Biomass Fuel Cycle
5.1.2.2 Power generation
At the moment there are no commercially operated biomass-fired power stations in the
Netherlands. However, experiments with biomass fired and biomass co-fired plants are in
progress. At the coal fired conventional power station in Nijmegen in the Netherlands the
EPON has started experiments with co-firing with clean biomass chips. Amongst others the
PEN and NORIT NV have also launched studies on biomass input in electricity production.
Several studies on the biomass input for combined heat-power plants are also in progress.
As discussed in the previous section two types of fictional plants will be studied. One is a 600
MWe STEG coal fired plant with wood co-firing (WCF-plant) and the other is a 29 MWe
100% wood gasified combined cycle plant (WG-plant).
Wood processing and transport
For storage and drying the biomass it is assumed that the biomass is first stored for 6 to 10
weeks on the field until it has lost around 90% of the moisture For the two fictional wood fired
plants it is assumed that the wood is chipped at the production site and transported in
containers to the power plants. The containers are stored in an unloading area for a short
period and then placed on an automated traverse and dumping system. This system consists of
27 containers for the WCF plant and 39 containers for the WG plant to supply the plants with
the needed wood input for one day. The wood chips are unloaded into a reception hopper and
conveyed to the grinding area. In this area two respectively three grinders (10 t/h capacity
each) reduce the material from the original size to a particle size of 1-8 mm.
Electricity production
WCF-plant
For the fictional WCF plant it is assumed that approximately 20 MWe of the 600 MWe
produced in the coal fired E8-station will be replaced with biomass input. The E8-station has
been discussed extensively in Chapter 3. Therefore only adjustments needed for making the
plant suitable for biomass co-firing are discussed here.
After the first milling stage the biomass chips are transported to two intermediate storage bins
with a chain conveyer. Each bin contains 50 m3 at most and feeds two mill units with two
variable screw conveyers. In the mills the biomass chips are reduced in size and dried with
preheated air. The material leaving the mills enter a static classifier which removes
approximately 15-25% of the material <800 µm. Rejects from the classifier fall into a vibrating
screen where further separation between product and oversize occur. Oversize particles are reentered into the mills for further reduction. The final product is then collected in a dust
collector. The specifications of the wood powder are given in Table 5.7.
109
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.7 Specifications of wood powder.
Particle size distribution
Moisture
90% < 800µm
99% < 1000µm
100% < 1500µm
8% Dry Weight
Source: Penninks (1995)
Each of the mill systems operates independently and produces 2.5 t/hour of final product with a
density between 200 and 240 kg/m3. Wood powder from all four systems is combined in a
central collection bin and then conveyed over 600 meters to a 1000m3 storage silo adjacent to
the boiler. A metering system feeds the powder into four separate burner injection lines, each
capable of conveying 1.1 to 3.5 t/hour.
Four special Dual Air Zone (DAZ) Scroll Feed wood burners with a capacity of 20 MWth each
are mounted in the side walls of the boiler (two on each side). The DAZ wood burner is two
registers in one, with concentric louver zones, which divide the combustion air stream into two
counter rotating concentric streams. The result is a compact and controllable flame pattern.
The secondary air supply to the burners can be used as cooling air when the wood burners are
not in operation and only coal is used as a fuel (Pennink, 1995)
The technical data of this fictional WCF plant are given in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Other technical data of the WCF plant.
Technical data
Biomass part Coal part
Total
Unit
Gross electricity production
19.785
660
680
MWe
Sent out electricity production a
16.996
610
627
MWe
8
9
9
Net produced electricity
1.07*10
3.85*10
3.95*10
kWh/y
Average full load hours (over 25 years)
6305
6305
6305
h/y
Average load factor
72
72
72
%
Thermal efficiency b
44
44
44
%
Expected lifetime
25
25
25
y
a
Gross electricity production minus 1.025 MW for crushing and grinding and 1.764 MW
for the production of the wood powder and burning.
b
Based on 10 t/h input with an average moisture content of 15%.
Sources:
Pennink (1995) and UNA (1996)
WG plant
In the province of Noord-Holland a concrete initiative is taken to realise a Biomass Integrated
Gasifier/Combined Cycle (BIG/CC) unit. There are several types of BIG/CCs. An inventory of
potential technologies and a first feasibility study for Noord-Holland are given by Broek et al.
(1995) and van Ree (1994). The wet biomass chips are first dried in a conventional rotary
110
Biomass Fuel Cycle
dryer (Faaij and Meuleman, 1996). After that basically three concepts with circulating fluidised
bed (CFB) gasifiers can be applied (Faaij et al., 1995a):
• Direct (near) atmospheric gasification with ‘conventional’ low temperature gas cleaning
and compression of the fuel gas before combustion in a gas turbine. Heat from gas cooling
is used for steam production.
• Direct pressurised gasification with high temperature gas cleaning. This system is
pressurised by the compressor of the gas turbine.
• Indirect (near) atmospheric gasification , ‘conventional’ low temperature gas cleaning and
compression of the fuel gas before combustion in a gas turbine. In this concept middle
caloric gas (approx. 10 instead of 5-6 MJ/Nm3 for direct gasification) is produced.
The first two concepts are described in more detail by Elliot and Booth (1993) while the last
concept is described in more detail by Consonni and Larson (1994). The advantage of CFB
technology is that it has high flexibility for various fuel types and particle size and a high
conversion efficiency (Faaij et al., 1995a).
This study focuses on the direct atmospheric gasification process based on TPS (Swedish TPS
Thermiska Processor AB) gasification technology with low temperature gas cleaning. This
system is chosen because of the expected high flexibility for various biomass fuels with varying
degree of contamination and properties and because all parts of the system are commercially
proven (Faaij et al., 1995a). This process is described in detail by amongst others Studsvik
Energietechnik , TSSI (1994) and Waldheim (1993).
More details on the equipment assumed for the system are given in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9 Equipment assumptions for the WG plant.
Unit
Description
Dryer
Flue gas direct rotary dryer, 13.8 tonne water ev./hr. Mass flows and
temperatures for fuel of approximately 50% moisture: ‘Wet’ fuel gas: 81.5
kg/s, 80 oC, 1.1 bar. Output moisture content fuel is approximately 15%.
Gasifier
ACFB type TPS technology, 1.3 bar, 900 oC (depending on fuel), heat loss
2% of thermal input, Bed material: sand. Gasifier air: 1.3 bar, 400 oC.
Tar cracker
CFB reactor using dolomite.
Fuel gas cooler
T cooled from 900 oC to 140 oC.
Dust filter
Baghouse filter
Fuel gas scrubber
Spray tower using recirculating water.
Fuel gas compressor Multi storage compressor with intercooler
Gas turbine
General Electric LM 2500 (modified for Low Caloric Value gas - LCV
gas). This turbine is used in Sweden and under further development under
the GEF World bank Project in Brazil (van Ree et al., 1995)
HRSG
Superheater
Steam turbine
Two stage partly condensing steam turbine
Steam/Water cycle
Condenser, dearator and water pumps
FGD
A 70% effective flue gas desulpherisation unit using lime
Wet scrubber
A 100% effective wet scrubber for removal of H2S and NaOH
Source: Faaij et al. (1995a)
111
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Faaij et al. (1995a) assessed this system by applying ASPENplus by taking Poplar thinnings as
input (see Table 2.6 for the composition). They did not model the gasification process. Instead
data on delivered gas composition were generated by gasification tests at laboratory scale and
calculated gas composition.
Other technical data on the selected fictional WG plant are given in Table 5.10.
The operation and maintenance costs (incl. personnel, use of catalyst, chemicals , etc.) is set at
2.1 MECU/year.
Table 5.10 Other technical data of the "WG plant".
Technical data
Gross electricity production
Net electricity production
Net produced electricity
Average full load hours (over 25 years)
Average load factor (over 25 years)
Thermal efficiency (LHV a.r.)
Expected lifetime
Source:
Value
36.55
29.04
2.035*108
7008
80
42
25
Unit
MWe
MWe
kWh/y
h/y
%
%
y
Faaij et al. (1995a)
Bulk materials input for building and operating
Building materials
The amount of building material for construction of the WCF plant is assumed equal to the
amount of materials needed for constructing the E8 station (Dorland et al., 1995). On the
amount of building materials for the WG plant no data was readily available. Therefore, it is
assumed that it can be estimated with data from the WCF-plant and assuming proportionality
with the capacity. The results are given in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11 Building materials for the WCF and the WG plants.
Materials
WCF-plant
Concrete (ton)
175,000
Steel (ton)
63,000
Others (ton)
2,200
WG-plant
9,400
3,440
118
Inputs for operating
The most important inputs for operating the WCF and the WG plants are listed in Table 5.12
and Table 5.13 respectively.
112
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.12 Average yearly bulk inputs for the 627 MW WCF plant.
Input
Average amount
Poplar thinnings (50 weight % moisture)
approx. 128,000
Coal
1,260,000
a
Limestone
29,300
Cooling water a
670,000
Suppletion water for FGD a
max. 750,000
Bottom ash cooling water a
14,600
3
m /y
Other water (sanitary, etc.) a
not quantified
a
Assumed equal to 100% coal fired plant.
Table 5.13 Average yearly bulk inputs for the WG plant.
Input
Poplar thinnings (50weight % moisture)
Dolomite
NaOH
Cooling water
Other water (sanitary, etc.)
Average amount
235,000
7,920
16.2
assumed negligible
not quantified
Unit
t/y
t/y
t/y
m3/y
m3/y
Unit
t/y
t/y
t/y
5.2 Overview of burdens
5.2.1 Solid wastes
Only data on solid wastes in the power generation stage are readily available.
Power generation stage
WCF-plant
The solid wastes due to the fictional WCF plant are assumed to be equal to the solid wastes
from the E8 station, see Table 3.7 on page 61.
As in the coal fuel cycle it is assumed that all wastes are commercial materials and are sold.
Therefore they are not treated as waste materials but as commercial by-products.
WG-plant
The solid wastes due to the fictional WG plant are not well quantified in the available literature.
Estimates made by Faaij et al. (1995a) are given in Table 5.14.
113
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.14 Solid wastes from the WG-plant.
Product
Source
Ash
burner and scrubber
Gypsum
FGD
Quantity (t/y)
10,000
8,000
Source: Faaij et al. (1995a)
It is assumed that all wastes are commercial materials and are sold. According to Swedish
experience the ash can be used as a fertiliser (TPS, 1995). As the wastes are treated as
commercial by-products the external impact should be accounted for in the product cycle in
which the waste is used.
5.2.2 Atmospheric emissions
5.2.2.1 Power generation
The major emissions to air by the biomass plants can be divided into flue gas, fly ash from
storage, coal dust from open storage (WCF-plant only) and in-house transport. They are dealt
with below. Smaller emissions to air, e.g. from the unit for emergency power, have not been
taken into account because they are expected to be negligible in comparison to the emissions
mentioned above.
Flue gas emissions
WCF-plant
The air emission factors from the coal part of the fictional WCF plant are assumed to be equal
to the emissions from the E8 coal fired power plant upon which it is based. The emission
factors for the biomass part of the plant are derived from Faaij et al. (1995a). The emission
factors are given in Table 5.15. The emission factors are given for the production of one kWh
from biomass, coal and average.
The total flue gas emission, 516.8 Nm3/s with a temperature of 60oC, is calculated from the E8
station emission when 100% coal fired, the coal and biomass input and the relative density ratio
of coal to biomass.
114
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.15 Expected WCF plant air emissions.
Parameter
Emission factor
Flue gas emission
(g/kWh)
(mg/Nm3)
e
Biomass Coal
Average
Biomass
Coal e
Average
a
3
5
CO2
1077
900
906.4
9.7*10
2.95*10
3.05*105
b
SO2
0.010
0.411
0.40
0.087
134.6
134.7
NOx c
0.17
0.714
0.70
1.54
234.2
235.7
Particles d
0.0039
0.017
0.017
0.036
5.62
5.66
a
The CO2 capture with biomass production not included.
b
It is assumed that 90 % of the SO2 in the flue gas is captured with the FGD.
c
It is assumed that the NOx emission from biomass firing is proportional to N contents
of biomass and coal.
d
It is assumed that the particle emission from biomass firing relative to the emission from
coal is proportional to the ash contents of biomass and coal. With this assumption it is
assumed that the ESP is 99.95% effective.
e
see page 64
WG-plant
No reliable emission measurement data for the gasification plant were readily available for this
project. Results from modelling work performed by Faaij et al. (1995a) was used here. The
emission factors are given in Table 5.16. The total flue gas emission is assumed to be conform
to a STEG installation, i.e. 60 Nm3/s with a temperature of 70oC (Faaij et al, 1995a). The stack
is assumed to be 60 meters high and 7.7 meters in diameter (similar to the natural gas plant
stacks).
Table 5.16 Expected WG plant emissions.
Parameter
Emission factor
(g/kWh)
CO2
1035
SO2
0.0744
NOx
0.223
Particles
0.0298
CO
0.298
HCl
negligible
HF
not quantified
VOC
0.0744
Total heavy metals (excl. Cd and Hg)
0.00744
Cd and Cd compounds
0.000372
Hg and Hg compounds
0.000372
Total dioxins and dibenzofuranes
Flue gas emission
(mg/Nm3)
1.39*105
10
30
4
40
negligible
not quantified
10
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3
Source: Faaij et al. (1995a) and Faaij, personal communication.
115
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Fly ash and coal from storage
These emissions are only occur in the WCF-plant option. It is assumed the emissions do not
change because of the partial biomass replacement of coal. They are described in Section
3.2.2.5 on page 64.
In-house transport (workers, etc.)
Data on this subject are not readily available. As the relative contribution of these impacts is
expected to be negligible compared to the impacts of power generation emissions these
emissions are, therefore, not dealt with.
5.2.2.2 Transport of waste materials
The transport distance of the main solid waste materials (i.e. fly ash (WCF-plant only), gypsum
and furnace bottom ash) to the customer is estimated at an average of 200 km (return journey).
Transport takes place by barge. Emission factors for barge transport and the resulting
emissions per MWh electricity produced are given in Table 5.17. The results for the coal part
of the WCF-plant are given in Table 3.14.
Table 5.17 Emission (in g/MWh) and emission factor (in g/(t * km)) for barge transport of
waste materials.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
a
Emission factor barge transport
0.045
0.36
0.0024
24.7
Emission from transport of:
WCF-plant (Biomass part only)
fly ash
0.29
2.4
gypsum
0.11
0.92
furnace bottom ash
0.019
0.15
total waste
0.42
3.4
WG-plant
ash
0.44
3.5
gypsum
0.35
2.8
total waste
0.80
6.4
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998) Barge transport: Push vessel (1990 built).
0.016
0.0061
0.0010
0.023
160
63
10
233
0.024
0.019
0.042
243
194
437
The emissions of SO2, NOx and particles from transport are small relative to these emissions
from the power generation phase.
5.2.2.3 Power plant construction and dismantling
Specific data on emissions due to construction and dismantling are not readily available for the
plants. The WCF-plant construction and dismantling emissions are equal to those of the E8station emissions discussed in Section 3.2.2.6 page 67. Only the relative share, based on the
share of capacity biomass fuelled (2.9 %), is considered for the biomass part. For the WG plant
116
Biomass Fuel Cycle
it is assumed that the materials are transported by truck over 100 km (return journey). The
results are given in Table 5.18. The results for the coal part of the WCF-plant were given in
Table 3.13.
For truck transport the emission factors mentioned in the Auto Oil programme (EC, 1995) for
new technology pullers >16 t, 1998 built under SELA 1 and EURO 3C emission constraints,
are used.
Table 5.18 Emissions due to transport of construction and dismantling of the plants (in
g/MWh) and the emission factor (in g/(t * km) for truck transport.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
Emission factors :
Truck transport
0.076
0.47
0.0076
69
Construction or Dismantling
WCF-plant (Biomass part only)
Truck
0.019
0.12
0.0019
WG-plant
Truck
0.0011
0.0066
0.00011
18
0.98
5.2.2.4 Coal, biomass and limestone production and transport
Coal production and transport
The coal production and transport emission figures for the WCF-plant can be scaled down
from the E8-station data based on the amount of coal input, see Table 3.8.
Biomass production and transport
The biomass production and transport emissions are estimated based on the energy input in the
different stages of the productions phase and of transport, see Table 5.5 the poplar 1996 data.
It is assumed that the transport distance for the biomass from the production site to the plant is
100 km (return journey) by barge for the co-firing plant and 50 km (return journey) by truck
for the gasification plant. Furthermore, for simplicity reasons, it is assumed that the emission
factors for the agricultural machines and the cutting equipment are equal to the emission
factors for trucks. The energy input for the production of seedlings, fertilisers and protection
compounds (pesticides, etc.) are assumed to be 100% related to electricity use. The energy
input data of these production stages were already given in Table 5.5. The emission factors for
truck and barge transport, listed in Table 5.17 and Table 5.18 respectively, are used.
Furthermore, the CO2 emissions from the power generation stage are cancelled out by the CO2
plant uptake during growth. Therefore there are negative CO2 emissions in this stage.
117
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The results for the biomass part of the WCF-plant and the WG-plant are given in Table 5.19.
The results for the coal part of the WCF-plant were already given in Table 3.8.
Table 5.19 Emissions to air from biomass production and biomass transport in g/MWh.
SO2
NOx
Particles
CO2
WCF-plant (Biomass part only)
Biomass production
Biomass growth
-1,035,000
Seedlings
0.67
1.49
0.04
821
Fertiliser
5.81
12.91
0.31
7,106
Protection
0.046
0.10
0.0025
57
Machines
14
86
1.4
12,795
Chipping
3.0
19
0.30
2,772
Biomass transport
5.4
43
0.29
2,955
WG-plant
Biomass production
Biomass transport
Biomass growth
Seedlings
Fertiliser
Protection
Machines
Chipping
0.65
5.60
0.045
14
2.9
4.4
1.44
12.46
0.10
84
18
27
0.03
0.30
0.0024
1.4
0.29
0.44
-1,035,000
793
6,860
55
12,351
2,676
39,801
Limestone extraction
Data on emissions from limestone extraction were not readily available for the actually used
limestone from Belgium. As other studies showed that these emissions are relatively low
compared to the power generation stage emissions, they were not quantified (Linares et al.,
1997).
Limestone transport
According to the environmental impact assessment of the coal plant (the E8-station), lime is
transported in silos and loaded and unloaded under high pressure (EIA (1988). No limestone
emissions take place at these stages. It is assumed this is also the case for the gasification plant.
The lime transport from Belgium to the E8-station will be by barge; the emission factors given
in the methodology report are probably good estimates and therefore used in this study. The
transport distance is estimated to be 400 km (return journey). The limestone transport to the
gasification plant is assumed to take place by truck as there is no easy access from the Belgium
limestone extraction site to the plant. The transport distance is estimated at 700 km (return
journey). The emission factors for truck and barge transport, listed in Table 5.17 and Table
5.18 respectively, are used.
The estimated emissions due to limestone transport for the coal part of the co-firing fuel cycle
were already given in Table 3.8. The emissions for the biomass part of the co-firing fuel cycle
and for the gasification fuel cycle are given in Table 5.20.
118
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.20 Emissions due to transport of limestone (in g/MWh)
SO2
NOx
WCF-plant (Biomass part only)
Barge
0.70
5.6
Truck
1.2
1.8
WG-plant
Truck
2.1
Particles
13
CO2
0.037
0.029
384
268
0.21
1,878
5.2.2.5 Summary of air emissions
The air emissions in the different stages of the biomass fuel cycles of the biomass part of the
co-firing cycle and of the gasification cycle are given in Table 5.21. The air emissions of the
coal part of the co-firing cycle are given in Table 3.15.
Table 5.21 Summary of air emissions of the biomass fuel cycles in g/MWh.
Fuel cycle stages
Particles
SO2
NOx
WCF-plant (Biomass part only)
1. Biomass production
• Biomass growth
0.35
6.5
15
• Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection
1.7
17
105
• Machines/Chipping
2. Biomass transport
0.29
5.4
43
3. Limestone extraction
ng
ng
ng
4a. Limestone transport by barge
0.037
0.70
5.6
4b. Limestone transport by truck
0.029
1.2
1.8
5. Power generation
3.9
10
169
6. Power plant construction
0.00011
0.00108
0.0066
7. Power plant dismantling
0.00011
0.00108
0.0066
8. Waste transport
0.023
0.42
3.4
-1,035,000
7,984
15,567
2,955
ng
384
268
1,077,000
0.98
0.98
301
WG-plant
1. Biomass production
• Biomass growth
• Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection
• Machines/Chipping
2. Biomass transport
3. Limestone extraction
4. Limestone transport
5. Power generation
6. Power plant construction
7. Power plant dismantling
8. Waste transport
-1,035,000
7,707
15,027
39,801
ng
1,878
1,035,000
18
18
437
0.34
1.7
0.44
ng
0.21
30
0.0019
0.0019
0.042
6.3
17
4.4
ng
2.1
74
0.019
0.019
0.80
14
102
27
ng
13
223
0.12
0.12
6.4
CO2
119
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
5.2.3 Water and soil emissions
Only data on the emissions from the power generation stages are available.
The emissions to water from the WCF-plant were discussed in Section 3.2.3. They will not be
discussed here. It is assumed that they do not change due to the limited shift in input from coal
to biomass. Emissions to soil were not quantified.
The emissions to water from the WG-plant is mainly consisting of condenser water and drying
water. The condenser water used is recirculated so almost no water is emitted. The drying
water use is estimated at 96,700 t/y. This effluent can be discharged to a normal water
treatment plant where it can be cleaned sufficiently.
5.2.4 Biomass production emissions
The emissions of nutrients and plant protection compounds are estimated in the appendix to
the biomass fuel cycle. The summary results are given in Table 5.22 to Table 5.24.
Table 5.22 Emissions of Nutrients to water (leaching to groundwater, run off and erosion).
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Kaliumoxides
(N)
(P2O5)
(K2O)
Emission to water in kg/ha.y a
6.6
2.1
2.1
Emission to water in g/MWh
138
WCF-plant
483
WG-plant
a
Tree concept as defined in appendix biomass fuel cycle.
Table 5.23 Emissions of Nutrients to air.
Pollutant
N2
Emission to water in kg/ha.y a
6.2 b
44
154
44
154
N2O
0.80 b
NH3
1.0 c
Emission to water in g/MWh
130
17
21
WCF-plant
454
56
56
WG-plant
a
Poplar data from appendix biomass fuel cycle.
b
Emission factor is 7 (attainable N2+N2O for poplar)-0.8 (estimated attainable N2O for
poplar).
c
Attainable for poplar.
120
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.24 Emissions of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides for tree cultivation.
Air release
Surface water Ground water
Land erosion
Emission in kg/ha.y
Herbicides a
0.16
0.022
0.017
0.0011
Fungicides a
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
a
Insecticides
0.0074
0.00087
0.00087
0.00043
Emission in g/MWh
WCF-plant
Herbicides
3.4
0.46
0.36
0.23
Fungicides
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
Insecticides
0.16
0.018
0.018
0.0091
WG-pant
Herbicides
12
1.6
1.3
0.80
Fungicides
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
Insecticides
0.54
0.064
0.064
0.032
a
Source: see appendix to the biomass fuel cycle
n.d.: no data
5.2.5 Occupational accidents and diseases
No data on the occupational accidents and diseases of biomass production stage are readily
available. As the labour input in this stage is low the accident and disease rates will probably
also be low. Therefore, the damages are probably negligible compared to the occupational
damages in the other fuel cycle stages.
The impacts in the other fuel cycle stages are assumed to be similar to those from the coal fuel
cycle stage. The impacts mainly occur in the limestone/dolomite extraction, transport and
power plant construction, operation and dismantling stages.
The method in which the impacts are estimated for each individual fuel cycle stage is given in
the appendix to the biomass fuel cycle. In Table 5.25 the results are summarised for the
biomass part of the co-firing fuel cycle and for the gasification fuel cycle. The results for the
coal part of the co-firing fuel cycle were already given in Table 3.18.
121
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.25 Occupational health impacts of the biomass fuel cycles.
Fuel cycle stage
Fatal
Major
accidents
accidents
& diseases
& diseases
per TWh
per TWh
WCF fuel cycle(biomass part only)
Biomass production
0.0
0.0
Limestone extraction
0.000050
0.0010
Biomass transport
0.00087
0.0048
Limestone transport
0.0047
0.055
Power plant construction
0.0099
0.26
Power plant dismantling
0.0013
0.030
Power plant operation
0.0085
0.21
Operation- and waste
material transport
0.0124
0.056
WG fuel cycle
Biomass production
Limestone extraction
Biomass transport
Limestone transport
Power plant construction
Power plant dismantling
Power plant operation
Operation- and waste
material transport
Minor
accidents
& diseases
per TWh
0.0
0.027
0.13
1.5
9.2
0.98
8.8
2.6
0.0
0.000050
0.057
0.027
0.0092
0.0012
0.0085
0.0
0.0010
0.75
0.35
0.24
0.028
0.21
0.0
0.027
21
9.9
8.5
0.91
8.8
0.011
0.0058
1.5
5.3 Quantification of impacts and damages
The priority impacts that should be considered in this fuel cycle are shown in the next table.
Table 5.26 Priority impacts of the coal fuel cycle.
Impacts
Biomass production/
limestone extraction
Global warming
x
Public health
Occupational health
x
Crops
Forests
Ecosystems
x
Materials
Noise
x
Visual impact
x
Transport
Generation
Construction
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
In the next sections the impacts and damages are given by fuel cycle stage. The non-power
generation fuel cycle stages are discussed together.
122
Biomass Fuel Cycle
5.3.1 Non-power generation fuel cycle stages
In this section only the biomass fired part of the co-firing fuel cycle is dealt with. The impacts
and damages of the coal fired part are assumed to be equal to the impacts and damages
estimated in the coal fuel cycle study in this report. Impacts and damages of the complete
gasification fuel cycle are given here as the gasification plant is 100% biomass fuelled.
The impacts considered most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases,
atmospheric emissions on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming
impacts.
Occupational accidents and diseases occur in all stages of the biomass fuel cycles. The
summary of the impacts was given in Table 5.25. Fatal , major and minor accidents and
diseases are valued at 3.1 MECU, 95,050 ECU and 6,970 ECU respectively. For a discussion
on the valuation we refer to the methodology part of this report. The resulting damage
estimates are given in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27 Occupational health damages in the non-power generation fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh.
Fuel cycle stages
Fatal
Major
Minor
accidents
accidents
accidents
& diseases
& diseases
& diseases
WCF fuel cycle (biomass part only)
Biomass production
0.00
0.00
0.00
Limestone extraction
0.00016
0.00010
0.00019
Biomass transport
0.0027
0.00046
0.00088
Limestone transport
0.015
0.0053
0.011
Power plant construction
0.031
0.025
0.064
Power plant dismantling
0.0039
0.0029
0.0068
Power plant operation
0.026
0.020
0.062
Operation- and waste
material transport
0.039
0.0053
0.018
WG fuel cycle
Biomass production
Limestone extraction
Biomass transport
Limestone transport
Power plant construction
Power plant dismantling
Power plant operation
Operation- and waste
material transport
0.00
0.00016
0.18
0.0828
0.028
0.0036
0.026
0.00
0.00010
0.071
0.0337
0.023
0.0027
0.020
0.00
0.00019
0.147
0.0693
0.059
0.0063
0.062
0.033
0.0006
0.0103
123
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The global warming damages in the non-power generation fuel cycle stages are quantified by
using the damage estimates from the ExternE core assessment for different discount rates (1, 3
and 5%) and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The low,
mid and high estimates are given. The low and high estimate give an indication of the range of
model uncertainty of the impacts. For a description of the methodology see the methodology
part of this report. The results are given in Table 5.28 and Table 5.29 for WCF and WG fuel
cycles respectively.
A methodology for analysing the impacts and damages related to non-CO2 emissions in the non
power generation fuel cycle stages is not given in this study. However, for transport related
emissions a methodology was developed in the ExternE transport study (ExternE transport,
1997). In this study the ExternE accounting framework was adjusted to fit transport emission
specific questions such as low to the ground emission dispersion. The Dutch results from this
study, are used here (Dorland et al., 1997). The impacts are too diverse and many to be
mentioned separately here. As mentioned before, new (1998 built) truck transport technologies
were assumed as the biomass fuel cycles will not become fully operational before the year
2000. For barge transport old (1990) technologies were assumed as data on new technologies
was not readily available. The core (YOLL based) damage results are given in Table 5.30. The
damage estimates based on VSL (Value of Statistical Life) are on average higher than the
YOLL estimate by:
• a factor 30 for acute mortality impacts (as with NOx ozone damages);
• a factor 4 higher for chronic mortality impacts (the main sulphate, nitrate and particle
damages).
124
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.28 Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions in
mECU/kWh and ECU/t.
Fuel cycle stage
mECU/kWh
low
mid
1. Biomass production
Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection ExternE - 1%
0.18
0.37
ExternE - 3%
0.062
0.14
ExternE - 5%
0.029
0.068
IPCC
0.012
0.048
Machines/Chipping
ExternE - 1%
0.34
0.73
ExternE - 3%
0.12
0.28
ExternE - 5%
0.056
0.13
IPCC
0.023
0.09
2. Biomass transport
ExternE - 1%
0.065
0.14
ExternE - 3%
0.023
0.053
ExternE - 5%
0.011
0.025
IPCC
0.0044
0.018
3. Limestone extraction
ExternE - 1%
ng
ng
ExternE - 3%
ng
ng
ExternE - 5%
ng
ng
IPCC
ng
ng
4a. Limestone transport - barge ExternE - 1%
0.0085 0.0179
ExternE - 3%
0.0030 0.0069
ExternE - 5%
0.0014 0.0033
IPCC
0.00058 0.0023
4b. Limestone transport - truck ExternE - 1%
0.0059
0.013
ExternE - 3%
0.0021 0.0048
ExternE - 5%
0.0010 0.0023
IPCC
0.0004 0.0016
5. Power generation
ExternE - 1%
24
50
ExternE - 3%
8.4
19
ExternE - 5%
3.9
9.2
IPCC
1.6
6.5
6. Power plant construction
ExternE - 1% 2.2E-05 4.6E-05
ExternE - 3% 7.7E-06 1.8E-05
ExternE - 5% 3.5E-06 8.4E-06
IPCC
1.5E-06 5.9E-06
7. Power plant dismantling
ExternE - 1% 2.2E-05 4.6E-05
ExternE - 3% 7.7E-06 1.8E-05
ExternE - 5% 3.5E-06 8.4E-06
IPCC
1.5E-06 5.9E-06
8. Waste transport
ExternE - 1% 5.2E-03 1.1E-02
ExternE - 3% 1.8E-03 4.2E-03
ExternE - 5% 8.4E-04 2.0E-03
IPCC
3.5E-04 1.4E-03
TOTAL
ExternE - 1%
24
52
ExternE - 3%
8.6
20
ExternE - 5%
4.0
9.4
IPCC
1.7
6.6
the WCF fuel cycle stages in
high
ECU/t
low
mid
high
1.1
0.43
0.20
0.30
2.2
0.83
0.39
0.58
0.41
0.16
0.075
0.11
ng
ng
ng
ng
0.054
0.021
0.010
0.014
0.037
0.014
0.0068
0.010
151
58
27
40
1.4E-04
5.2E-05
2.5E-05
3.7E-05
1.4E-04
5.2E-05
2.5E-05
3.7E-05
3.3E-02
1.2E-02
5.9E-03
8.7E-03
154
59
28
41
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
22.1
7.8
3.6
1.5
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
46.7
18.0
8.5
6.0
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
139.8
53.5
25.2
37.5
125
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.29 Global warming damages due to CO2 emissions in the WG fuel cycle stages in
mECU/kWh and ECU/t.
Fuel cycle stage
mECU/kWh
ECU/t
low
mid
high
low
mid high
1. Biomass production
Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection ExternE - 1%
0.17
0.36
1.1
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.060
0.14
0.41
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.028
0.066
0.19
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.012
0.046
0.29
1.5
6.0 37.5
Machines/Chipping
ExternE - 1%
0.33
0.70
2.1
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.12
0.27
0.80
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.054
0.13
0.38
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.023
0.09
0.56
1.5
6.0 37.5
2. Biomass transport
ExternE - 1%
0.09
0.2
0.6
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.03
0.07
0.2
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.01
0.03
0.1
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.006
0.02
0.1
1.5
6.0 37.5
3. Limestone extraction
ExternE - 1%
ng
ng
ng
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
ng
ng
ng
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
ng
ng
ng
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
ng
ng
ng
1.5
6.0 37.5
4. Limestone transport
ExternE - 1%
0.042
0.088
0.26
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.015
0.034
0.10
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.0068
0.016
0.047
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.0028
0.011
0.070
1.5
6.0 37.5
5. Power generation
ExternE - 1%
22.9
48.3
144.7
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
8.1
18.6
55.3
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
3.7
8.8
26.1
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
1.6
6.2
38.9
1.5
6.0 37.5
6. Power plant construction
ExternE - 1% 3.9E-04 8.2E-04 2.5E-03 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3% 1.4E-04 3.2E-04 9.4E-04 7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5% 6.3E-05 1.5E-04 4.4E-04 3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
2.6E-05 1.1E-04 6.6E-04 1.5
6.0 37.5
7. Power plant dismantling
ExternE - 1% 3.9E-04 8.2E-04 2.5E-03 22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3% 1.4E-04 3.2E-04 9.4E-04 7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5% 6.3E-05 1.5E-04 4.4E-04 3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
2.6E-05 1.1E-04 6.6E-04 1.5
6.0 37.5
8. Waste transport
ExternE - 1%
0.010
0.020
0.061
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
0.0034 0.0079
0.023
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
0.0016 0.0037
0.011
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
0.0007 0.0026
0.016
1.5
6.0 37.5
TOTAL
ExternE - 1%
23.5
49.7
148.7
22.1 46.7 139.8
ExternE - 3%
8.3
19.2
56.9
7.8
18.0 53.5
ExternE - 5%
3.8
9.1
26.8
3.6
8.5 25.2
IPCC
1.6
6.4
39.9
1.5
6.0 37.5
126
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.30 Particles, SO2 and NOx emission damages from the non power generation fuel
cycle stages.
Fuel cycle stage
Particles
SO2
NOx
mECU/kWh kECU/t a mECU/kWh kECU/t a mECU/kWh kECU/t a
WCF fuel cycle (biomass part only)
1. Biomass production
-Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection
0.0063
-Machines/Chipping
0.33
2. Biomass transport
0.056
3. Limestone extraction
ng
4a. Limestone transport - barge
0.007
4b. Limestone transport - truck
0.006
6. Power plant construction
0.000021
7. Power plant dismantling
0.000021
8. Waste transport
0.004
18
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
0.046
0.14
0.043
ng
0.006
0.002
0.000009
0.000009
0.0034
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
0.096
0.65
0.27
ng
0.03
0.01
0.000041
0.000041
0.021
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
WG fuel cycle
1. Biomass production
-Seedlings/Fertiliser/Protection
-Machines/Chipping
2. Biomass transport
3. Limestone extraction
4. Limestone transport
6. Power plant construction
7. Power plant dismantling
8. Waste transport
18
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
0.044
0.13
0.035
ng
0.016
0.00015
0.00015
0.0063
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
0.093
0.63
0.17
ng
0.079
0.00074
0.00074
0.039
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
0.0060
0.32
0.09
ng
0.040
0.00038
0.00038
0.008
a
Source: Dorland et al. (1998): Barge transport: the Rotterdam to Nijmegen transport task (1990 built
push vessel). Truck transport: the Amsterdam to Schiphol transport task (1998 built puller >16 t).
Impacts on ecosystems from the biomass production stage arise from all nutrient uses,
agrochemical use and machine use. In the appendix the burdens are analysed in more detail and
a qualitative approach towards quantifying the impacts is given. The impacts could not be
quantified. In a study performed by Faaij and Meuleman (1997) the impacts and damages
quantified are from nitrogen leaching to groundwater and the use of agrochemicals for plant
protection. Faaij and Meuleman (1997) analysed a comparable biomass system as the WG fuel
cycle analysed in this report. The damages of nitrogen leaching were estimated using the
willingness to pay (WTP) for avoiding nitrogen emission to groundwater. The WTP study was
performed by Silvander (1991) and was mainly based on inquiries using health standards as a
reference. It is however highly questionable if the WTP value found (0.65-6.6 ECU/kg N in
ground and surface water) can also be used if nitrogen leaching is lower than the standards, as
is the case with most wood production systems. Therefore, these estimates are not used here.
The damages of agrochemical use were based on shadow prices of pesticide use. Davidson et
al. (1996) estimated these shadow prices at 44-110 ECU/kg active matter. They were
estimated by estimating the costs of average production losses due to lower agrochemical use
in the agricultural sector in the Netherlands. However, the use of shadow prices for estimating
externalities is not in line with the ExternE approach. Furthermore, the avoided damages with
shifting from normal agricultural use of the area to biomass production for nitrogen leaching
127
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
were estimated at 0.8 mECU/kWh by Faaij and Meuleman (1997). Faaij and Meuleman (1997)
estimated the employment increment effects and the GDP- increment due to biomass
cultivation at 0.8 and 6.0 mECU/kWh respectively. These benefits are not dealt with within the
ExternE approach.
5.3.2 Power generation
As with the non-power generation stage, in the power generation stage the impacts considered
most relevant are those caused by occupational accidents and diseases and by atmospheric
emissions on human health, materials, crops and ecosystems, and global warming impacts. The
individual impacts and damages are given in the appendix to the coal fuel cycle. The impacts of
SO2 emissions on monuments are not analysed for the biomass fuel cycles as it was shown in
the coal fuel cycle analysis that the damages are negligibly low compared to most other
damages categories. The global warming damages are given in Table 5.28 and Table 5.29. It
should be noted that damages ascribed to CO2 emissions due to the power generation stage are
cancelled out by the CO2 uptake during tree growth. The global warming damages of this stage
should be zero therefore.
Also with the power generation damages due to SO2, NOx and particles the damage estimates
based on VSL are on average higher than the YOLL estimate by:
• a factor 30 for acute mortality impacts (as with NOx ozone damages);
• a factor 4 higher for chronic mortality impacts (the main sulphate, nitrate and particle
damages).
Impacts of emissions to water could not be quantified because of the lack of relevant exposureresponse functions and valuation methods for water ecosystems. These impacts are probably
mainly local. In case of the co-firing plant they will probably be negligible because the water
emissions into a harbour and a canal and then to sea. The ecosystems affected probably have a
low sensitivity as they are already highly polluted. It must be kept in mind that only marginal
costs of additional production is analysed. In the case of the gasification plant the emissions go
directly into a very sensitive and unique ecosystem. The impacts may be significant but could
not be quantified due to the lack of exposure-response functions and monetary values.
With respect to solid wastes it should be kept in mind that they are marketable and thus should
be treated as by-products. Therefore, externalities arising from these wastes should not be
attributed to the coal fuel cycle. They are not considered here.
Noise and visual amenity losses are not analysed because the methodology to do so is not well
enough established in the project. These impacts are probably small as a relative small number
of people are affected.
A short summary of the damages is given in the next section.
128
Biomass Fuel Cycle
5.4 Summary and interpretation of results
The summary results in mECU/kWh for the wood co-firing (WCF) and the wood gasification
(WG) fuel cycle are given in Table 5.31 and Table 5.32 respectively. The core estimates are
based on the Years Of Life lost (YOLL) approach for valuing mortality impacts. In the
Sensitivity 1 analysis the same set of functions as in the core assessment is used but now
mortalities are valued with the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) approach. In the Sensitivity 2
analysis additional exposure-response functions on health, ecosystems and forests are added on
which scientists are in disagreement or for which impacts there is no agreement on the
monetary valuation.
The global warming damages are quantified by using the damage estimates from the ExternE
core assessment and the estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In
the ExternE range the low and high estimate represents the lower and upper “boundary” of the
so called “Conservative 95% confidence interval” (the low 5% and high 1% discount rate
estimates). The mid range represents the so called “mid 3% and mid 1% discount rate
estimates”. For the IPCC estimates the mid estimate represents the best guess at a 3% discount
rate. For a further discussion see the global warming appendix.
The results have to be interpreted as order of magnitude estimates of the geometric mean of
the damages for each category. The geometric standard deviation ( g) classes A, B and C
represent ranges of multiplication factors 2.5-4, 4-6 and 6-10 respectively.
It is clear that public human health impacts due to aerosols formed from SO2 and NOx
emissions are high. The impacts in the non-power generation stage are mainly due to the high
impacts of emissions related to truck and barge transport of the biomass from the plantations
to the power plant.
The direct and indirect (aerosols) local range (100*100 km around the power plant) public
health impacts due to SO2 and NOx emissions in the power generation stage are about 1/3 and
1/10 of the total public health impacts in the regional range (the whole of Europe) of the WCF
and the WG power generation stages, respectively. The contribution of the local range impacts
for the WCF plant is relatively high compared to the WG plant as the local range population
density around the WCF plant is higher than around the WG plant. The impacts outside the
regional range increase exponentially with the distance from the plant as the population
exposed grows exponentially, the pollutants disperse over large distances and, as for the local
range, the linearity of exposure-response function and the no threshold assumptions. The
relatively high public health impacts of the WG plant compared to the WCF plant are due to
the higher emission factors. For the air emission related transport damages the local
contribution is even higher (up to 95% for particle emission impacts and 50% for direct SO2
emission impacts) due to the low to the ground emission source and the following change in
atmospheric distribution pattern (higher concentrations close to the source), see Dorland et al.
(1998).
129
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Occupational health effects occur at all stages of the biomass fuel cycle. The occupational
impacts in the biomass production stage could not be quantified. However, as this stage is
labour extensive these damages are probably negligible. To the extent that labour markets
function perfectly, occupational health effects are internal rather than external effects in the
sense that they are reflected in salary and pension payments or other compensations; therefore
they are included in the electricity price. However, to date there is no available data on the
functioning of the labour markets of the energy sector. Therefore, the occupational health costs
analysed in this study are assumed to be external damage costs. The occupational health
impacts occur all inside the Netherlands.
The global warming impacts are estimated to be of the same order of magnitude as these public
health damages. With respect to the global warming damages the results show the IPCC
estimates are roughly a factor 3 lower than the lower bound of the midrange estimates obtained
by the core group on global warming in this project. The reasons for the observed difference
are the higher value of a statistical life used in the ExternE project (a factor 1-1.5 higher than in
IPCC) and the fact that in the ExternE estimates that all world citizens are valued equally while
in IPCC a regional differentiated valuation is used.
Furthermore, it is clear that damages to monuments, materials, forests, crops and ecosystems
are probably relatively small compared to the public health and the global warming damages.
With respect to the non quantified public accident, noise and visual impacts it is expected that
these are negligibly low compared to the public health impacts. This resulted from analyses
performed in the Spanish, the Greek and the Italian national implementation studies. Therefore,
no attempt was made in analysing these damages.
It should be noted that damages ascribed to CO2 emissions due to the power generation stage
are cancelled out by the CO2 uptake during tree growth, see Table 5.33 and Table 5.34.
130
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.31 Damages of the WCF fuel cycle.
mECU/kWh
Core a Sensitivity 1 b Sensitivity 2 b
POWER GENERATION
Public health
- Mortality
- PM10
- SO2 d
- NOx e
- NOx (via ozone)
- Morbidity
- PM10, SO2 d and NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
Public accidents
Occupational health
Crops
- SO2
- NOx (via ozone)
Ecosystems
Forest
Materials f
Monuments f
Noise
Visual impacts
Global warming c
low
mid (3% discount rate)
upper
OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES
Public health
Outside EU
Inside EU
Occupational health Outside EU
Inside EU
Ecological effects
Road damages
e
0.059
0.22
0.22
0.051
0.18
0.18
0.91
3.3
4.0
0.069
2.5
2.5
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.12
ng
ng
ng
0.11
0.11
0.11
6.9E-05
6.9E-05
4.0E-04
0.059
0.059
0.059
iq
iq
2.4E-04
nq
nq
2.4E-04
0.022
0.022
0.022
nq
nq
nq
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ExternE range IPCC range
3.9
1.6
19-50
6.5
151
40
g
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
0
0
0
B
1.7
7.6
8.4
A
0
0
0
A
0.23
0.23
0.23
B
ng
A
ng
ExternE range IPCC range
Global warming c
low
C
0.099
0.041
mid (3% discount rate)
C
0.49-1.3
0.16
upper
C
3.8
1.0
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
d
Mainly impacts due to sulfates formed from SO2 in the atmosphere and direct SO2 impacts.
e
Mainly impacts due to nitrates formed from NOx in the atmosphere.
f
Including damage estimates estimated with extended methodology.
ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant
131
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.32 Damages of the WG fuel cycle.
mECU/kWh
Core a Sensitivity 1 b Sensitivity 2 b
POWER GENERATION
Public health
- Mortality
- PM10
- SO2 d
- NOx e
- NOx (via ozone)
- Morbidity
- PM10, SO2 d and NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
Public accidents
Occupational health
Crops
- SO2
- NOx (via ozone)
Ecosystems
Forest
Materials f
Monuments f
Noise
Visual impacts
Global warming c
low
mid (3% discount rate)
upper
OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES
Public health
Outside EU
Inside EU
Occupational health Outside EU
Inside EU
Ecological effects
Road damages
e
0.40
1.5
1.5
0.39
1.3
1.3
1.1
4.0
4.9
0.092
3.3
3.3
0.24
0.24
0.35
0.16
0.16
0.16
ng
ng
ng
0.11
0.11
0.11
4.7E-03
4.7E-03
4.9E-03
0.078
0.078
0.078
iq
iq
3.2E-04
nq
nq
4.5E-04
0.023
0.023
0.023
nq
nq
nq
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
ExternE range IPCC range
3.7
1.6
19-48
6.2
145
39
g
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
0
0
0
B
1.7
7.5
8.2
A
0
0
0
A
0.75
0.75
0.75
B
ng
ng
ng
A
ng
ng
ng
ExternE range IPCC range
Global warming c
low
C
0.10
0.044
mid (3% discount rate)
C
0.52-1.4
0.17
upper
C
4.1
1.1
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
d
Mainly impacts due to sulfates formed from SO2 in the atmosphere and direct SO2 impacts.
e
Mainly impacts due to nitrates formed from NOx in the atmosphere.
f
Including damage estimates estimated with extended methodology.
ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant
132
Biomass Fuel Cycle
Table 5.33 Benefit estimates of the WCF fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
Tree growth
ExternE range
IPCC range
global warming
global warming
low
3.9
1.6
mid (3% discount rate)
19-50
6.5
upper
151
40
Table 5.34 Benefit estimates of the WG fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
Tree growth
ExternE range
IPCC range
global warming
global warming
low
3.7
1.6
mid (3% discount rate)
19-48
6.2
upper
145
39
g
C
C
C
g
C
C
C
For the power generation stage of the WCF and the WG fuel cycle the damages are also
estimated in ECU/t pollutant emitted, see Table 5.35 and Table 5.36 respectively.
Table 5.35 Damage estimates of the WCF power generation stage in ECU/t pollutant emitted.
Pollutant
Core a
Sensitivity 1 b
Sensitivity 2 b
g
SO2
NOx
PM10
NOx (via ozone)
CO2 c
7,211
6,085
16,830
1,494
ExternE range
28,145
20,505
56,718
15,731
IPCC range
29,735
24,710
56,730
15,731
low
3.6
1.5
mid (3% discount rate)
18-47
6.0
high
140
38
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
133
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 5.36 Damage estimates of the WG power generation stage in ECU/t pollutant emitted.
Pollutant
Core a
Sensitivity 1 b
Sensitivity 2 b
g
SO2
NOx
PM10
NOx (via ozone)
CO2 c
6,205
5,553
15,006
1,494
ExternE range
27,331
18,711
50,576
15,731
IPCC range
28,836
22,521
50,587
15,731
low
3.6
1.5
mid (3% discount rate)
18-47
6.0
high
140
38
a
The core estimates for mortality are obtained with the YOLL approach.
b
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
The sensitivity estimates for mortality impacts are obtained with the VSL approach.
c
The sensitivity estimates for the global warming impacts are obtained by using the IPCC
estimates (second column). The core estimates are derived from the ExternE interpretation of
the FUND model (first column) damage estimates.
The results indicate that especially the impacts from SO2, NOx and particle emissions are very
high per tonne pollutant emitted. The reason for these high numbers are the high public health
impacts due to aerosols and particles in the air. The externalities could probably be lowered by
lowering the transport needs or shifting from truck or barge transport of biomass to shipping.
This would mean that importing biomass by ship would decrease the overall damages
considerably.
Per tonne pollutant the global warming impacts of CO2 are relatively small. However, the
overall damage is large due to the very high emission factors associated with fossil fuel burning
without CO2 removal.
Comparison of the damage estimates in Sensitivity 1 and 2 indicates that inclusion of health,
ecosystem and forest exposure-response functions not included in the core list of functions
(used for both the Core analysis and the Sensitivity 1 analysis) does not lead to a significant
increase in the damage estimates. Because of this and the disagreement about the functions or
the valuation the Sensitivity 2 estimates are not included in the overall summary of the damages
below.
The sub-total damage estimates are given for four combinations of valuation:
1. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
2. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage estimates;
3. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming damage estimates and
4. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) ) public health estimates and ExternE global warming damage
estimates.
134
Biomass Fuel Cycle
The results are given in Table 5.37 and Table 5.38 for the WCF and the WG fuel cycle
respectively.
Table 5.37 Sub total damage estimates of the WCF fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
ExternE range ExternE range
IPCC range
IPCC range
global warming global warming global warming global warming
3.6
14.6
3.5
14.5
4.0-4.8
15.0-15-8
3.7
14.6
7.3
18.3
4.5
15.5
g
C
C
C
Table 5.38 Sub total damage estimates of the WG fuel cycle in mECU/kWh.
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
Core &
Sensitivity 1 &
ExternE range ExternE range
IPCC range
IPCC range
global warming global warming global warming global warming
19.1
5.1
19.1
5.1
19.2
5.6-6.5
19.5-20.4
5.2
20.1
9.1
23.1
6.1
g
C
C
C
The total damages, based on the conservative 95 % confidence interval over all combinations
of valuation, are in the range of 3.5 to 18.3 mECU/kWh for the WCF fuel cycle and 5.1 to
23.1 mECU/kWh for the WG fuel cycle. The best estimate ranges are 3.7 to 14.6 mECU/kWh
for the WCF fuel cycle and 5.2 to 19.2 mECU/kWh for the WG fuel cycle. This is surprisingly
high for electricity production with a renewable energy source.
The externalities are estimated to be roughly one order of magnitude lower than average
current biomass based electricity production costs - 70 to 110 mECU/kWh (TEB, 1995).
135
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
136
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
6. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
A short description of the methodology to assess the nuclear fuel cycle externalities is given in
the appendix to this fuel cycle.
6.1 Definition of the nuclear fuel cycle, technology and site
This chapter describes the results of a scoping study to determine the external costs of the
Dutch nuclear fuel cycle performed within the framework of the ExternE project. The emphasis
in the scoping study was on those stages of the Dutch nuclear fuel cycle which actually take
place in the Netherlands. These stages were studied in detail to determine whether the external
costs for these stages differ significantly from those calculated in the French reference study
(Dreicer et al., 1994). The stages of the Dutch nuclear fuel cycle which do not take place in the
Netherlands have been analysed in detail in the French reference study (Dreicer et al., 1994)
and where applicable the results of that study have been used for this Dutch implementation.
The electricity generating stage is the raison d'être of the civil nuclear fuel cycle. As of
1 January 1994 there were 429 operating nuclear power plant worldwide which represented an
installed capacity of 338 GWe. There were recently two electricity generating nuclear reactors
in the Netherlands: the Dodewaard boiling water reactor, operated by
N.V. Gemeenschappelijke Kernenergiecentrale Nederland (GKN), and the Borssele pressurised
water reactor, operated by N.V. Elektriciteits-Productiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland (EPZ).
Together these reactors have a capacity of 505 MWe, which represents circa 5% of the Dutch
electricity requirement. Now (1997) no nuclear power plant is operated anymore in the
Netherlands.
The Dodewaard nuclear power plant is a 56 MWe boiling water reactor which started
operation in 1968. The Dodewaard reactor was built and is operated with the primary objective
of gaining experience of nuclear power. The Borssele nuclear power plant is a 449 MWe
pressurised water reactor which started operation in 1973. These two plants contributed
approximately 5% to the electricity needs of the Netherlands in 1990.
Since there is no modern (i.e. 1990s technology) nuclear power plant in the Netherlands the
reference technology for the electricity generating stage was defined to be a "generic" modern
nuclear power plant.
The nuclear fuel cycle spans all the operations required to mine and process uranium ore, to
manufacture and supply fuel to nuclear power reactors, to generate electricity, to store and
dispose of spent fuel and other wastes, and possibly the operations required to reprocess and
137
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
recycle spent fuel. The transport of materials between each stage in the cycle is also classified
as part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Dutch nuclear fuel cycle is assumed for this study to be a
so-called once through fuel cycle with reprocessing. This is consistent with the current policy
of the Dutch government, which is to reprocess used fuel, and with the current reality, which is
that to date the plutonium extracted from the used fuel has not been reused in the nuclear
power plants.
The stages in the nuclear fuel cycle are shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1
138
Stages of the nuclear fuel cycle
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
6.1.1 Site description
6.1.1.1 Mining and milling
Mining and milling often occur at the same location to avoid the costly transportation of bulky
ores. No uranium mining or milling activities occur in the Netherlands. The reference
technology considered is the mining complex of Lodève in the Hérault region of France.
6.1.1.2 Conversion
The different stages of the conversion may take place at one location or may be spread over
several locations. The reference technologies considered are the Malvesi plant - all stages to
UF4 - and the Pierrelatte plant - the conversion of UF4 to UF6. Both are located in France.
6.1.1.3 Uranium enrichment
For the uranium enrichment stage the Urenco plant at Almelo (in the Netherlands) was chosen
as the reference technology.
6.1.1.4 Fuel fabrication
There is currently no fabrication of fuel elements in the Netherlands - in the seventies uranium
oxide fuel was fabricated at RCN for the Dodewaard plant and other reactors. The reference
technology considered is the fuel element fabrication plant run by Franco-Belge de Fabrication
de Combustibles at Pierrelatte.
6.1.1.5 Power generation
The reference location for this plant was chosen to be the location of the existing Borssele
nuclear power plant. The existing Borssele reactor is located in the province of Zeeland. The
site lies approximately 1.5 km to the north west of the Borssele village and 10 km to the south
east of Vlissingen and Middelburg. The site is located on the northern bank of the
Westerschelde and is approximately 20 km from the Belgium border. This location has been
named by the government as a possible location for any future nuclear power plants.
6.1.1.6 Reprocessing
The two principle operating reprocessing facilities in the world are located at La Hague in
France and at Sellafield in the UK. The reference facility considered is the UP3 plant at
La Hague.
6.1.1.7 Interim storage
For the interim storage stage the COVRA (N.V. Centrale Organisatie voor Radioactief Afval)
facility near Borssele was chosen as the reference technology.
139
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
6.1.1.8 Final disposal
The final disposal of high level radioactive waste is the last stage in the once-through nuclear
fuel cycle. The present policy of the Dutch government is that this waste will be disposed of in
a deep underground repository either in the Netherlands or elsewhere.
6.1.1.9 Transports
Since the various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle take place at different locations materials have
to be transported between the various fuel cycle facilities. At present only three stages of the
nuclear fuel cycle take place within the Netherlands. It therefore follows that only a relatively
small number of the transports associated with the Dutch nuclear fuel cycle take place either
entirely or partially in the Netherlands. An overview of these transports is given in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2 The transport of nuclear fuel cycle materials in the Netherlands
140
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
6.1.2 Technology description
6.1.2.1 Mining and milling
Uranium mining and milling are the first stages in a once-through nuclear fuel cycle. Mining is
defined as the extraction from the ground of ore containing between a tenth of a percent and
several percent of uranium and its decay products (UNSCEAR, 1993). Mining is carried out by
one of two general methods: open-pit mining, in which the surface layer of soils and rock is
removed and the ore is extracted from an open pit, and underground mining. Milling is defined
as the processing of the mined ores to extract the uranium in a partially refined form, known as
yellow cake (UNSCEAR, 1993).
6.1.2.2 Conversion
Conversion is defined as the series of physical and chemical transformations involved in
converting uranium from uranium concentrate to the metal or hexafluoride form required for
enrichment (UNSCEAR, 1993). The first step involves the transformation of the uranium
concentrates (from the mills) to uranium trioxide (UO3). The uranium to be used to make fuel
for light water reactors is then transformed via UF4 to UF6.
6.1.2.3 Uranium enrichment
Uranium is enriched at the facility using ultracentrifuges and the first test facility started
operation in 1970. Since then the facility has been expanded several times and a licence
application for further expansion is currently being prepared.
Uranium enrichment is the only front-end stage of the nuclear fuel cycle which takes place in
the Netherlands. In a once-through fuel cycle this stage takes place after the mining, milling
and conversion stages. The enrichment process serves to enrich the 235U content of the uranium
hexafluoride (UF6) produced by the conversion process from about 0.7% to the 3-4% needed
for the fuel of a typical light water reactor.
The following description of the Urenco facility in Almelo is based on the information given in
Urenco (1993).
Uranium has been enriched at the Almelo site for more than twenty years. In 1970 the test
facility, separation plant 1 (SP1), which had a capacity of 25 tonne Separative Work per year
(tSW/yr), came into operation. SP1 remained in operation until 1981. In 1972 a licence was
obtained for a second test facility SP2, which also had a capacity of 25 tSW/yr. In 1974 a
licence was granted to build and operate a demonstration facility SP3, with a capacity of 200
tSW/yr. Since 1985 SP2 forms a part of SP3 and is as such no longer an independent
enrichment facility. In the late seventies plans were made for a further plant SP4, with a
maximum capacity of 1000 tSW/yr, and a site licence was granted for a maximum capacity of
1250 tSW/yr. Urenco Nederland is currently preparing a licence application to expand the site
141
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
capacity to 2500 tSW/yr. This expansion would be obtained by increasing the capacity of SP4
to 1500 tSW/yr, the phased construction of a new plant SP5 and the phased closure of SP3.
The enrichment process used by Urenco is based on the ultracentrifuge technology. The main
systems of an ultracentrifuge enrichment facility are: the UF6 gas feed system; the
ultracentrifuge cascades and; the UF6 take-off systems.
The function of the UF6 gas feed system is to transform the UF6 from its solid to its gaseous
form and to purify the UF6 gas of gases such as HF. The UF6 containers are first heated in
hermetically sealed autoclaves using hot air (the pressure in the autoclaves is above
atmospheric pressure). Following purification the UF6 gas is lead through a number of pressure
relief stations and the pressure of the gas reduced to below that of the atmosphere. In the
recently installed autoclaves in SP4 the pressure reduction takes place within the autoclave.
The function of the ultracentrifuge cascades is to increase the fraction of 235U to 3-4%, which
is needed for the fuel of a typical LWR. An ultracentrifuge consists of a high speed rotor within
an evacuated mantle. Partial separation of the uranium isotopes is achieved in the
ultracentrifuge due to the difference in their weight. A slightly enriched and a slightly depleted
stream of UF6 is produced by the centrifuge. Because the enriching power of an individual
centrifuge is low, the ultracentifuges are arranged in "cascades", whilst in the cascade the
pressure of the UF6 gas is below atmospheric pressure.
The function of the UF6 take-off systems is to transfer the enriched stream (the product) and
the depleted stream (the 'tails') of UF6 to storage containers. Once in the containers the UF6 is
solidified by means of cooling.
UF6 streams of different enrichment grades are homogeneously mixed to ensure that the
enriched uranium leaving the site meets the specification of the customer. This takes place in
the central services building. In addition to the above systems there are a number of auxiliary
and support systems such as the ventilation systems and the waste water treatment system.
6.1.2.4 Fuel fabrication
The fuel fabrication stage refers to the production of the reactor fuel from the enriched UF6
from the enrichment plant. The UF6 is first converted into uranium oxide and then made into
fuel pellets with the required fuel composition. These are then placed as columns in a zircaloy
fuel rods, which are components of fuel element. As for the conversion stage the fuel
fabrication stage may be spread over several locations.
6.1.2.5 Power generation
The existing reactor at Borssele is a two loop pressurised water reactor which was designed
and built by KWU. The reactor has a net electrical power of 449 MWe and started operation in
1973. The average load factor for the plant over the ten year period 1982 - 1991 was 78.8%
(EPZ/KEMA, 1993). The Borssele reactor is a thermal reactor and the basic working of a
142
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
pressurised thermal reactor is as follows. As a result of the nuclear fission heat is produced in
the reactor core. This heat is transferred to the water coolant which is pumped around the
primary circuit. The water in the primary circuit is maintained under high pressure in order to
prevent it from boiling. The heated water in the primary circuit is used to transform the water
in the secondary circuit to steam which is then used to drive the turbine.
6.1.2.6 Reprocessing
At the reprocessing stage of the nuclear fuel cycle uranium and plutonium are extracted from
the used fuel elements for possible reuse in nuclear power reactors. Most reprocessing plants
now make use of the plutonium uranium recovery by extraction (PUREX) process. The
following operations make up the PUREX process (Roelofsen and Rij, 1993): the head end
plant (i.e. where the used fuel elements are received and the fuel is separated from the fuel
cladding in a dissolver); the extraction of uranium and plutonium from other actinides and
fission products; the purification and concentration of the uranium and plutonium and their
conversion to oxides; and the treatment of the various process waste streams.
At present approximately 50% of the countries with civil nuclear power plants (including the
Netherlands) either reprocess their used fuel or have expressed the intention to do
so (UNSCEAR, 1993). This represents about 50% of the used fuel generated annually.
Currently only circa 5% of the used fuel generated annually is actually
reprocessed (UNSCEAR, 1993). Other countries, including the United States of America, have
chosen to treat the used fuel elements directly as waste.
6.1.2.7 Interim storage
This is a new facility and is currently (in 1995) only partly operational. The facilities for storing
high level radioactive waste still have to be built. Following interim storage, the remaining
waste will be placed in a deep underground repository, either in the Netherlands or elsewhere.
The organisation responsible for the interim storage of radioactive waste in the Netherlands is
the Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval (COVRA). In addition to the radioactive
waste produced by nuclear fuel cycle activities the COVRA is responsible for the radioactive
waste produced by hospitals, industry and research institutions. The COVRA is also
responsible for the transport of all radioactive waste from the diverse customer locations to the
COVRA storage facility.
The waste treatment and storage facility operated by the COVRA is located in the municipality
of Borssele. The site lies approximately 2 km to the north west of the Borssele village and
approximately 10 km from the towns of Vlissingen and Middelburg. The site is located on the
Vlissingen-Oost industrial complex on the north bank of the Westerschelde. The site is several
hundred meters from the site of the existing Borssele nuclear power plant.
143
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The activities which (will) take place at the facility are:
-
the treatment of low/intermediate level waste;
the storage of low/intermediate level waste;
the storage of high level waste with a low heat output;
the storage of heat producing high level waste.
At present only the first two of the above activities take place.
The low and intermediate level radioactive waste originates at the nuclear power plants,
hospitals, research institutions and industry. This waste consists of gloves, clothing, packaging,
liquids, filter resins, sediments, etc. Low and intermediate level waste is categorised in the
Netherlands according to its isotopic composition and place of origin by the scheme
reproduced from COVRA (1987) in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Specification of low/intermediate level waste in the Netherlands
Group A
a emitting wastes from hospitals, industry and research institutes
Group B
b/g emitting wastes from nuclear power plant
Group C
B/g emitting wastes with a halflife greater than 15 years from hospitals, industry
and research institutes
Group D
B/g emitting wastes with a halflife less than 15 years from hospitals, industry and
research institutes
Exactly how each assignment of low and intermediate level radioactive waste is treated
depends upon the characteristics of that assignment. The waste treatment facilities available
include incinerators for organic liquids, corpses and solid wastes, shredders, solidification
facilities and high pressure compactors. The way in which low and intermediate level waste
from nuclear power plants will be treated in the future depends to some extent on policy
decisions. After packaging, the low and intermediate level wastes are stored in the low and
intermediate level waste storage building.
The high level radioactive waste originates in the used fuel elements from the nuclear power
plants. The form in which this waste reaches the COVRA facility depends upon whether the
used fuel elements are reprocessed or not. In this study it is assumed that the used fuel
elements from the reference electricity generating plant are reprocessed. This conforms with
the present policy in the Netherlands. The high level radioactive waste returned from the
reprocessing plant will have two components; vitrified heat producing high level waste and
high level waste with a low heat output made up of compacted fuel cladding. The high level
wastes are not treated in any way, only stored and if necessary repackaged. The high level
wastes described above are received and stored in either the building for heat producing high
level radioactive wastes or the building for non-heat producing high level wastes respectively.
144
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
6.1.2.8 Final disposal
The Dutch government has recently stated that the waste should be retrievable from deep
underground repository. Recent research in the Netherlands has concentrated on rock salt
formations as the host rock for such a repository (Prij et al., 1993). The designs considered in
this research do not explicitly account for the waste being retrieved.
A substantial amount of research has been carried out world-wide into the safety of the various
final disposal options. In particular, in the 1980's the Commission of the European
Communities funded the Performance Assessment on Geological Isolation Systems (PAGIS)
study (PAGIS, 1988) Four different high level waste disposal concepts were studied in the
PAGIS study: three continental options based upon clay, granite and rock salt as the host rock
and a sub-seabed option. In this study the rock salt option is analysed.
6.1.2.9 Transports
Radioactive materials are transported between the various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.
These transports generally take place by road, rail or sea and are governed by national and
international regulations. The packaging of the materials to be transported plays a central role
in the legislation. For the Dutch fuel cycle it is assumed that used fuel elements are transported
by rail while all other radioactive wastes are transported by road.
With respect to construction and decommissioning of the plant it is assumed all transports take
place by road.
6.2 Overview of burdens and impacts
The burdens related to radiological emissions associated with the different stages of Dutch
nuclear fuel cycle are analysed in this study. Instead of giving the burdens by type of release
(air, water and waste) they are categorised by fuel cycle stage only. In this section only a
qualitative discussion of the burdens related to normal operation is given. Accident burdens are
not identified here. The impacts and damages of accidents are quantified in the next section.
Furthermore, burdens associated with non-radiological emissions are not analysed.
6.2.1 Mining and milling
Atmospheric emissions
Mining and milling operations result in radiological releases to the atmosphere. The releases
from open cast mines consist of gases and particles which arise from surface mining activities.
These releases are virtually unmonitorable. In underground mines, dusts and gases are
generated underground and released via the chimneys of the underground ventilation systems.
Such releases can in principle be monitored. For both types of mining, there are releases
resulting from the above ground activities such as moving material around the site and releases
from stockpiled ore. Radon (222Rn) is the most important radionuclide released from uranium
145
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
mines. The atmospheric releases from milling facilities are principally the dusts which arise
from the crushing of the uranium ores. In the UNSCEAR (1993) report normalised releases are
defined using release data from a number of existing facilities for a reference mine and mill site.
Surface water emissions
Mining and milling operations also result in radiological releases to nearby surface water
bodies. Releases from open cast mines are primarily in the form of liquid run-off from site
operations. In underground mines water is pumped from underground and released. The liquid
releases from the mill plant arise from the dissolving, filtering and drying operations needed to
produce uranium oxide.
Stockpiled waste emissions
Radiological releases from the stockpiled mill wastes (mill tailings) form an additional public
radiological impact from this stage in the nuclear fuel cycle. These mill tailings contain the
decay products of 234U and hence form a long term source of atmospheric radon (the radon
release rate will remain essentially the same for the next 10 000 years and will only decrease by
a factor of 2 in the next 100 000 years (UNSCEAR, 1993)). The magnitude of this impact will
depend largely upon how the mill tailings are treated. In UNSCEAR (1993) it is assumed that a
reasonably impermeable cover is placed over the tailings and this essentially remains intact.
6.2.2 Conversion
The emissions from the normal operation of the processes in the conversion stage are generally
relatively small. These releases consist primarily of the long-lived uranium isotopes (234U, 235U
and 238U) and the radioisotopes 234Th and 234mPa (UNSCEAR, 1993). The majority of this is
released to the atmosphere
6.2.3 Uranium enrichment
During the normal operation of a uranium enrichment plant radioactive materials are released
both to the atmosphere and to the surrounding surface water bodies. For a once-through
nuclear fuel cycle releases will consist essentially of the long-lived uranium isotopes 234U, 235U
and 238U and the short-lived decay products of 238U, 234Th and 234mPa (UNSCEAR, 1993). For
"closed" fuel cycles the situation is different. The 235U content in reprocessed uranium is below
that needed for the fuel for light water reactors. Enrichment of the reprocessed uranium is
therefore necessary. Trace elements of fission products and transuranic elements are present in
reprocessed uranium and a fraction may be present in the discharges from the enrichment plant.
Atmospheric emissions
The amount of radioactive material which may be released to the atmosphere from the Urenco
facility is limited by licence limits. These limits are reproduced in Table 6.2.
146
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.2 Annual atmospheric radiological discharge limits for Urenco.
Release Point
a-activity (MBq/yr)
b-activity (MBq/yr)
SP2
1.3
130
SP3
3.5
350
SP4
2.4
240
Central Services Building
3.7
370
Source: Urenco (1993).
The actual atmospheric releases from the Urenco site over recent years were a fraction of the
limits given in the table above. The assessment of the public radiological impact was based on
realistic release levels rather than the licence limit values (Dekker, 1995).
Water emissions
The amount of radioactive material which may be released in liquid form to the sewage system
from the Urenco facility is limited as specified in the licence. These limits are reproduced in
Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Annual liquid radiological discharge limits for Urenco.
a-activity (MBq/yr)
Release Limit
20
b/g-activity (MBq/yr)
200
Source: Urenco (1993).
Liquid releases from the Urenco plant over recent years were only a fraction of the release
limits given above. In this scoping study releases to the sewage system from the Urenco plant
were not considered a priority impact and were therefore not analysed.
Direct Shine
Considerable quantities of UF6 are stored at the Urenco site. This leads to an enhanced level of
gamma radiation at the site fence adjacent to those areas where the UF6 containers are stored.
6.2.4 Fuel fabrication
Atmospheric emissions
The emissions from the normal operation of the processes in the fuel fabrication stage are
generally relatively small. These releases consist primarily of the long-lived uranium isotopes
(234U, 235U and 238U) and the radioisotopes 234Th and 234mPa (UNSCEAR, 1993). The majority
of these releases are to water.
6.2.5 Power plant operation
During the normal operation of the Borssele nuclear reactor radioactive materials are released
to the atmosphere and in liquid form to the Westerschelde. Low and intermediate level solid
147
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
radioactive wastes are also produced and are transported to the nearby COVRA facility for
storage and possible treatment (see the ‘interim storage’ section). The other category of
radioactive waste is formed by the used fuel elements. New fuel elements consist primarily of
the elements 235U and 238U. As a result of the processes of neutron capture and nuclear fission
the fuel elements in the reactor core also contain substantial amounts of transuranic elements
and nuclear fission products. The reactor core is the largest source of radioactive material in a
nuclear power plant and used fuel elements are classified as heat producing high level
radioactive waste. At the existing Borssele reactor the used fuel elements are stored in the used
fuel pond before being transported to La Hague (France) for reprocessing.
The radiological burden of the normal operations of a nuclear power plant depends on a
complex interaction of many factors such as plant design, plant management and the location of
the plant. The design of the existing Borssele reactor dates from approximately thirty years
ago. However, the radiological burden has been a factor when maintaining or modifying the
plant (for example in the choice of construction materials) since it first started operation. Given
that plant design is only one factor which contributes to the radiological burden and that the
design has been modified with this burden in mind it seems reasonable to use the existing
Borssele reactor as the reference technology for the normal operations of the electricity
generating stage.
The main source of the atmospheric and liquid releases of radioactive materials and the low and
intermediate level solid wastes is the reactor coolant. There are three processes which
contribute to the amount of radioactive material in the reactor coolant: the activation of the
coolant water and any impurities; the activation of primary circuit corrosion products present
in the coolant water; and the leakage of fission products and neutron capture products from the
fuel elements. The reactor coolant is continually cleaned and the radioactive materials are
transferred to other reactor systems. This results in three streams of liquid radioactive waste:
liquid wastes from the cleaning of the reactor coolant; leakage liquids from inside the
controlled area; and liquid wastes from the laboratories, showers, etc. These liquid radioactive
wastes are processed in the liquid waste treatment system. After treatment all radioactive
liquids are monitored before being released to the Westerschelde.
Atmospheric emissions
Atmospheric radioactive releases are composed of material which has become airborne in the
various facility buildings and the release of radioactive gases directly from systems which
contain reactor coolant. The principal sources of airborne activity are the leakage and
evaporation of radioactive liquids from the primary system and from auxiliary reactor systems
and the activation of air surrounding the reactor vessel. Radioactive materials (principally noble
gases) are released via hold-up systems from systems which contain reactor coolant. All
airborne radioactive material is filtered and monitored before being released to the atmosphere.
The amount of radioactive material which may be released to the atmosphere from the Borssele
nuclear power plant is limited by the licence limits. In recent years the actual amounts released
have been significantly below these limits. The licence limits and an overview of the
atmospheric release data over the ten year period from 1982 to 1991 are given in Table 6.4.
148
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.4 Atmospheric radiological releases for the Borssele nuclear power plant
Average Release
Maximum Release
Licence
1982-1991
1982-1991
Limit
[TBq/a]
[TBq/a]
[TBq/a]
Noble Gases
8
46
444
Aerosols
< 10-5
4 10-6
3.7 10-2
131
I
10-5
4.6 10-5
8.9 10-3
-5
-6
Other Halogens
< 10
2 10
3.7 10-2
Tritium (HTO)
0.4
0.6
1.9
14
a
-3
-2
C (CO2)
8.10
1 10
a The data for 14C are the average and maximum for the years 1991 and 1992.
Source: EPZ/KEMA (1993)
Detailed release data for the period 1980 to 1987 are given in Hienen et al. (1990). The
average release data for this period can be taken as representative for the period 1982 to 1991.
A number of long-lived radionuclides (tritium, 14C, 85Kr and 129I) discharged from nuclear
power plants become widely dispersed throughout the world's atmosphere and oceans.
Liquid Releases
The amount of radioactive material which may be released in liquid form to the Westerschelde
from the Borssele nuclear power plant is limited by licence limits. In recent years the actual
amounts released have been below these limits. The license limits and an overview of the liquid
release data over the ten year period from 1982 to 1991 are given in Table 6.5
Table 6.5 Liquid radiological releases for the Borssele nuclear power plant.
Average Release
Maximum Release
1982-1991
1982-1991
[TBq/a]
[TBq/a]
tritium
5
8
b and g activity
6 10-3
2 10-2
Licence
Limit
[TBq/a]
28
1.85 10-1
Source: EPZ/KEMA (1993).
A more detailed breakdown of the releases of radioactive materials to the Westerschelde for
the period 1980 to 1987 is given in Hienen et al. (1990). For this period the average releases of
tritium and b/g activity were 6.1 and 8.5 10-3 TBq/a respectively.
Solid wastes
The low and intermediate level solid radioactive wastes consist of contaminated solid materials
and solidified liquid and gaseous wastes. The main sources of solid radioactive waste are:
evaporation concentrates; filter resins; air filters; contaminated clothing and materials; and
149
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
solvents, oils etc. The low and intermediate level solid radioactive wastes are transported to the
nearby COVRA facility for storage.
Direct Shine
There is no measurable contribution from the existing nuclear power plant at Borssele to the
gamma dose rate in the surrounding area (EPZ/KEMA, 1993). The direct shine pathway is
therefore not a priority pathway and is not considered further in the present study.
6.2.6 Power plant construction
Large construction projects such as the building of a nuclear power plant inevitably have health
risks associated with them. These risks are primarily borne by the construction workforce in
the form of accidental deaths and injuries. Health risks to the public are a result of accidents
involving the transport of the construction materials. Before a nuclear power plant starts
operation there are no additional radiological risks to either the workforce or the general
population. Since this scoping study is restricted to quantifying the external costs of the
radiological impacts, the construction of the reference electricity generating facility is not
considered further.
6.2.7 Power plant dismantling
Most modern plants are built to operate for 30 to 40 years. After operation ceases at a facility,
it has to be dismantled and the site made available for other activities. This process is known as
decommissioning. To date there is only limited experience world-wide in the decommissioning
of nuclear facilities and no nuclear power plant has yet been decommissioned in the
Netherlands.
The radiological impacts associated with the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant will
depend to a large extent on whether the plant is decommissioned immediately or whether it is
left for a number of years to take advantage of radioactive decay before decommissioning. The
timescale in which the existing reactors in the Netherlands will be decommissioned is currently
unclear. Given the lack of data and the uncertainty with respect to the policy decisions to be
made it was considered inappropriate to attempt a detailed assessment of the radiological
impact associated with the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant. The analysis here is
restricted to a qualitative discussion of the radiological impacts quoted in the French reference
study (Dreicer et al., 1994).
6.2.8 Reprocessing
As a result of the operations at a reprocessing plant radionuclides are released both to the
atmosphere and to surface water bodies. The most important radionuclides released are the
long-lived nuclides 3H, 14C, 85Kr, 129I, 134Cs, 137Cs and isotopes of the transuranic
elements UNSCEAR (1993).
150
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
6.2.9 Interim storage
In the present study only the radiological consequences of treating and/or storing the wastes
from the nuclear power plant are considered. The radiological consequences of treating and/or
storing the operating wastes from Urenco are not explicitly included. Such wastes will fall into
category A, C or D. The quantities of low and intermediate level wastes produced annually by
Urenco and the existing Borssele nuclear power plant are given in Table 6.6 and Table 6.7. The
information given in these tables suggests that the radiological consequences of treating and/or
storing the operational wastes from Urenco are expected to be negligible in comparison with
those of the operating wastes for a nuclear power plant.
Table 6.6 Quantities of radioactive waste from Urenco
Type of Waste
Active carbon
Active alumina (Al2O3)
Ventilation system filters
Water treatment wastes
Other wastes
Source; Urenco (1993)
kg/yr
ca. 100
ca. 300
ca. 200
ca. 1800
ca. 3000
Table 6.7 Quantities of radioactive waste from the Borssele Nuclear Plant
Type of Waste
Activity (Bq/yr)
Quantity
Filter resins
1.1013
1 m3
12
Evaporation concentrates
5.10
25 m3
11
Compressible waste
< 8.10
500 casks (100 l)
Organic liquid waste
< 6.109
20 casks (60 l)
Ventilation system filters
< 5.109
30 filter packets
Filter cakes
8.1011
4
Source: EPZ/KEMA (1993)
The quantity of waste that the COVRA will have to treat and store in the next 50 to 100 years
will depend to a large extent on whether or not new nuclear power plants are built. Therefore
in the environmental impact report for the COVRA facility (COVRA, 1987) three scenarios are
considered:
Scenario 1. Assumes a constant production of radioactive waste from hospitals, research
institutes and industry and the waste from 30 years life of the existing nuclear power plants at
Borssele and Dodewaard. In this scenario it is assumed that where possible the low and
intermediate level waste is compressed.
Scenario 2a. As scenario 1 but assumes that the waste from 30 years life of an additional
2000 MWe also has to be dealt with. In this scenario it is assumed that where possible the low
and intermediate level wastes are incinerated.
151
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Scenario 2b. As scenario 1 but assumes that the waste from 30 years life of an additional
4000 MWe also has to be dealt with. In this scenario it is assumed that where possible the low
and intermediate level wastes are incinerated.
For these three scenarios the total volume operating and decommissioning wastes produced by
the nuclear power plants is given in COVRA (1987). In this study the data associated with an
additional 2000 MWe and the assumption that all low and intermediate level wastes are
incinerated are used. The associated waste quantities are given in Table 6.8 below.
Table 6.8 Waste quantities assumed for interim storage
Type of Waste
low/intermediate level wastes
• operating wastes
• decommissioning wastes
high level wastes
• vitrified wastes
• reprocessing wastes
• decommissioning wastes
Source: COVRA (1987)
Volume
200 m3/yr
18 000 m3
6 m3/yr
66 m3/yr
2 000 m3
Atmospheric releases
Assuming that the used fuel elements from the reference nuclear power plant are reprocessed,
then the only atmospheric releases are from the low/intermediate level waste treatment building
and from the storage building for the high level waste with low heat content. The processing of
low and intermediate level radioactive waste results in the release of radioactive materials to
the atmosphere. The magnitude and breakdown of the release depends upon the characteristics
of the waste being treated and the treatment process used. In Table 6.9 the release data for an
installed capacity of 2000 MWe are given for the cobalt and caesium nuclide groups. For this
study, all cobalt released is assumed to be 60Co and all caesium is assumed to be 137Cs.
Table 6.9 Atmospheric radiological release data from the low and intermediate level waste
treatment building.
Radionuclide
Release rate(1)
[bq/s]
cobalt 60
0.269
caesium 137
0.269
total
(1)
Data taken from COVRA (1987). Release rate data based on 2000 MWe/incineration
scenario (i.e. scenario2a - scenario2b)
The containers containing the used fuel element cladding are stored in the storage building for
high level radioactive waste with low heat content. Tritium is emitted from these containers
and released via the building's ventilation system. The quantity of tritium released is given in
Table 6.10.
152
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.10 Tritium release from the high level waste storage building .
Radionuclide
Release rate
[Bq/s]
tritium
0.21
Source: COVRA (1987).
Liquid releases
During normal operations radioactive materials are released to the Westerschelde as a result of
the treatment of low and intermediate level waste. The only radionuclide released in significant
quantities from the treatment of low and intermediate level wastes from nuclear power plant is
60
Co. The liquid release data is given in Table 6.11
Table 6.11 Liquid radiological release data from the COVRA facility.
Radionuclide
Release rate
[Bq/s]
cobalt 60
3.17
Source: COVRA (1987).
Direct Shine
Those individuals living or working in the vicinity of the COVRA facility will receive a dose via
the direct irradiation exposure pathway. The sources of this direct irradiation are the storage
buildings for low/intermediate and high level radioactive wastes.
Decommissioning Wastes
The release from the treatment of low and intermediate level wastes from the decommissioning
of 2000 MWe of modern nuclear power plant capacity are given in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12 Radiological release data from the treatment of decommissioning wastes
Release (Bq)
137
Atmospheric release
Cs 7.6 108
60
Co 7.6 108
60
Liquid release
Co 9.0 109
6.2.10 Final disposal
High level waste disposal facilities are designed to ensure that the radioactive material is
contained for as long as possible. All facility designs are based on a multi-barrier concept which
means that a number of engineered barriers (e.g. the waste container and facility containment)
and natural barriers (e.g. the host rock and the geosphere) are present between the waste and
man's immediate environment. In the PAGIS study two types of release scenarios are defined
which result in the failure of these barriers and the exposure of the public to radioactive
material released from the disposal facility: normal evolution scenarios and altered evolution
153
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
scenarios (PAGIS, 1988). As no results on emissions but only on exposure are given these
scenarios and the results are discussed further in the appendix to this fuel cycle.
6.2.11 Transports
For the transport stage no data on emissions were readily available. The impacts of releases are
available from the French nuclear fuel cycle (Dreicer et al., 1994).
6.3 Quantification of the impacts and damages
In this section only a summary of the impacts is given. A discussion and the methodology to
estimate the impacts is given in the appendix to this fuel cycle. The impacts and the damages
are discussed by fuel cycle stage. The valuation of impacts and the relevant time-frame in
which impacts occur (for discount rates other than zero only !!) are discussed in the
methodology section of the appendix to this fuel cycle.
6.3.1 Mining and milling
The normalised collective doses from the mining and milling stage are given in Table 6.13.
Table 6.13 Collective doses from the mining and milling stage.
Impact category
Burden
• Atmospheric emission with normal operation
• Surface water emission
• Atmospheric emission from stockpiled wastes
• Accidents
Occupational health • Normal operation mining
• Normal operation milling
n.q. = not quantified, ng = negligible
Public health
Collective Dose
(manSv)
0.17
ng
1.1 10-5-1.1 10-3
n.q.
0.49
0.046
For the monetary evaluation in this study the figures from UNSCEAR (1993) for mining as a
whole and milling are used. The external costs associated with the normal operation of the
mine and mill facility are given in Table 6.14
Table 6.14 External costs associated with mine and mill operation
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public (local/regional)
Workforce
0%
3.2 10-2
7.8 10-2
3%
6.1 10-3
1.6 10-2
-4
10%
2.9 10
7.5 10-4
154
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Clearly the external costs associated with releases of radon from the mill tailings depend very
much on the assumptions concerning the treatment of the tailings made and the time period
over which the release is integrated. Assuming a collective dose of 1.7 10-3 manSv/TWh per
year of release and an integration time of 10 000 years gives a collective dose of 17
manSv/TWh (which is equivalent to an external cost of 3.2 mECU/TWh for a 0% discount
rate). This demonstrates that this pathway could make an important contribution to the
external cost of the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole.
The non-radiological occupational health impacts have been considered in the French reference
report (Dreicer et al., 1994). For the zero percent discount rate the external costs associated
with these impacts are of a similar magnitude to the external costs associated with the
radiological occupational health effects.
6.3.2 Conversion
The normalised collective doses from the conversion stage are given in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15 Collective doses from the conversion stage
Impact category
Burden
• Atmospheric emission with normal operation
• Accidents
Occupational health • Normal operation
n.q. = not quantified, ng = negligible
Public health
Collective Dose
(manSv)
3.5 10-5
n.q.
2.3 10-3
The normalised collective doses associated with the operation of the conversion facilities have
been converted to normalised external cost data. For discount rates other than zero the time
frame given in the appendix to this fuel cycle was used. The external costs associated with the
normal operation of the conversion facility are given in Table 6.16
Table 6.16 External costs for conversion stage of fuel cycle
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public
Workforce
-6
0%
6.5 10
3.3 10-4
-6
3%
1.3 10
6.8 10-5
10%
5.9 10-8
3.2 10-6
In Dreicer et al. (1994) the costs resulting from occupational non-radiological health impacts
associated with the normal operation of the conversion facility are also quantified. These costs
are greater than the occupational radiological health effect costs and dominate the total costs
(i.e. public and occupational) for all discount rates.
155
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
6.3.3 Uranium Enrichment
The monetary evaluation of the radiological impact on the public and on the workforce is based
on the collective dose to these two groups resulting from one years operation of the
enrichment plant. These collective doses were assessed to be 1.37 10-5 and 2.3 10-2 manSv
respectively. These doses have to be normalised to the unit of electricity production (i.e. TWh)
by taking into account the production capacity of the facility. According to UNSCEAR (1993)
for a once-through nuclear fuel cycle circa 130 tSW are required at the enrichment stage to
produce 1 GWy (i.e. 8.766 TWh) of electricity. The normalised collective doses to the public
and the workforce from the uranium enrichment stage are given in Table 6.17
Table 6.17 Normalised collective doses from uranium enrichment
Collective Dose
manSv per years operation
manSv/TWh(1)
Public
1.37 10-5
8.1 10-8
-2
2.73 10-4
Workforce
2.30 10
(1)
In converting the collective dose per years operation to collective dose per TWh a
production of 2500 tSW was assumed for the public and a production of 1250 tSW for the
workforce.
The normalised collective doses have been converted to normalised external costs. The
external costs for the uranium enrichment stage are given in Table 6.18
Table 6.18 External cost data for uranium enrichment
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public
Workforce
0%
1.5 10-8
4.0 10-5
3%
2.9 10-9
8.1 10-6
-10
10%
1.4 10
3.8 10-7
The results can be compared with those given in the French reference report (Dreicer et al.,
1994). In the French reference report the costs of the non-radiological occupational health
effects have been included in the analysis. These costs dominate the total costs for all discount
rates and explain why the total external costs for all discount rates presented in the reference
report are significantly higher than the total of the public and occupational costs in the table
above. With respect to the radiological impact the occupational costs presented here are
significantly (by a factor of a few tens) larger than those in the reference report whereas the
public costs presented here are significantly (by a factor of a few hundreds) lower than those
presented in the reference report. These differences are primarily due to the differences in
worker collective dose data and atmospheric release data respectively.
6.3.4 Fuel fabrication
The normalised collective doses from the fuel fabrication stage are given in Table 6.19
156
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.19 Collective doses from the fuel fabrication stage
Impact category
Burden
• Atmospheric emission with normal operation
• Accidents
Occupational health • Normal operation
n.q. = not quantified, ng = negligible
Public health
Collective Dose
(manSv)
9.2 10-6
n.q.
7.1 10-3
The normalised collective doses associated with the operation of the fuel fabrication facility
have been converted to normalised external cost data. The external costs associated with the
normal operation of the fuel fabrication facility are given in Table 6.20
Table 6.20 External cost data for fuel fabrication stage
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public
0%
1.7 10-6
3%
3.3 10-7
10%
1.5 10-8
Workforce
1.2 10-3
2.4 10-4
1.1 10-5
In the French reference report (Dreicer et al., 1994) the costs resulting from occupational nonradiological health impacts associated with the normal operation of the fuel fabrication facility
are also quantified. These costs are comparable to the occupational radiological health effect
costs at the zero discount rate and dominate the total costs (i.e. public and occupational) for
the other discount rates.
6.3.5 Power generation
The monetary evaluation of the public and occupational radiological impacts associated with
the normal operation of the reference nuclear power plant is based on the collective dose data
given in the appendix. These collective doses were normalised to the unit of electricity
production (i.e. TWh) by taking into account the electricity production of the reference nuclear
power plant (449 MWe). The normalised collective doses to both the Dutch and the global
populations (to 10 000 years) and to the workforce are given in Table 6.21.
Table 6.21 Normalised collective doses from electricity generation
Population Group
Collective Dose
(manSv/TWh)
Public (Dutch)
Atmospheric Releases
6.6 10-4
Liquid Releases
7.9 10-4
Public (Global)
Atmospheric Releases
2.4 10-1
Workforce
3.9 10-1
157
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The normalised collective doses have been converted to normalised external costs. The
external costs associated with the normal operation of the reference electricity generation
technology are given in Table 6.22
Table 6.22 External cost data for electricity generating stage
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public (Dutch)
Public (Global)
-4
0%
2.7 10
4.4 10-2
3%
5.2 10-5
2.5 10-4
-6
10%
2.4 10
1.6 10-5
Workforce
5.6 10-2
1.2 10-2
5.4 10-4
The results can be compared with the corresponding results given in the French reference
report(Dreicer et al., 1994). The differences in the external costs associated with the collective
dose to the global public are due entirely to differences in the 14C release data used. The
occupational radiological impact data used in the reference report is very similar to the data
given here. The differences in the occupational external cost data for the normal operation of
the electricity generation stage are primarily due to the inclusion of non-radiological health
effects in reference report. These differences can be substantial for discount rates other than
zero since non-radiological health impacts are generally immediate. Due to differences in the
exposed population, the release data and the models used, any comparison of the external costs
due to the collective dose to the Dutch population with the data in the reference reports
remains limited. However, it should be noted that the external cost associated with the
collective dose to the Dutch population falls between the values for the local and regional
populations given in reference report. This indicates that the results are broadly comparable.
The external costs associated with the decommissioning of the electricity generating
technology are based on the radiological impacts quoted in the reference report and given in
Table 6.23
Table 6.23 External cost data for decommissioning the electricity generating technology
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public
Workforce
-5
0%
2.7 10
3.1 10-3
3%
3.3 10-6
4.0 10-4
-8
10%
4.4 10
5.5 10-6
The monetary evaluation of the public radiological impact associated with severe accidents at
the electricity generating stage of the nuclear fuel cycle was performed using the COSYMA
code. For each accident scenario a CCDF of the offsite costs of that accident was constructed
as described in the methodology section in the appendix to this fuel cycle. In order to be
comparable with the French reference study the mean offsite costs of all scenarios for each
discount rate are used here to derive external cost per kWh data. The mean cost data
(i.e. ECUs/yr) and the normalised cost data are given in Table 6.24.
158
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.24 External cost data for severe accidents at the electricity generating stage.
Discount Rate
"Expected" Cost (ECU/yr)
Normalised Cost (mECU/kWh)
0%
24980
2.97 10-3
3%
15784
1.87 10-3
10%
18410
2.19 10-3
In the French reference study the offsite costs associated with severe accidents at the electricity
generating stage of the nuclear fuel cycle were not systematically evaluated. However,
illustrative calculations were carried out to assess the offsite costs associated with four
accident scenarios. These costs were then normalised (i.e. mECU/kWh). The sum of the
resulting normalised costs obtained is significantly higher than the values given in Table 6.24.
This is primarily due to the higher scenario probabilities used in the reference report.
It is emphasised that the costs associated with severe accidents cannot be represented by a
single value such as those given in Table 6.24. Such values should not simply be added to the
values obtained from normal operations from the facility to give a total for that facility. The
CCDFs presented in the appendix to this fuel cycle give a fuller representation of the external
costs associated with severe accidents.
6.3.6 Reprocessing
The normalised collective doses associated with the operation of a reprocessing facility are
given in Table 6.25.
Table 6.25 Collective doses from the reprocessing stage.
Impact category
Burden
Public health
•
Atmospheric emission with normal operation
• local
• regional
• Accidents
Occupational health
• Normal operation
n.q. = not quantified, ng = negligible
Collective Dose
(manSv)
1.1 10-2
5.0 10-2
ng
1.8 10-5
The external costs associated with the normal operation of a reprocessing facility are given in
Table 6.26 and Table 6.27.
159
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 6.26 External costs to the regional population and workforce associated with
reprocessing operations.
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public (local/regional)
Workforce
-2
0%
1.1 10
2.6 10-4
-3
3%
2.2 10
5.2 10-5
10%
1.02 10-4
2.4 10-6
Clearly the total external costs from the reprocessing stage of the nuclear fuel cycle are
dominated by the costs associated with the long term radiological impact to the global
population. In the French reference report (Dreicer et al., 1994) the costs resulting from
occupational non-radiological health impacts associated with the normal operation of the
reprocessing facility are also quantified. These costs are significantly greater than the
occupational radiological health effect costs but only contribute a significant amount to the
total costs (i.e. public and occupational) when the discount rate is set to 10%.
Table 6.27 External costs resulting from the radiological impact to the global population
associated with reprocessing operations.
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)(1)
Global Population (to 10 000 years)
0%
3.9
3%
2.3 10-2
10%
1.5 10-3
(1)
Based on release data for the reprocessing of metal fuel.
6.3.7 Interim storage
The normalised collective doses to the public from the interim storage stage of the nuclear fuel
cycle are given in Table 6.28. The external costs for the interim storage stage are given in
Table 6.29.
Table 6.28 Normalised collective doses from interim storage.
Impact category
Burden
Collective dose (manSv/TWh)
Public health
1.1 10-5
• operational wastes
3.0 10-5
• decommissioning wastes
Occupational health • operational wastes
not considered
not considered
• decommissioning wastes
160
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.29 External cost data for interim storage.
Discount Rate
Stage
0%
3%
10%
•
•
•
•
•
•
Operation
Decommissioning
Operation
Decommissioning
Operation
Decommissioning
Public External Cost
(mECU/kWh)
2.05 10-6
5.58 10-6
3.95 10-7
6.78 10-7
1.84 10-8
9.21 10-9
6.3.8 Final disposal
The probabilities of the scenarios used for assessing the risks of Final disposal are either very
low or virtually impossible to estimate. It was therefore considered inappropriate to attempt to
quantify the public health external costs associated with the altered evolution scenarios in this
study.
Since only very limited experience is available world-wide in operating such a facility, it is not
possible to assess the occupational radiological impact using occupational monitoring data. In
the French reference study (Dreicer et al., 1994) a normalised occupational radiological impact
of 6 10-7 manSv/TWh was used. An impact of this magnitude is negligible in comparison with
the occupational radiological impact of the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole. This impact is not
monetised as it is too uncertain.
6.3.9 Transport
The normalised collective dose for transport in the nuclear fuel cycle is given in Table 6.30#.
Table 6.30 Normalised collective doses associated with transport of nuclear fuel cycle
materials.
Normalised Collective Dose (manSv/TWh)
Public
1.33 10-3
Workforce
1.18 10-3
The external costs associated with the normal operation of transport between the various
stages of the nuclear fuel cycle are given in Table 6.31.
Table 6.31 External cost data for transport stage.
Discount Rate
External Cost (mECU/kWh)
Public
0%
2.5 10-4
3%
4.8 10-5
10%
2.2 10-6
Workforce
1.7 10-4
3.5 10-5
1.6 10-6
161
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
In addition to normal operations a number of accident scenarios involving the transport of
radioactive materials between stages in the French nuclear fuel cycle were considered in
Dreicer et al. (1994). The radiological impact of these scenarios (i.e. taking into account the
magnitude of the radiological consequences and the probability of occurrence of the scenario)
was estimated to be negligible in comparison with the radiological impact of normal operation.
This impact is not considered further in this study. In the reference study the external costs
associated with non-radiological health impacts are also analysed. These impacts are the deaths
and injuries to the public and to the workforce associated with traffic accidents and constitute
approximately 50% of the total external cost at the 0% discount rate.
6.4 Summary and interpretation of results
In this scoping study only the external costs of the radiological health impacts associated with
the Dutch nuclear fuel cycle have been analysed. For the nuclear fuel cycle facilities which
currently exist in the Netherlands the radiological impacts to the public and the workforce
associated with the normal operation of each facility were assessed using up to date site
specific data. For those stages in the fuel cycle which do not take place in the Netherlands the
radiological impact data given in the French reference study (Dreicer et al., 1994) or the
UNSCEAR (1993) report were used. The offsite costs of severe accidents at the electricity
generating stage of the fuel cycle were quantitatively assessed using a source term for a
modern pressurised water reactor (Corbett et al, 1994)]. Where possible a qualitative
discussion of the radiological impacts associated with accidental situations at other stages in
the nuclear fuel cycle has been given.
The external cost data calculated using a zero percent discount rate are summarised in Table
6.32.
The normalised external cost data for the regional population and the workforce associated
with the normal operation of the various fuel cycle stages have been derived by analysis and by
reference to other studies. The data is therefore not strictly comparable but does give an
indication of the magnitude of the radiological impacts and associated external costs for each
facility. The results for those stages which take place in the Netherlands are broadly
comparable with those given in the French reference study.
The collective radiological impacts to the global population are made up of very low individual
dose levels integrated over thousands of years. When making assessments of such impacts, a
number of important assumptions have to be made which play an important role in the result
obtained. Since these assumptions are intended to enable illustrative assessments to be
performed, the results obtained should be seen in this light. It is however reasonable to state
that these global radiological impacts dominate the total collective radiological impact from
nuclear fuel cycle activities and hence the external costs for zero percent discount rate. For
non-zero discount rates these impacts are less important. The collective dose to the global
population is made up essentially from the releases of 14C from the reprocessing plant and from
the releases of radon from the mine and mill wastes.
162
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Table 6.32 Damages of the nuclear fuel cycle.
mECU/kWh
Core
POWER GENERATION
Public health
- Mortality
- PM10
- SO2
- NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
- Morbidity
- PM10, SO2 and NOx
- NOx (via ozone)
Public accidents
Occupational health
Crops
- SO2
- NOx (via ozone)
Ecosystems
Forest
Materials
Monuments
Noise
Visual impacts
Global warming
low
mid (3% discount rate)
high
OTHER FUEL CYCLE STAGES
Public health
Occupational health Outside EU
Inside EU
Ecological effects
Road damages
0.058
0.050
nq
nq
ng
ng
ng
ng
ExternE range
ng
ng
ng
7.1
0.13
nq
ng
ExternE range
Global warming
nq
low
nq
mid (3% discount rate)
nq
high
ng: negligible; nq: not quantified; iq: only impact quantified; - : not relevant
g
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
A
A
B
A
C
C
C
The radiological impact used to calculate the external cost of severe accidents is determined by
the magnitude of the release and the probability of occurrence of the accident scenarios
analysed. It must be emphasised that the costs associated with severe accidents cannot be
represented by one value. Such values should not simply be added to the values obtained from
normal operations from the facility to give a total for that facility.
In the French reference study it was concluded that more work is needed to (1) assess the
uncertainty associated with the assessments, (2) develop methodologies to deal with large
spans of time and space, and (3) assess the costs associated with major accidents. Clearly the
first two conclusions are related and, given the dominance of the global radiological impact
163
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
under the present methodology, very important. The fundamental assumption in the ExternE
methodology for assessing the radiological health impacts associated with nuclear fuel cycle
activities is that the dose-response relationship is linear and goes through the origin. This
assumption has been adopted from the field of radiological protection. There is currently
insufficient data to determine with certainty what shape the dose-response function has at very
low doses and dose rates. The objective of the field of radiological protection is to protect
mankind from the harmful effects of ionising radiation and the assumption that the doseresponse relationship is linear is made within this framework. Different assumptions with
respect to the dose-response relationship could have profound effects on the results of the
study.
With respect to the third conclusion made in the French study it should be stated that within
the framework of accident consequence assessment a reasonable amount of work has already
been carried out into the assessment of the offsite economic costs associated with major
accidents. One conclusion of the present scoping study is that future work in the context of
external cost research should be directed at developing ways to present the costs from
accidental situations and to combine these costs with the external costs associated with normal
operations. In keeping with welfare economics future work should take into account the
concept of risk as experienced by the general public. In particular, it has been established that
members of the public are more concerned about low probability - high consequence events
than about high probability - low consequence events having the same mean damage.
Additionally, in this scoping study the radiological impacts associated with accidental situations
at stages other than the electricity generating stage have been qualitatively discussed. To date,
most work in this area has been performed within the framework of license applications. The
qualitative discussions in this scoping study indicate that the external costs associated with
such accidents may be as (or more) important as (than) the external costs associated with the
normal operation of that stage. Although these accident situations are unlikely to contribute
significantly to the external costs associated with the whole fuel cycle they may form priority
impacts for particular stages. More work is thus needed into accident scenarios at all stages of
the nuclear fuel cycle in the context of external cost research.
Furthermore, as stated before, the non-radiological externalities associated with transport in
the nuclear fuel cycle have not been estimated in this scoping study. The main impacts are
normal accidents and impacts from transport air emissions. Seen the large amount of transport
movements and the large transport distances these damages could easily be one or more
mECU/kWh. The total externalities are of the same order of magnitude as the current nuclear
based electricity production costs - 45 to 52 mECU/kWh (Hilten et al., 1994)
164
Aggregation
7. AGGREGATION
From a policy and environmental science perspective it is important to know not only the
externalities of individual plants but more so total and the average externalities of the total
electricity production. For this aggregation two procedures are followed:
1. Estimation of the total and average externalities due to non SO2, NOx and particle power
generation emissions. The most ideal way to do this is by applying a multi source version of
the software applied for single sources. However, this software was not readily available. It
would be too time consuming to analyse all power stations separately. Thus the
aggregation was made possible by performing a sensitivity analysis. The most influential
parameters, such as stack height, emission factor and location, on the regional and local
damages of SO2, NOx, and PM10 emissions of the Dutch coal reference power plant was
analysed by using the Ecosense model. From this analysis simple relations (so called
‘impact factor functions’) between the damage and the above mentioned parameters are
obtained. Emission factor data and other operation, location and technical data concerning
all power plants in the Netherlands are obtained from the Emission Registration Office in
the Netherlands. The ‘impact factor functions’ are applied to all Dutch power plants of
which data are available.
2. Estimating the total and average externalities of the non SO2, NOx and particle power
generation emission related impacts:
• The externalities of ‘non-power station air emissions’ estimated in the gas and coal
fuel cycle analysis are linked to electricity production and fuel cycle type data. The
same is done for global warming impacts due to CO2 emissions in the full fuel cycle.
• Assumptions on the extent of the externalities from other fuel cycles (wind and
hydro) are made based on ExternE results from other countries. For the nuclear
electricity production the results from the nuclear reference plant is used.
From these results the total and average externalities of electricity production in the Dutch
electricity sector are quantified.
7.1 Sensitivity analyses
In order to find mathematical relations between emissions and public health impacts for
simplifying the aggregation work several tests are performed to analyse the influence of the
damage determining variables on the total damage on both the regional and the local scale.
165
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The variables tested are:
1. Stack height;
2. Flue gas temperature;
3. Emission and
4. Geographic location.
As there are hardly any direct NOx impacts the influence of these parameters on the NOx
impacts are not analysed.
7.1.1 Stack height test
The influence of the stack height on both the regional (R) and the local (L) impact was tested
by varying the stack height of the ‘Centrale Hemweg’ coal fired plant between 2 and 175
meters. The highest stack height in the Netherlands is 175 meters. The results for the relative
secondary aerosol impacts from SO2 and NOx emissions and the relative impacts from SO2 and
PM10 (primary particles) emission are given in the figures below.
Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 indicate that for both SO2 and primary particles (PM10) the R-L
impact (i.e. the regional (incl. local) minus the local impact) is independent of the stack height
when keeping all other emission variables constant. A second preliminary conclusion would be
that the higher the stack the lower the local impact and that with lower stacks the local impact
can in fact be higher than the R-L impact.
Figure 7.3 gives the R-L impacts of secondary aerosols formed aerosols from SO2 and NOx
emissions as modelled with the Ecosense model. However, the Ecosense model does not give
secondary aerosol impacts in the local range separated from the regional range. The regional
impact seems to be independent of the stack height when keeping all other variables constant.
The Ecosense model assumes that secondary aerosols are not formed significantly within the
local range. However, the OPS model (Jaarsveld et al., 1994) predicts substantial secondary
aerosol impacts of 1.2 mECU/kWh for this plant emissions in the local range. In the OPS
model a moderate rate of formation of secondary aerosols is assumed. Furthermore, Figure 7.1
indicates that the local aerosol impact might increase with lower stack height as the SO2 impact
increases. This means that the aerosol impacts are probably underestimated.
166
Aggregation
3.00
RSO2
LSO2
RELATIVE IMPACT
2.50
R-L SO2
2.00
1.50
1.00
y = -0.0096x + 2.5814
R2 = 0.9756
0.50
y = 0.0004x + 0.6299
R2 = 0.8153
y = -0.01x + 1.9514
R2 = 0.9724
0.00
0
50
100
150
STACK HEIGHT (METERS)
Figure 7.1
Relative SO2 impact with stack height.
3.00
R PM10
L PM10
2.50
RELATIVE IMPACT
R-L PM10
2.00
1.50
1.00
y = -0.0103x + 2.701
R2 = 0.9749
0.50
y = 0.25
R2 = 1
y = -0.0103x + 2.0236
R2 = 0.9749
0.00
0
50
100
150
STACK HEIGHT (METERS)
Figure 7.2
Relative PM10 impacts and stack height.
167
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
y=1
RELATIVE IMPACT
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
RAERTOT
0.20
0.00
0
50
100
150
200
STACK HEIGHT (METERS)
Figure 7.3
Relative regional aerosol impact with stack height.
7.1.2 Flue gas temperature test
The influence of the flue gas temperature on the impact is analysed by keeping all data of the
Centrale Hemweg coal fired plant constant and vary the temperature at the stack outlet at 100
meters above ground level. The results are presented in Figure 7.4 to Figure 7.6.
Again the observation that the aerosol impacts are constant with temperature is due to model
shortcomings. For SO2 and PM10 a sharp decrease of the local damage with flue gas
temperature is observed.
168
Aggregation
1.00
y=1
R2 = 1
RELATIVE IMPACT
0.90
0.80
RAERTOT
Linear (RAERTOT)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
283 293 303 313 323 333 343 353 363 373 383
TEMPERATURE (K)
Figure 7.4
Relative regional secondary aerosol impact with temperature.
1.60
RSO2
RELATIVE IMPACT
1.40
y = 383661x -2.2054
R2 = 0.9496
1.20
LSO2
R-L SO2
Power (RSO2)
1.00
-4.0737
y = 1E+10x
R2 = 0.9716
0.80
Power (LSO2)
Linear (R-L SO2)
0.60
0.40
0.20
y = 0.0001x + 0.4388
R2 = 0.5
0.00
283 293 303 313 323 333 343 353 363 373 383
TEMPERATURE (K)
Figure 7.5
Relative SO2 impact with temperature.
169
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
1.60
R PM10
RELATIVE IMPACT
1.40
y = 635719x -2.2924
R2 = 0.9528
1.20
L PM10
R-L PM10
Power (R PM10)
1.00
y = 7E+09x-3.9974
R2 = 0.9679
0.80
0.60
0.40
Power (L PM10)
Linear (R-L PM10)
y = -0.0001x + 0.5081
R2 = 0.125
0.20
0.00
283 293 303 313 323 333 343 353 363 373 383
TEMPERATURE (K)
Figure 7.6
Relative PM10 impact with temperature.
7.1.3 Emission test
The influences of the quantity of the emissions of primary emitted particles (PM10), SO2 and
secondary aerosols from NOx and SO2 on the impacts are given in Figure 7.7 to Figure 7.9. For
regional impacts of secondary aerosols (RAER) both the total (RAERTOT) as the SO2
(RAERSO2) and the NOx (RAERNOX) parts, analysed separately with two model runs, are
given. These aerosol results are also given in Table 7.1. For the direct SO2 and NOx impacts,
the regional ( R), local (L) and regional minus local (R-L) scores are given. The equations
given in the figures were obtained with linear regression fits to the data. The results indicate
that all dependencies are linear.
Table 7.1 and Figure 7.7 indicate that the total aerosol concentration can be explained by
summing the SO2 and the NOx aerosol parts. Hence, for the aggregation it will be assumed
that:
1. All impacts are linearly correlated to the emission,
2. The impacts of secondary aerosols from SO2 and NOx emission can be summed to give the
total secondary aerosol impacts and
3. Each tonne of NOx and SO2 emitted has a relative contribution to the secondary aerosol
impact of 0.35 and 0.65 respectively for a stack height of 175 meters.
170
Aggregation
1.00
RAERTOT
RAERSO2
RAERNOX
RAERSO2+RAERNOX
Linear (RAERTOT)
Linear (RAERNOX)
Linear (RAERSO2)
0.90
RELATIVE IMPACT
0.80
0.70
0.60
y = 0.0101x
2
R = 0.9996
0.50
y = 0.0066x
0.40
R =1
2
0.30
y = 0.0035x
0.20
2
R = 0.9997
0.10
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
EMISSION (mg/m3)
Figure 7.7
Relative secondary aerosol impact with emission change.
1.00
RSO2
RELATIVE IMPACT
0.90
LSO2
0.80
y = 0.01x
2
Linear (RSO2)
0.70
R =1
Linear (LSO2)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
y = 0.0031x
0.10
R = 0.9995
2
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
EMISSION (mg/m3)
Figure 7.8 Relative SO2 impact with emission change.
171
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
1.00
R PM10
RELATIVE IMPACT
0.90
L PM10
0.80
y = 0.01x
0.70
Linear (R PM10)
0.60
Linear (L PM10)
2
R =1
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
y = 0.0033x
0.10
R = 0.9999
2
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
EMISSION (mg/m3)
Figure 7.9 Relative PM10 impact with emission change.
Table 7.1
Emission
(mg/m3)
100
50
25
1
Relative impact to emission.
Relative impacts
RAERTOT
1.000
0.517
0.252
0.010
RAERSO2
0.345
0.176
0.090
0.003
RAERNOX
0.655
0.328
0.166
0.007
RAERSO2+RAERNOX
1.000
0.503
0.255
0.010
7.1.4 Location test
It was analysed if the location of the power plant is of influence on the impacts. With this
analysis it is postulated that the geographic co-ordinates are representative for the receptor
density. As receptor the human population was analysed as this receptor has the largest
impacts. The Centrale Hemweg coal fired plant was assumed to be situated in five alternative
locations.
172
Aggregation
A map with the six tested locations is given in Figure 7.10, showing the geographic distribution
of the sites over the Netherlands and the location of the Netherlands in Europe.
6
5
%
%
2
%
3
%
%
%
4
1
Figure 7.10 Location of ‘site test’ plants in the Netherlands and Europe.
173
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
For each pollutant the human health impacts, relative to the impacts in Amsterdam, are given in
Table 7.2 to Table 7.4. (X and Y are the geographical co-ordinates).
Table 7.2 Secondary human health impacts relative to the total regional impacts of the E8station in Amsterdam.
NR
SITE
X
Y
R AERTOT
R AERSO2
R AERNOX
1
BUGGENUM
5.99
51.13
2.03
0.42
1.61
2
AMSTERDAM
4.85
52.40
0.24
0.77
1.00
3
MAASVLAKTE
4.05
51.96
1.23
0.27
0.95
4
NIJMEGEN
5.85
51.86
1.42
0.34
1.10
5
EEMSHAVEN
6.80
53.40
0.94
0.19
0.74
6
LAUWERSOOG
6.15
53.38
0.94
0.19
0.74
Table 7.3 SO2 human health impacts relative to the total regional impacts of the E8-station in
Amsterdam.
NR
SITE
X
Y
R SO2
L SO2
R-L SO2
1
BUGGENUM
5.99 51.13
1.75
0.48
1.27
2
AMSTERDAM
4.85 52.40
0.31
0.69
1.00
3
MAASVLAKTE
4.05 51.96
1.40
0.62
0.79
4
NIJMEGEN
5.85 51.86
1.40
0.35
1.06
5
EEMSHAVEN
6.80 53.40
0.58
0.062
0.52
6
LAUWERSOOG
6.15 53.38
0.52
0.002
0.52
Table 7.4 PM10 human health impacts relative to the total regional impacts of the E8-station in
Amsterdam.
NR
SITE
X
Y
R PM10
L PM10
R-L PM10
1
BUGGENUM
5.99 51.13
1.81
0.52
1.29
2
AMSTERDAM
4.85 52.40
0.32
0.68
1.00
3
MAASVLAKTE
4.05 51.96
16.1
15.5
0.65
4
NIJMEGEN
5.85 51.86
9.67
8.39
1.29
5
EEMSHAVEN
6.80 53.40
0.58
0.065
0.521
6
LAUWERSOOG
6.15 53.38
0.58
0.058
0.52
The coefficients of the explanatory variables X, Y were estimated with ordinary least square
regression in Micro TSP. The results are given in the next equation and Table 7.5.
174
Aggregation
RI = α⋅X + β⋅Y + C
(7-1)
with:
RI
= Relative human health impact estimate for regional ( R), local (L) and outside
local (R-L) range for aerosols total, aerosols from SO2 only, aerosols from NOx
only, SO2, NOx and PM10 (primary particles emission).
X
= X co-ordinate in degrees
Y
= Y co-ordinate in degrees
C
= Constant
α and β = Parameters
Table 7.5 Least square estimates of equation parameters a with standard deviations and R2.
Impact
RAERTOT RAERSO2
Variable
C
sd C
α
sd α
β
sd β
R2
Log likelihood
Sum of squared
residuals (SSR)
F-statistics
a
RAERNOx
RSO2
LSO2
R-L SO2
RPM10
LPM10 R-L PM10
20.9
29.6
3.0
2.1
0.16 -0.0080
0.05
0.037
-0.40
-0.54
0.06
0.04
10.3
2.2
-0.11
0.04
-0.18
0.04
19.3
1.1
0.10
0.02
-0.36
0.02
90.7
164.0
-4.0
2.9
-1.2
3.2
68.9
162.6
-4.2
2.9
-0.78
3.2
21.8
4.2
0.18
0.08
-0.42
0.08
26.5
3.4
0.19
0.06
-0.50
0.07
5.7
0.2
0.030
0.004
-0.107
0.005
0.949
6.1
0.046
0.994
22.2
0.00021
0.936
6.8
0.037
0.986
9.1
0.017
0.930
8.7
0.019
0.989
12.8
0.0049
0.492
-17.2
107.2
0.493
-17.11
105.4
0.893
11.78
0.0069
27.6
272.9
21.9
107.5
20.0
138.9
1.4
1.4
12.5
The italic numbers in the table express that the explanatory value of the variable is low
(t-statistics <2).
The results lead to the following conclusions:
1. SO2 impacts
The X variable in the RSO2 function is not significant. Leaving out this variable did not result
in significant changes in the estimates of the Y parameter or in C. However, the LSO2 and the
impacts outside the local range are found to be correlated to the geographic co-ordinates
although the explanatory value of the variable X in the LSO2 relation is rather low (3).
2. PM10 impacts
For the regional and local impacts from PM10 no correlation to X, Y or C was found.
However, for the regional minus the local impact a reasonable correlation with the co-ordinates
could be found.
3. Secondary aerosol impacts
For the regional impacts due to secondary aerosols from NOx and SO2, a correlation with the
geographic co-ordinates exists. However, as no local range impact estimates were available a
correlation test of the impacts outside the local range to the co-ordinates could not be
175
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
performed. The influence of leaving out the local impacts is not expected to give significant
changes in the relation found as secondary aerosols from high stack emissions are formed at
some distance from the plant. The parameters in the functions for RAERSO2 and RAERNOx
can be summed to give the parameters for RAERTOT. In other words, the individual SO2 and
NOx secondary aerosol impacts can be added to give the total secondary aerosol impact.
As the parameters of the RAERTOT, R-L SO2 and R-L PM10 functions indicate that one
function could be used for all three pollutants, some additional statistical tests were performed
to investigate whether one function suffices. First of all it was tested if X and Y are correlated
to see whether they should be dealt with as two different variables. The correlation showed to
be small (0.42). This indicates that as a first approximation a normal test to see whether the
functions are not statistically different can be performed. The test showed that the functions are
significantly different from each other. This means that, as a first approximation, one function
can be used for scaling the secondary aerosol, SO2 and PM10 impacts in the Netherlands
relative to the impacts at the Centrale Hemweg site. The function is given below.
Relative impact = 0.20⋅X - 0.55⋅Y + 28.8
(7-2)
Some statistics on this relation are given in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 Least square estimates of equation parameters with standard deviations and R2.
Relative impacts
Variable
all pollutants
C
28.8
sd C
2.2
0.20
α
0.04
sd α
-0.55
β
0.04
sd β
R2
Log likelihood
Sum of squared residuals (SSR)
F-statistics
0.915
11.7
0.29
80.6
The results and conclusions are only valid for high stack emissions (175 m). For small stacks
(<125 m, see stack height test) the functions could change significantly as less of the pollutants
is transported out of the local range. As a first approximation for simplifying the aggregation
task Equation 7.2 will be used although the number of observations on which the function is
based is limited.
7.1.5 Conclusions
Combining the results from the sensitivity test of the relative impacts with respect to stack
height, temperature of the flue gas and emission quantity gives the following equations:
176
Aggregation
Regional range impacts:
•
SO2:
I = (-0.0096 ⋅ H + 2.58) ⋅ (3.83E+05 ⋅ T-2.20) ⋅ ((En/Eb) ⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIR
•
(7-3)
PM10:
I = (-0.0103 ⋅ H + 2.70) ⋅ (6.35E+05 ⋅ T-2.29) ⋅ ((En/Eb) ⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIR
(7-4)
Outside local range impacts:
•
SO2 and PM10:
I = (En/Eb)⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIR-L
•
(7-5)
Aerosols 3:
I = (0.35 ⋅ En(NOx)/Eb(NOx)+ 0.65 ⋅ En(SO2)/Eb(SO2)) ⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIR-L
(7-6)
Local range impacts
•
Aerosols: not analysed
• SO2
I = (-0.01 ⋅ H + 1.95) ⋅ (1.0E+10 ⋅ T-4.07) ⋅ ((En/Eb) ⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIL
(7-7)
• PM10
I = (-0.0103 ⋅ H + 2.024) ⋅ (7.0E+09 ⋅ T-4.00) ⋅ ((En/Eb) ⋅ (0.2 ⋅ X - 0.55 ⋅ Y + 28.8) ⋅ BIL (7-8)
With: I
=
BIR, R-l, L=
En
=
Eb
=
H
=
T
=
X
=
Y
=
Impact of new plant
Impact of reference plant
Emission factor new plant
Emission factor reference plant
Height of stack new plant (in meters)
Temperature of flue gas at outlet of stack of the new plant (in Kelvin)
X co-ordinates of new plant (in degrees)
Y co-ordinates of new plant (in degrees)
It should be noted that the relations only hold for human health impacts. Aggregation rules for
other impact categories are more simple as they are mainly independent of the location of the
plant. They are discussed later.
7.2 Electricity production in the Netherlands
Data on the type, location, capacities and emissions to air and water of all electricity plants in
the Netherlands for the years 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994 were obtained from the ‘Emission
3
Equation is valid if base impact includes both NOx and SO2 impacts. If one of the emissions
are not considered in the base impacts the relative contribution emission factors should be set
to 1 for the pollutants separately.
177
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Registration Office’ (ER, 1996). The ‘Emission Registration Office’ gathers the information
from the electricity producers on a voluntary basis. All electricity producers are co-operative in
providing data as long as the actual data is not published in any form. Therefore, only
manipulated data is given in this paragraph.
In the Netherlands electricity is produced by large electricity companies and smaller producers.
The four large production companies cover each a different region of end-users in the
Netherlands. They are united in the so called “Combined Electricity Producers”
(“Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-producenten - Sep”). Thus, the companies are not in
competition with each other. The production takes place in large centralised locations and
decentral units. The amount of electricity produced with different fuels in the Netherlands is
given in Table 7.7. More detailed data is provided in the appendix to this chapter.
7.3 Aggregation methods
Power production impacts of non global warming atmospheric emissions
To enable aggregation of impacts of SO2, NOx and PM10 emissions of all electricity plants with
Equations 7.4 to 7.8, data on the location, the flue gas emission temperature and stack height
of the individual plants have to be known. Location data of the plants was known from ER
(1996) and is presented in the appendix to the aggregation chapter. The other power plant
characteristics were not readily available. Therefore, the following assumptions are made:
•
Gas fired installation (< 10 MW):
Flue gas temperature =
Stack height
=
343 K
35 meters
•
Gas fired STEG installation (>10 MW): Flue gas temperature =
Stack height
=
343 K
60 meters
•
Coal fired STEG installation:
Flue gas temperature =
Stack height
=
343 K
75 meters
•
Pulverised coal installation:
Flue gas temperature =
Stack height
=
323 K
175 meters
178
Aggregation
Table 7.7 Electricity produced in the Netherlands in 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
1990
kW
kWh/y
1993
kW
kWh/y
%
1994
kW
Central
Coal
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
CHP (gas)
kWh/y
%
4,135,000
9,799,913
960,000
452,000
1,141,900
2.46E+10
2.98E+10
3.30E+09
3.90E+09
4.5E+09
27.8 3,670,000 2.29E+10 25.1
33.8 9,664,915 3.31E+10 36.4
3.7
960,000 3.99E+09 4.4
4.4
452,000 3.90E+09 4.3
5.1 1,208,900 5.5E+09 6.1
4,080,000
9,667,916
960,000
452,000
1,104,900
2.39E+10
3.13E+10
4.36E+09
3.90E+09
5.6E+09
25.7
33.7
4.7
4.2
6.1
4,234,000
9,381,417
833,000
452,000
1,105,200
2.52E+10
2.76E+10
3.89E+09
3.90E+09
5.6E+09
27.2
29.8
4.2
4.2
6.0
Decentral
PV
Water
Wind
MWI
CHP (gas)
1,000
37,000
82,500
167,000
2,100,000
7.00E+05
8.00E+07
8.00E+07
8.35E+08
1.17E+10
0.0
2,500
0.1
37,000
0.1
84,000
0.9
253,000
13.2 2,238,000
2,500
37,000
120,000
253,000
2,400,000
1.75E+06
8.00E+07
1.16E+08
1.27E+09
1.20E+10
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.4
12.9
2,500
37,000
190,000
253,000
2,932,000
1.75E+06
8.00E+07
1.84E+08
1.27E+09
1.43E+10
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.4
15.4
Import
1,500,000
9.50E+09
10.8 1,500,000 8.50E+09
1,500,000
1.04E+10
11.2
1,500,000
1.07E+10
11.5
Total
20,376,313 8.83E+10 100.0 20,070,315 9.11E+10 100.0 20,577,316 9.30E+10 100.0 20,920,117 9.27E+10 100.0
Sep
15,672,000 6.19E+10
Sep+Decentral
8.41E+10
Other
4.19E+09
%
1992
kW
kWh/y
%
1.75E+06 0.0
8.00E+07 0.1
8.15E+07 0.1
1.27E+09 1.4
1.17E+10 12.8
15,139,000 6.53E+10
8.69E+10
4.12E+09
9.3
15,353,000 6.49E+10
8.88E+10
4.22E+09
15,032,000 6.19E+10
8.84E+10
4.38E+09
Source: ER (1996)
MWI = Municipal waste incineration
CHP = combined heat and power
PV = photovoltaic
179
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
The aggregation is performed on the basis of the ‘Centrale Hemweg E8’ coal fired plant impact
and emission data, the emission and electricity production data of the Dutch electricity plants
mentioned in the previous section and Equations 7.4 to 7.8 in Section 7.1. For testing the
applicability of the method a different aggregation techniques was applied as well. In the
second method (named ‘emission approach’) the average impact values per tonne emitted
pollutant of the analysed coal fuel cycle were applied on the emission data provided by
Emission Registration (discussed previously) without any additional operations.
Global warming and Ozone damages due to the power generation stage
In both methods mentioned above the CO2 and ozone damages are assumed to be proportional
to the amount of CO2 and NOx emitted respectively. These are assumed global and regional
damages respectively without local specificity.
Other damages
Other damages are occupational health damages, public health damages and global warming
damages outside the power generation stage. They have been assumed constant for each fuel.
This means they are proportional to the amount of kWh produced with the different fuels. The
impacts from municipal waste incineration fuel cycle have been assumed equal to the wood cofiring fuel cycle analysed in this report (on kWh basis). The oil fuel cycle impacts in these
categories have been assumed equal to that of the coal fuel cycle analysed in this report (on
kWh basis).
In the category “other damages also the damages due to the nuclear, hydro and wind fuel
cycles are included. For the wind and hydro fuel cycles the damage estimates from the Danish
and Norwegian implementation (0.76 and 2.3 mECU/kWh respectively) are used. For the
Nuclear fuel cycle the damage estimates given in this report (in total 7.3 mECU/kWh) are used
7.4 Results
The sub-total damage estimates are given for the four combinations of valuation:
1. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming mid range damage
estimates;
2. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) public health estimates and ExternE global warming mid range damage
estimates;
3. Core (YOLL) public health estimates and IPCC global warming mid damage estimate and
4. Sensitivity 1 (VSL) ) public health estimates and ExternE global warming mid damage
estimate.
The results for the detailed method are given in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9. The results for the
‘emission approach’ method are given in Table 7.10.
180
Aggregation
Table 7.8 Best estimate damages of electricity production in the Netherlands by applying
location and technology specific analysis in billion ECU/y.
Impact categories
1990
1992
1993
1994
Core + ExternE GW
1.11
0.86
0.73
0.64
• Power generation (I) a
0.69-1.8
0.70-1.8 0.71-1.8 0.72-1.9
• Power generation Global Warming
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
• Others b
Subtotal
2.0-3.1
1.8-2.9 1.7-2.8
1.6-2.7
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
6.21
4.81
4.14
3.43
• Power generation (I) a
0.69-1.8
0.70-1.8 0.71-1.8 0.72-1.9
• Power generation Global Warming
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
• Others b
Subtotal
7.1-8.2
5.7-6.9 5.1-6.2
4.4-5.5
Core + IPCC GW
1.11
0.86
0.73
0.64
• Power generation (I) a
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
• Power generation Global Warming
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.18
• Others b
Subtotal
1.51
1.25
1.15
1.06
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
6.21
4.81
4.14
3.43
• Power generation (I) a
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
• Power generation Global Warming
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.19
• Others b
Subtotal
6.63
5.23
4.57
3.86
a Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages.
b Other damages include all hydro, wind and nuclear damages, all occupational damages for fossil fuel
cycles and the public health and global warming damages outside the power generation stage of fossil
fuel cycles.
181
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 7.9 Best estimate average damages of electricity production
applying location and technology specific analysis in mECU/kWh.
Impact categories
1990
1992
Core + ExternE GW
12.6
9.4
• Power generation (I) a
7.9-20.4
7.7-20.0
• Power generation Global Warming
2.3
2.2
• Others b
Subtotal
22.8-35.3 19.3-31.6
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
70.4
52.9
• Power generation (I) a
7.9-20.4
7.7-20.0
• Power generation Global Warming
2.5
2.4
• Others b
Subtotal
80.7-93.3 63.0-75.3
Core + IPCC GW
12.6
9.4
• Power generation (I) a
2.6
2.6
• Power generation Global Warming
1.9
1.8
• Others b
Subtotal
17.1
13.8
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
70.4
52.9
• Power generation (I) a
2.6
2.6
• Power generation Global Warming
2.1
2.0
• Others b
Subtotal
75.1
57.5
in the Netherlands by
1993
1994
7.9
7.6-19.7
2.3
17.8-29.9
6.94
7.7-20.1
2.3
16.9-29.3
44.5
7.6-19.7
2.5
54.6-66.7
37.0
7.7-20.1
2.5
47.2-59.6
7.9
2.5
1.9
12.3
6.9
2.6
1.9
11.4
44.5
2.5
2.1
49.1
37.0
2.6
2.1
41.7
a Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages.
b Other damages include all hydro, wind and nuclear damages, all occupational damages for fossil fuel
cycles and the public health and global warming damages outside the power generation stage of fossil
fuel cycles.
Table 7.10 Damage estimates for electricity production in the Netherlands using only emission
data in t/y and average impacts from the ‘Coal Fuel Cycle’ analysed in this report.
1990
1992
1993
1994
Core + ExternE GW
Total damage in billion ECU/y
1.1-2.2
0.91-2.0 0.83-2.0
0.73-1.9
Average damage in mECU/kWh
12.2-24.8 10.0-22.3 8.9-21.0
7.9-20.3
% of detailed analysis (Table 7.9)
53-70
52-70
50-70
46-69
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
Total damage in billion ECU/y
4.3-5.4
3.6-4.7
3.1-4.3
2.7-3.9
Average damage in mECU/kWh
48.6-61.2 39.1-51.4 33.6-45.7 29.1-41.5
% of detailed analysis (Table 7.9)
60-66
62-68
62-69
62-70
Core + IPCC GW
Total damage in billion ECU/y
1.04
0.87
0.79
0.69
Average damage in mECU/kWh
11.8
9.6
8.5
7.5
% of detailed analysis (Table 7.9)
69
70
69
66
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
Total damage in billion ECU/y
4.26
3.52
3.09
2.66
Average damage in mECU/kWh
48.2
38.7
33.2
28.7
% of detailed analysis ((Table 7.9)
64
67
68
69
182
Aggregation
The results indicate that if location and technology parameters are not included, aggregation
does not lead to a proper estimate of the damages. Admittedly, the detailed analysis is still
rough because the equations used are based on 6 locations only and rough assumptions on
technical characteristics are used. However, this ‘detailed’ analysis probably gives a better
estimate of the damages than the ‘emission approach’ because the results in Section 1 indicate
that location and technology are important damage parameters.
The subtotal average damages, based on the conservative 95 % confidence interval over all
combinations of valuation, are in the range of 17.1 to 93.3, 13,8 to 75.3, 12.3 to 66.7 and
11.4 to 59.6 mECU/kWh for 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. The best estimate
ranges are 17.1 to75.1, 13.8 to 57.5, 12.3 to 49.1 and 11.4 to 41.7 mECU/kWh for 1990,
1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. There seems to be a trend towards decreasing damages with
time. This will be analysed further in the “Policy Case Study”. However, at present the average
externalities of electricity production in the Netherlands are estimated to be of the same order
of magnitude as the average private electricity production costs ( ± 40 mECU/kWh).
The damage estimates per fuel type are given in Table 7.11.
Table 7.11 Aggregate and average externalities by fuel type (Core public health and ExternEGW mid range estimates are used).
1990
Damage in ECU/y
Coal
1.3E+09 -1.9E+09
Natural gas
5.3E+08 -9.8E+08
Oil
1.1E+08 -2.5E+08
Nuclear
2.8E+07
Biomass + Waste 2.1E+06 -2.8E+06
Wind
6.1E+04
Hydro
1.8E+05
PV
n.q.
Import
4.6E+07
Damage in mECU/kWh
Coal
52.6 -77.4
Natural gas
12.6 -23.5
Oil
34.8 -75.3
Nuclear
7.3
Biomass + Waste
2.6 -3.4
Wind
0.76
Hydro
2.3
PV
n.q.
Import
4.8
1992
1993
1994
9.7E+08 - 1.5E+09
5.9E+08 - 1.1E+09
1.3E+08 - 2.7E+08
2.8E+07
3.2E+06 - 4.2E+06
6.2E+04
1.8E+05
n.q.
4.1E+07
8.5E+08 -1.4E+09
5.7E+08 -1.1E+09
1.5E+08 -3.2E+08
2.8E+07
3.2E+06 -4.2E+06
8.8E+04
1.8E+05
n.q.
5.0E+07
8.6E+08 - 1.4E+09
4.8E+08 - 9.5E+08
1.5E+08 - 3.2E+08
2.8E+07
3.2E+06 - 4.2E+06
1.4E+05
1.8E+05
n.q.
5.1E+07
42.3 - 66.3
13.1 - 24.5
31.7 - 68.3
7.3
2.6 - 3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
35.7 -58.4
13.1 -24.6
33.5 -73.6
7.3
2.6 -3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
34.0 - 57.3
11.6 - 22.7
37.4 - 82.6
7.3
2.6 -3.4
0.76
2.3
n.q.
4.8
A decrease in the externalities of coal fuelled electricity production is observed. This is mainly
due to a decrease in the average SO2, NOx and PM emissions. For the same reason also for
183
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
natural gas and oil fuelled electricity production a decrease in the externalities was expected.
Partly due to data inaccuracies and problems with several plants in 1992 and 1993 this is not
observed. For wind, nuclear, PV and hydro the central estimate of the externalities (the Core
human health and lower bound of the midrange ExternE-GW estimates) in 1995 was held
representative for all years analysed. It is clear that renewable electricity production has smaller
externalities than fossil fuel electricity production and that nuclear is probably somewhere
between these two.
Furthermore, there seems to be a trend towards decreasing damages with time. This will be
analysed further in the “Policy Case Study”. However, at present the average externalities of
electricity production in the Netherlands are estimated to be of the same order of magnitude as
the average private electricity production costs ( ± 40 mECU/kWh).
184
Policy Case Study
8. POLICY CASE STUDY
In this policy case study the total and average externalities of different electricity production
scenarios for the Netherlands are estimated.
First the scenarios are discussed shortly. Second, the power generation technologies of the
future are discussed and the related emission factors are given. Finally, the externalities of the
full fuel cycles are estimated and the results are discussed.
8.1 Scenarios
Up to the year 2004 the centralised electricity production is already planned by the “Combined
Electricity Producers” - Sep. The planned production is described in the Electricity Plan 19952004 (Sep 1, 1994; Sep 2, 1994). This plan is approved by the Dutch government and it will
probably be realised with possible small variations. The influence of these variations on the
externality estimates for the total and average electricity production up to 2004 will probably
be small as the main part of the production capacity used until 2004 is already existing and little
new capacity will be built. In the year 2030 all currently operational power plants will be
written off and closed down. The amount of kWh produced with the currently available and
already planned power stations for 1999 and 2004, 2010, 2015 and 2020 are modelled with the
Sep plans and the Emission Registration data (ER, 1996). The results by fuel are given in Table
8.1.
In the same table some forecasts for the electricity demand, according to the Sep, are given.
From the difference between the total and the Sep forecast it is clear that from 2004 on new
capacity is needed. There are a large number of power generation scenarios available in the
literature. In these scenarios not only the amount of electricity needed is forecasted but also
predictions of the technologies with which the electricity will be produced are made. The
scenarios from the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation are the most commonly used in
policy analysis and developed for policy makers. The best known scenarios are given in the
National Energy Investigation -“Nationale Energieverkenning” (Bonekamp et al., 1992), the
Third Energy Bill - “de Derde Energienota” ( Hilten et al., 1996) and the Coal Application
Study - “Koleninzetstudie- KIS” (Kram et al., 1991). The scenarios use different assumptions
with regard to policy, in particular with respect to global warming (CO2), and therefore they
cannot be interpreted as subsequent in time, but rather as different possible future
developments. They are discussed separately below.
185
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 8.1 Electricity production between 1999 and 2020 by in 1994 existing and in 1994 planned units according to Sep.
1999
kW
installed
kWh/y
produced
Central
Coal
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
CHP (gas)
3,981,000
7,344,445
820,000
0
1,750,200
2.39E+10 4,581,000
3.37E+10 6,892,272
3.89E+09
361,000
0.00E+00
0
1.1E+10 1,950,900
2.84E+10 4,581,000 2.84E+10
3.22E+10 2,420,121 1.41E+10
1.71E+09
361,000 1.71E+09
0.00E+00
0 0.00E+00
1.3E+10 1,505,600 9.3E+09
3,306,000
1,842,515
0
0
1,122,600
Decentral
PV
Hydro
Wind
MWI
CHP (gas)
13,000
37,000
470,000
439,000
3,732,000
9.10E+06
50,000
8.00E+07
37,000
4.56E+08
470,000
2.20E+09
439,000
1.81E+10 4,100,000
3.50E+07
130,000 9.10E+07
8.00E+07
37,000 8.00E+07
4.56E+08 1,000,000 9.70E+08
2.31E+09
484,000 2.54E+09
1.99E+10 3,913,000 1.90E+10
Import
Total
2004
kW
installed
700,000 1.40E+10 1,300,000
kWh/y
produced
4.00E+09
2010
kW
installed
kWh/y
produced
600,000 3.00E+09
2020
kW
installed
kWh/y
produced
2.17E+10
1.22E+10
1.71E+09
0.00E+00
8.1E+09
1,800,000
1,405,520
0
0
1,053,600
1.18E+10
1.09E+10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.4E+09
250,000
37,000
1,000,000
508,000
3,729,000
1.75E+08
8.00E+07
9.70E+08
4.61E+08
1.81E+10
250,000
37,000
1,000,000
508,000
3,729,000
1.75E+08
8.00E+07
9.70E+08
4.61E+08
1.81E+10
600,000
3.00E+09
19,286,645 1.07E+11 20,181,172 1.02E+11 15,031,721 7.93E+10 12,395,115
Sep
12,977,523 6.78E+10 12,867,345
Sep+Decentral
8.87E+10
Other
1.83E+10
7.06E+10 8,639,611 5.34E+10
9.74E+10
7.91E+10
4.33E+09
2.50E+08
Sep forecast
1.02E+11
1.07E+11
Sources: Sep (1994) and ER (1996)
MWI = municipal waste incineration
CHP = combined heat and power
PV = Photo voltaic
186
2015
kW
installed
1.10E+11
6,043,000
kWh/y
produced
600,000 3.22E+09
6.65E+10 10,383,120 5.32E+10
4.34E+10
6.62E+10
2.50E+08
4,033,000 3.00E+10
5.30E+10
2.44E+08
1.20E+11
1.30E+11
Policy Case Study
8.1.1 Coal Applications Study (2010 and 2030)
For the years 2010 and 2030 scenarios of coal use in the Dutch electricity sector are given in
the “Coal Applications Study” or ” KIS” (Kram et al., 1991). In this study the role of coal use
is analysed using the MARKAL model. Therefore, the influence of variables such as the
development of energy demand, energy prices, and restrictions on acidifying emissions are
included in the scenarios. The scenarios do not take CO2 reduction measures into account.
With the introduction of CO2 emission reduction strategies, the coal use would be significantly
lower than in these scenarios. The starting point of the scenarios is the energy demand in the
Netherlands in the year 2000. The population growth is assumed to be 0.56% per year up to
the year 2000, 0.26% per year between 2000 and 2010, 0.05% per year between 2010 and
2020 and a decrease in population of 0.08% per year between 2020 and 2030. The scenarios
can be devided in a scenario with high economic growth ( the DG scenario) and a scenario in
which the economic growth is slightly lower (the GO scenario) due to a stronger position of
Southern-European countries in the EU. The economic growth rates in the Netherlands are
assumed to be 1.9 and 1.3 % respectively. Furthermore, the scenarios are divided in
subscenarios of which the scenarios with the specifications given in Table 8.2 are analysed
here.
Table 8.2 Details of sub-scenarios of KIS for the years 2010 and 2030.
Scenario
Gas price linked to
Reduction of acidifying
Proportion of
emissions in 2030
nuclear (%)
relative to 1980 (%) a
KIS - GO 1
Oil
90
33
KIS - GO 2
Oil
90
0
KIS - GO 3
Coal
90
33
KIS - DG 1
Oil
90
33
KIS - DG 2
Oil
90
MAX
KIS - DG 3
Coal
90
33
a
In 2000 a 65% decrease relative to 1980 levels and in 2010 a 75% decrease relative to 1980.
Source: Kram et al. (1991)
The planned electricity production over the different fuels and renewables are given in Table
8.3 and Table 8.4.
187
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 8.3 Electricity production in kWh/y according to KIS scenarios for the year 2010.
Year
Scenario
1990
2010
KIS-GO
1
2
3
2010
KIS-DG
1
2
3
Fossil fuels
Coal
Gas
Oil
CHP (Sep)
Private CHP
CHP total
Nuclear
Import
Sub total fossil
3.4E+10 3.4E+10 3.4E+10 3.3E+10
3.9E+09 9.6E+09 0.0E+00 5.8E+09 2.6E+10
9.5E+09 3.0E+09 3.0E+09 3.0E+09 3.0E+09
8.7E+10 9.2E+10 9.2E+10 9.2E+10 1.0E+11
2.5E+10
3.6E+10
3.0E+09
1.0E+11
Renewable sources
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - land
Private wind -land
Wind land total
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - sea
Wind - total
Hydropower
Wind + Hydro
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
5.6E+07
1.9E+08
3.5E+08 2.2E+09 2.2E+09 2.2E+09 2.2E+09
2.2E+09 2.2E+09
0.0E+00
7.00E+05
7.0E+05 9.1E+07 9.1E+07 9.1E+07 9.1E+07
9.1E+07 9.1E+07
Photovoltaic (Sep)
Private PV cells
PV total
Biomass burning
Refuse derived fuel
(waste wood)
Sewer water cleaning
Waste water cleaning
Sub-total biomass
Municipal waste
incineration
Manure fermentation
Waste fermentation
biomass total
Sub-total Renewables
Total
188
2.5E+10
3.0E+10
3.3E+09
4.5E+09
1.2E+10
2.5E+10
2.1E+10
3.3E+10
2.2E+10
2.4E+10
2.5E+10
2.4E+10
1.7E+10
2.3E+10 1.8E+10
1.6E+10 2.3E+10
3.7E+10
2.1E+10
3.0E+09
1.0E+11
8.3E+07
1.4E+08
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
2.8E+08
8.1E+08
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.1E+09 5.5E+09 5.5E+09 5.5E+09 5.5E+09
1.3E+09 7.8E+09 7.8E+09 7.8E+09 7.8E+09
5.5E+09 5.5E+09
7.8E+09 7.8E+09
8.86E+10 9.96E+10 9.95E+10 9.93E+10 1.10E+11 1.11E+11 1.09E+11
Policy Case Study
Table 8.4 Electricity production in kWh/y according to KIS scenarios for the year 2030.
Year
Scenario
1990
2030
KIS-GO
2030
KIS-DG
1
2
3
1
2
3
4.3E+10
9.8E+09
7.2E+10
1.1E+10
2.5E+10
2.4E+10
6.8E+10
1.2E+10
1.1E+10
6.9E+09
2.8E+10
3.1E+10
Fossil fuels
Coal
Gas
Oil
CHP (Sep)
Private CHP
CHP total
Nuclear
Import
Sub total fossil
3.3E+10 3.9E+10 3.2E+10 6.0E+10 2.4E+10 5.6E+10
3.9E+09 2.8E+10 0.0E+00 2.8E+10 3.1E+10 1.1E+11 3.1E+10
9.5E+09 3.2E+09 9.1E+09 3.5E+09 3.2E+09 9.1E+09 3.5E+09
8.7E+10 1.2E+11 1.3E+11 1.1E+11 1.7E+11 1.7E+11 1.5E+11
Renewable sources
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - land
Private wind -land
Wind land total
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - sea
Wind - total
Hydropower
Wind + Hydro
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
5.6E+07
1.9E+08
3.5E+08 5.3E+09 5.3E+09 3.1E+09 5.3E+09 5.3E+09 5.3E+09
Photovoltaic (Sep)
Private PV cells
PV total
Biomass burning
Refuse derived fuel
(waste wood)
Sewer water cleaning
Waste water cleaning
Sub-total biomass
Municipal waste
incineration
Manure fermentation
Waste fermentation
biomass total
Sub-total Renewables
Total
2.5E+10
3.0E+10
3.3E+09
4.5E+09
1.2E+10
0.0E+00
7.00E+05
7.0E+05 1.1E+08 1.1E+08 1.1E+08 1.1E+08 1.1E+08 1.1E+08
8.3E+07
1.4E+08
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
2.8E+08
8.1E+08
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.1E+09 8.4E+09 8.4E+09 8.4E+09 8.4E+09 8.4E+09 8.4E+09
1.3E+09 1.4E+10 1.4E+10 1.2E+10 1.4E+10 1.4E+10 1.4E+10
8.86E+10 1.31E+11 1.44E+11 1.24E+11 1.87E+11 1.79E+11 1.63E+11
189
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
8.1.2 National Energy Investigation (2015)
For the year 2015 the scenarios from the National Energy Investigation -“National
Energieverkenning” (Bonekamp et al., 1992) are used. In these scenarios three economic
world scenarios are scaled down to the Netherlands:
1. The Balanced Growth (BG) scenario,
2. The Global Shift (GS) scenario and
3. The European Renaissance (ER) scenario.
The base year is 1990.
The BG scenario is the most optimistic scenario. The growth in GNP is assumed 2.3% on
average per year from 1990 on. In this scenario the global warming impacts are abated worldwide, the European integration is limited in progress, the technological innovation is high and
price incentives are stimulated as steering mechanism.
In the GS scenario the economic conditions are poor at first. Between 2000 and 2005 a change
in the trend is observed. This will be followed by far stretching reconstruction measures
comparable with the BG philosophy. There will be no European integration. The average
economic growth is 1.8% per year.
In the ER scenario the European integration is successful as is the integration with EasternEurope and the GOS countries through the Energy Charter. Partly because of this integration
the economic growth is high (2.8% per year). In this scenario there will be a larger role in coordination as steering mechanism than in the other scenarios.
The increase in the production prices is high. On top of this, the CO2 tax in the ER scenario is
moderate (due to lack of world-wide consensus) and in the BG scenario the tax is high. The
end user prices do not increase as rapid as the oil price due to the included tax and distribution
costs.
The planned electricity production over the different fuels and renewables is given in Table 8.5.
190
Policy Case Study
Table 8.5 Electricity productions in kWh/y according to the ‘National Energy Investigation’
for the year 2015 and the ‘Third Energy Bill’ scenarios for the year 2020.
Year
Scenario
1990
2015
BG
GS
ER
2020
Trend
Progressive
low
high
Fossil fuels
Coal
Gas
Oil
CHP (Sep)
Private CHP
CHP total
Nuclear
Import
Sub total fossil
7.7E+09
3.3E+10
3.0E+10
2.5E+10
1.2E+10 2.1E+10
1.9E+10 2.4E+10
3.8E+10 2.9E+10 4.6E+10
3.9E+09 1.1E+10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
9.5E+09 6.0E+09 3.1E+09 1.0E+10
8.7E+10 9.0E+10 8.5E+10 9.6E+10
2.8E+10
3.0E+10
5.8E+10
0.0E+00
3.2E+09
1.2E+11
3.0E+10
3.3E+10
6.3E+10
0.0E+00
9.1E+09
1.0E+11
3.5E+10
4.0E+10
7.5E+10
0.0E+00
3.5E+09
1.2E+11
Renewable sources
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - land
Private wind -land
Wind land total
Wind-Nutsbedrijf - sea
Wind - total
Hydropower
Wind + Hydro
5.6E+07 2.3E+09 2.9E+09 2.9E+09
0.0E+00 9.7E+08 5.8E+08 9.7E+08
5.6E+07 3.3E+09 3.5E+09 3.9E+09 3.5E+09
0.0E+00 2.6E+09 0.0E+00 3.1E+09 0.0E+00
5.6E+07 5.8E+09 3.5E+09 6.9E+09 3.5E+09
1.9E+08 5.0E+08 2.7E+08 5.0E+08 4.7E+08
3.5E+08 6.3E+09 3.7E+09 7.4E+09 4.0E+09
3.6E+09
2.9E+09
6.5E+09
4.4E+08
7.0E+09
3.6E+09
2.9E+09
6.6E+09
4.4E+08
7.0E+09
Photovoltaic (Sep)
Private PV cells
PV total
Biomass burning
Refuse derived fuel
(waste wood)
Sewer water cleaning
Waste water cleaning
Sub-total biomass
Municipal waste
incineration
Manure fermentation
Waste fermentation
biomass total
Sub-total Renewables
Total
2.5E+10
3.0E+10
3.3E+09
4.5E+09
1.2E+10
1.5E+10
2.0E+10
3.3E+10
2.0E+10
0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
7.00E+05 1.2E+09 7.0E+05 1.5E+09 1.1E+08
7.0E+05 1.2E+09 7.0E+05 1.5E+09 1.1E+08
1.0E+09 1.0E+09
8.3E+07
1.4E+08
5.0E+08
1.4E+08
1.9E+08
1.4E+08
4.4E+08
1.4E+08
5.3E+09
6.1E+08
7.5E+09 7.5E+09
1.2E+09 1.2E+09
5.6E+07
0.0E+00
2.8E+08
8.1E+08
5.6E+08
1.9E+08
1.4E+09
6.1E+09
4.7E+08
1.1E+08
9.2E+08
5.7E+09
5.0E+08
1.4E+08
1.2E+09
5.2E+09
5.9E+09
2.5E+09
8.7E+09 8.7E+09
1.5E+09 1.6E+09
0.0E+00 1.1E+09 1.1E+09 2.8E+08
0.0E+00 3.9E+08 1.7E+08 3.6E+08
1.1E+09 9.0E+09 7.8E+09 7.1E+09 8.4E+09
1.3E+09 1.7E+10 1.2E+10 1.6E+10 1.3E+10
1.0E+10 1.0E+10
1.8E+10 1.8E+10
8.86E+10 1.06E+11 9.69E+10 1.12E+11 1.30E+11 1.21E+11 1.41E+11
191
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
8.1.3 Third Energy Bill (2020)
For the year 2020 scenarios from the Third Energy Bill - “de Derde Energienota” ( Hilten et
al., 1996) are used. In the scenarios economic growth (2.3% per year), world market prices for
energy and demographic growth are assumed exogenous and identical for the three scenarios.
The basis for these assumptions was extracted from recent scenarios from the Central Planning
Bureau, the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), the
National Energy Research Foundation (ECN) and in 1995 published energy scenarios for the
European Union.
The first scenario (Trend) is the reference scenario. In this scenario it is assumed there is no
change in the European nor in the National policy between 1990 and 2020. The annual growth
in energy use between 1990 and 2020 is assumed to be 0.7% and the increase in CO2 emission
0.5%. To analyse which influences additional energy policy in a European context would have,
two additional scenarios are developed: The ‘Progressive low and high scenarios’.
Both scenarios have the basic National/European energy policy as a starting point. This policy
is focused on energy savings and decreasing environmental burdens due to energy use. This is
translated into:
• a European energy/CO2 tax;
• standards for energy use of electrical equipment, buildings and cars;
• legislation or other policy focused on recycling or the use of less environmentally impacting
materials;
• financial stimulation of consumers towards energy saving investments, etc.
Furthermore, it is assumed that in the ‘Progressive’ scenarios there is a European liberalised
energy market. Because it is uncertain how economic structures and energy trade will develop,
and because both aspects have a large influence on the energy use, a low and high scenario are
developed.
In the ‘Progressive low’ scenario the total size of the energy intensive industry in the
Netherlands is small and the Netherlands is a net importer of electricity. The annual growth in
energy use between 1990 and 2020 is assumed to be 0.1% and the decrease in CO2 emission
0.2%. In the ‘Progressive high’ scenario the opposite is assumed: the size of the energy
intensive industry is large and the Netherlands is a net exporter of electricity. The annual
growth in energy use between 1990 and 2020 is assumed to be 0.5% and the increase in CO2
emission 0.2%.
The share of renewables in the total energy use is 6% in Trend, 9% in ‘Progressive high’ and
10% in ‘Progressive low’.
The planned electricity production over the different fuels and renewables is given in Table 8.5.
192
Policy Case Study
8.2 Future power generation technologies and emissions
In this section the technologies and emissions future power generation technologies are
discussed shortly.
8.2.1 Coal, gas and oil
Future electricity production based on coal, gas and oil technologies are discussed in detail the
‘Coal Application Study’ by Kram et al., 1991), in the study ‘Prospects for Energy technology
in the Netherlands’ by Ybema et al. (1995), the study ‘Overview of Energy RD&D options for
a sustainable future’ by Blok et al. (1995) and a study on environmental impact assessment by
KEMA (1992).
Future coal and gas technologies are divided into four categories in this study:
• a base variant : This variant represents average base technology between 1994 and 2000;
• a low base variant : This variant represents the base technology with additional emission
reduction between 1994 and 2000;
• a new variant : This variant represents base technology from the year 2000 on.
• a low new variant : This variant represents base technology with additional emission
reduction from the year 2000 on.
Some technical data of the technologies are given in Table 8.6. The selection of the relevant
technologies for the scenarios is given in the respective scenario studies.
The emission from the power generation stage of the different technologies are given in (Kram
et al., 1991), KEMA (1992), Hilten et al. (1994), Ybema et al. (1995), Blok (1995) and
KEMA (1994). The emission factors of the power generation stages are given in Table 8.7.
In the table also the high average price estimates of electricity production in the years 2000 to
2010 are given (Hilten et al., 1994 and DEN, 1996). For old technologies average prices in the
year 2000 are given (Hilten et al., 1996). After the year 2020 prices could drop with several
mECU/kWh.
A selection of sites for new technologies was made based on the of the current sites and
technologies available and the year the current plants are decommissioned. New coal
technologies are assumed to be constructed in Rotterdam only. New natural gas fed ‘steam and
gas turbines’ are assumed to be built in Lelystad while new ‘heat and power plants’ are
assumed to be built in Almere and Amsterdam. The impacts and damages are estimated by
using the assumptions and equations discussed in the aggregation chapter, see Section 7.3.
With respect to the non-power generation stages and the accidents and diseases associated
with the all stages the same assumption as with the aggregation task are assumed to be valid,
see Section 7.3.
193
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 8.6 Current and future coal, gas and oil electricity production technology characteristics.
Technology
Pulverized fuel base variant
(Coal)
low base variant (8)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000 A (1)
low new variant >2000 B (1)
CG-STEG
base variant (8)
(Coal)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000 A (1)
low new variant >2000 B
OV-STEG
base variant
(Oil)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000
STEG
base variant
(Gas)
low base variant
new variant >2000 (8)
low new variant >2000 A
low new variant >2000 B
CHP central
base variant SV-STEG 2000
(Gas)
base variant SV-STEG 2010
new variant SV-STEG 2010
low new variant SV-STEG 2010 A
low new variant SV-STEG 2010 B
base variant - Heat plan 2000
low base variant - Heat plan 2000
new variant Heat plan 2010
low new variant heat plan 2010 A
low new variant heat plan 2010 B
CHP decentral base variant large
(Gas)
base variant small
base variant SV 2000
new variant large
new variant small
CHP industry low new variant > 2005 A (1-DCG)
(Coal)
low new variant > 2005 B (1-DCG)
Eff. Emission reduction Waste (1)
Price of
SO2 NOx CO2 bottom + Gypsum Electr. prod.
fly ash
in 2000
%
%
%
% kg/GJin kg/GJin mECU/kWh
40
40
42
42
42
43
47
47
44
48
51.5
51.5
55
55
55
45
45
50
50
50
46.5
46.5
50
50
50
35
35
38
38
40
42
42
CHP = Combined Heat and Power
CH-STEG = City heating - Steam and gas turbine
CG - STEG = Coal gasification - Steam and gas turbine
OG - STEG = Oil gasification - Steam and gas turbine
194
90
90*
95
95
95
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
-
-
80
90
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
-
90
-
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
38
30-40
40
40-50
50-70
39
38-47
50-70
30
30-40
40-60
50-80
90
90
90
90
90
90
-
38
38
40-60
50-80
38
40
40-60
50-70
3.8
3.8
1.5
1.5
38
38
38
40-60
40-60
50-70
Policy Case Study
Table 8.7 Current and future coal, gas and oil technology related emission factors in g/GJ fuel
used and mg/kWh electricity produced.
Technology
Pulverized fuel
(Coal)
base variant
low base variant (8)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000 A (1)
low new variant >2000 B (1)
CG-STEG
base variant (8)
(Coal)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000 A (1)
low new variant >2000 B
OG-STEG
base variant
(Oil)
new variant >2000
low new variant >2000
STEG
base variant
(Gas)
low base variant
new variant >2000 (8)
low new variant >2000 A
low new variant >2000 B
CHP central
base variant SV-STEG 2000
(Gas)
base variant SV-STEG 2010
new variant SV-STEG 2010
low new variant SV-STEG 2010 A
low new variant SV-STEG 2010 B
base variant - Heat plan 2000
low base variant - Heat plan 2000
new variant Heat plan 2010
low new variant heat plan 2010 A
low new variant heat plan 2010 B
CHP decentral
base variant large
(Gas)
base variant small
base variant SV 2000
new variant large
new variant small
CHP industry
low new variant > 2005 A (1 - DCG)
(Coal)
low new variant > 2005 B (1 - DCG)
CHP = Combined Heat and Power
SV-STEG = City heating - Steam and gas turbine
CG - STEG = Coal gasification - Steam and gas turbine
OG - STEG = Oil gasification - Steam and gas turbine
g/GJ
SO2 NOx CO2
74 144 94
37
37
37
29
15
15
94
9
94
7.4
7.4
7.6
36
15
15
94
9
94
mg/kWh
SO2 NOx PM
666 1296 26
429
609 17
317
249
317
129
317
129
155
620
7
62
301
7
57
115
7
58
115
7
19
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.6
7.6
36
16
45
20
45
20
20
104
75
45
20
20
45
20
45
20
20
60
50
60
50
65
70
70
77
8
57
57
57
6
57
57
57
57
6
57
57
6
57
6
57
57
57
57
57
57
9
57
160
146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
65
295
120
315
140
295
131
131
832
600
324
144
144
348
155
324
144
144
617
514
568
474
585
600
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO2
846
806
806
77
806
787
787
69
720
630
60
398
398
373
39
373
456
456
410
43
410
441
46
410
43
410
586
586
540
540
513
77
489
195
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
8.2.2 Nuclear
With respect to future nuclear technologies it is assumed that they will be comparable to the
nuclear fuel cycle discussed in the nuclear implementation study in this report. As no data on
new technologies were readily available for this project no better assumptions could be made.
It should be noted that the nuclear fuel cycle analysed in this report is one of the most
advanced systems in the world to date.
New nuclear facilities would probably be built at the site of old facilities. Thus, Borssele was
selected as the most probable site and the impacts of the nuclear plant analysed in this report
are used for future technologies as well.
The price of electricity production with nuclear energy will probably be in the range of 45-52
mECU/kWh in the next three decades (Hilten et al., 1994 and 1996).
8.2.3 Wind
With respect to wind technologies it is assumed that the current technologies used in Denmark,
for both land and sea options, are representative for technologies in the Netherlands. As no
emissions take place during electricity production only impacts due to the other stages are
relevant for this study. This assumption implies that the impacts in the other stages are mainly
due to air emissions from the material production and manufacturing stages. As the emissions
in these stages will probably not change dramatically in the next decades the assumption is
probably justified as long as the results are only interpreted as an order of magnitude of the
impacts. There are no direct emissions from the power generation stage.
The possible sites for wind power are manifold. The land based turbines will probably be
situated along the coast as the wind force and the amount of open space is high. Several studies
on suitable land and sea sites have been performed in the last decade. As no analysis of site
specific impacts of the wind fuel cycle is performed in this study the impacts and damages are
assumed to be site independent and equal to the impacts and damages of the turbines analysed
in the Danish implementation study.
The price of wind based electricity on land and at sea will probably be somewhere between 42
to 52 and 60 to 78 mECU/kWh respectively in the next two decades (Hilten et al., 1994).
After 2020 prices could be reduced with several mECU/kWh (Hilten et al., 1996).
196
Policy Case Study
8.2.4 Hydro
The amount of hydro power in the Netherlands is very small and is not envisaged to increase
very much. As it is assumed that around 50% of the energy imported in the Netherlands is
produced with hydro power, the current (1997) situation, this is an important category in some
of the scenarios. With respect to hydro power it is assumed all hydro based electricity comes
from sites in Norway. Furthermore, it is assumed that future hydro power impacts and damages
are equal to current technology impacts and damages. Reference is made to the Norwegian
implementation study for a more elaborate discussion. It is assumed there are no direct
emissions associated with the power generation stage.
8.2.5 Photovoltaic
Photovoltaic (PV) cells will mainly be used for space heating in the Netherlands. Technologies
are described in Blok et al (1995). The amount of PV for electricity production is very small.
Therefore, the damages due to PV cells are neglected in this study and they are not analysed
further. Photovoltaic electricity production is very expensive, 280 mECU/kWh in 1995 and
probably between 82 and 113 mECU/kWh in the next two decades (Hilten et al., 1994). After
2020 prices could drop to 55-95 mECU/kWh (Hilten et al., 1996), which is still high compared
to other electricity production technologies.
8.2.6 Biomass
Biomass is assumed to become an important fuel for electricity production in all scenarios.
Electricity production based on biomass is discussed in detail in Biewinga and Bijl (1996), Blok
et al. (1995), Faaij and Meuleman (1996) and TEB (1995). The prospects are that in the
Netherlands special grown biomass crops in and outside the Netherlands and the use of
demolition wood and cutting wood from parks in cities will be most important. For demolition
wood the focus is expected to be on co-firing in coal plants. Furthermore, for crops input it is
assumed that gasification will dominate co-firing in the future. Some technology characteristics
are given in Future plants with energy from biomass from crops that are grown in the
Netherlands are assumed to be built at the Eemshaven site (the site of the reference gas plant
analysed in this report). This assumption was made as large areas of agricultural land that could
be used for energy crop production are situated around this site. This is the situation analysed
in the biomass gasification reference study in this report.
Table 8.8. The average emission factors associated with the power generation stage in the
categories are listed in Table 8.9. The prices of electricity production with biomass are also
given in Future plants with energy from biomass from crops that are grown in the Netherlands
are assumed to be built at the Eemshaven site (the site of the reference gas plant analysed in
this report). This assumption was made as large areas of agricultural land that could be used
for energy crop production are situated around this site. This is the situation analysed in the
biomass gasification reference study in this report.
197
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 8.8. 1995 prices are from TEB (1995) and prices between 2000 and 2010 from Hilten et
al. (1994). After 2020 prices could even drop under coal based electricity production prices as
no CO2 removal is needed (Hilten et al., 1996).
Future plants with energy from biomass from crops that are grown in the Netherlands are
assumed to be built at the Eemshaven site (the site of the reference gas plant analysed in this
report). This assumption was made as large areas of agricultural land that could be used for
energy crop production are situated around this site. This is the situation analysed in the
biomass gasification reference study in this report.
Table 8.8 Future biomass electricity production technology characteristics.
Eff.
Technology
Biomass - import gasification
co firing
Biomass - waste gasification
co firing
Biomass - crops gasification
co-firing
%
42
44
42
44
42
44
Emission reduction
SO2
%
70
90
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
Prices
1995
90
70
100
70
110
100
2000 to
2020
40-50
40-50
50-60
n.d. = not defined
Table 8.9 Current and future renewable technology emission factors in mg/kWh electricity produced.
Technology
Biomass - import gasification
co firing
Biomass - waste gasification
co firing
Biomass - crop gasification
co-firing
mg/kWh
SO2
74
10
74
10
74
10
NOx
223
170
223
170
223
170
PM
30
3.9
30
3.9
30
3.9
CO2
0
0
0
0
0
0
n.q. = not quantified.
For plants fuelled with imported energy crops and for waste biomass plants, the stations are
assumed to be situated in Amsterdam at the site of the reference biomass co-firing plant
analysed in this study. This means that this option is comparable to the reference biomass cofiring reference plant analysed in this report with the difference that imported biomass and
biomass wastes are used instead of energy crops grown in the Netherlands.
The impacts and damages of the power generation stage are estimated by using the results
from the reference case studies and the assumptions and equations discussed in the aggregation
chapter, see Section 7.3.
198
Policy Case Study
With respect to the non-power generation stages and the accidents and diseases associated
with the all stages, the results from the reference case studies in this report are used. For
import it is assumed that the damages of transport are equal to coal transport as discussed in
the reference coal fuel cycle study. The transport distance is assumed to be 2000 km (return
journey).
8.2.7 Municipal waste incineration and waste and manure fermentation
With respect to municipal waste incineration and waste and manure fermentation no data was
readily available for this study. However, the emissions of SO2, NOx and PM10 could be high
leading to high impacts. It can be discussed if the CO2 emissions should be accounted to this
process or if the process should be seen as ‘CO2 neutral’ because the CO2 would be emitted
anyway if the products would not be burned for power generation. There could also be
significant impacts due to other emissions such as heavy metals and dioxins. However, it was
not possible to study these impacts in this implementation study. The impacts of these
electricity productions processes are not quantified. This probably leads to only a small
underestimation of the average damages of electricity production as the amount of electricity
produced is small.
8.2.8 Selection of technologies for the scenarios
The selection of the relevant technologies for the scenarios is given in the respective scenario
studies. A summary of the technologies as fitted in the mentioned categories in this study is
given in the appendix to this chapter. In the appendix also the total amount of kWh produced
with the technologies in the different scenarios are given. These are electricity production
estimates additional to the production capacity already planned by Sep for the respective years.
8.3 Externalities of future electricity production
The average and total externalities associated with electricity generation according to the
different scenarios, based on the core externality estimates (Years of Life Lost - YOLL based
public health impacts and ExternE “illustrative restricted range” global warming damage
estimate), are presented in Table 8.10 and Table 8.11. The results with the lower bound
estimate of the ExternE mid range global warming damage (at 3 % discount rate) are also
presented in Figure 8.1. For the analysis of the externality impacts the equations derived in the
aggregation task were used. This assumes a steady state population at 1995 levels and no
economic discounting for future impacts.
As sensitivity analysis the results are also shown for three other combinations of valuation:
1. With sensitivity 1 data for public health impacts (Value of Statistical Life -VSL- instead of
the YOLL approach) and with high global warming damage valuation (ExternE mid
estimate with a 3 % discount rate - 18 ECU/t CO2).
2. With core data for public health impacts (YOLL approach) and with low global warming
damage valuation (IPCC mid estimate with a 3 % discount rate - 6.0 ECU/t CO2).
199
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
3. With sensitivity 1 data for public health impacts (Value of Statistical Life -VSL- instead of
the YOLL approach) and with low global warming damage valuation (IPCC mid
estimate with a 3 % discount rate - 6.0 ECU/t CO2).
The results for the sensitivity analyses are given in Figure 8.2 to Figure 8.4.
Table 8.10 Average electricity production damages estimated with Core (YOLL approach)
and ExternE global warming mid estimates for the scenario’s analysed.
Year Scenario
mECU/kWh
Power
Power
Others
Total
generation (I) generation GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010 KIS-GO
2010 KIS-GO
2010 KIS-GO
2010 KIS-DG
2010 KIS-DG
2010 KIS-DG
2015 BG
2015 GS
2015 ER
2020 Trend
2020 Progressive
2020 Progressive
2030 KIS-GO
2030 KIS-GO
2030 KIS-GO
2030 KIS-DG
2030 KIS-DG
2030 KIS-DG
1
2
3
1
2
3
low
high
1
2
3
1
2
3
12.6
9.4
7.9
6.9
4.9
5.0
4.4
4.7
4.1
3.5
2.4
2.7
1.9
3.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.2
0.42
1.1
7.9 - 20.4
7.7 - 20.0
7.6 - 19.7
7.7 - 20.1
7.2 - 18.6
7.0 - 18.3
5.7 - 14.9
6.9 - 17.8
5.8 - 15.0
4.6 - 12.0
3.9 - 10.2
4.6 - 12.0
3.1 - 8.1
6.8 - 17.7
3.4 - 8.7
2.9 - 7.5
3.0 - 7.8
2.9 - 7.6
6.9 - 17.9
9.2 - 23.9
6.0 - 15.7
7.8 - 20.2
2.2 - 5.6
6.4 - 16.5
(I) = Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages
200
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.6
2.9
2.5
2.6
3.6
4.0
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.3
2.8
3.0
2.9
4.7
3.5
4.4
4.0
6.2
3.7
22.8 - 35.3
19.3 - 31.6
17.8 - 29.9
16.9 - 29.3
13.9 - 25.3
13.6 - 24.9
13.0 - 22.2
14.1 - 25.1
12.4 - 21.6
11.7 - 19.1
10.3 - 16.6
10.5 - 17.8
7.1 - 12.1
12.3 - 23.2
6.8 - 12.2
7.8 - 12.4
8.1 - 12.9
8.0 - 12.7
12.7 - 23.7
14.2 - 28.9
11.5 - 21.1
13.1 - 25.5
8.8 - 12.2
11.1 - 21.3
Policy Case Study
Table 8.11 Total electricity production damages estimated with Core (YOLL approach) and
ExternE global warming mid estimates for the scenario’s analysed.
Year Scenario
Billion ECU/y
Power
Power
Others
Total
generation (I) generation GW
1990
1.1
0.69 - 1.8
1992
0.86
0.70 - 1.8
1993
0.73
0.71 - 1.8
1994
0.64
0.72 - 1.9
1999
0.52
0.77 - 2.0
2004
0.51
0.71 - 1.9
2010 KIS-GO
1
0.44
0.57 - 1.5
2010 KIS-GO
2
0.47
0.68 - 1.8
2010 KIS-GO
3
0.41
0.57 - 1.5
2010 KIS-DG
1
0.38
0.51 - 1.3
2010 KIS-DG
2
0.27
0.44 - 1.1
2010 KIS-DG
3
0.29
0.50 - 1.3
2015 BG
0.20
0.33 - 0.9
2015 GS
0.34
0.66 - 1.7
2015 ER
0.24
0.38 - 1.0
2020 Trend
0.27
0.37 - 1.0
2020 Progressive low
0.25
0.36 - 0.9
2020 Progressive high
0.31
0.41 - 1.1
2030 KIS-GO
1
0.15
0.90 - 2.3
2030 KIS-GO
2
0.21
1.3 - 3.4
2030 KIS-GO
3
0.13
0.75 - 1.9
2030 KIS-DG
1
0.23
1.5 - 3.8
2030 KIS-DG
2
0.08
0.39 - 1.0
2030 KIS-DG
3
0.18
1.0 - 2.7
(I) = Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.16
0.29
0.25
0.25
0.40
0.44
0.35
0.23
0.19
0.15
0.36
0.36
0.41
0.62
0.51
0.54
0.76
1.1
0.60
2.0 - 3.1
1.8 - 2.9
1.7 - 2.8
1.6 - 2.7
1.5 - 2.7
1.4 - 2.5
1.3 - 2.2
1.4 - 2.5
1.2 - 2.1
1.3 - 2.1
1.1 - 1.8
1.1 - 1.9
0.75 - 1.3
1.2 - 2.2
0.76 - 1.4
1.0 - 1.6
0.98 - 1.6
1.1 - 1.8
1.7 - 3.1
2.0 - 4.2
1.4 - 2.6
2.4 - 4.8
1.6 - 2.2
1.8 - 3.5
201
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
2030/KIS-GD 3
2030/KIS-GD 2
Others
2030/KIS-GD 1
2030/KIS-GO 3
2030/KIS-GO 2
Power generation GW
2030/KIS-GO 1
2020/Progressive high
Power generation
(publ health, materials,
monuments, crops)
2020/Progressive low
2020/TREND
2015/ER
2015/GS
2015/BG
2010/KIS-GD 3
2010/KIS-GD 2
2010/KIS-GD 1
2010/KIS-GO 3
2010/KIS-GO 2
2010/KIS-GO 1
2004 electricity plan
1999 electricity plan
1994
1993
1992
1990
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure 8.1 Average electricity production damage estimates with Core (YOLL approach) and
ExternE global warming mid estimate (3 % discount rate) in mECU/kWh.
202
Policy Case Study
2030/KIS-GD 3
2030/KIS-GD 2
Others
2030/KIS-GD 1
2030/KIS-GO 3
2030/KIS-GO 2
Power generation GW
2030/KIS-GO 1
2020/Progressive high
Power generation
(publ health, materials,
monuments, crops)
2020/Progressive low
2020/TREND
2015/ER
2015/GS
2015/BG
2010/KIS-GD 3
2010/KIS-GD 2
2010/KIS-GD 1
2010/KIS-GO 3
2010/KIS-GO 2
2010/KIS-GO 1
2004 electricity plan
1999 electricity plan
1994
1993
1992
1990
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Figure 8.2 Average electricity production damages estimated with Sensitivity 1 (VSL
approach) and ExternE global warming mid estimate (3 % discount rate) in mECU/kWh.
203
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
2030/KIS-GD 3
2030/KIS-GD 2
Others
2030/KIS-GD 1
2030/KIS-GO 3
2030/KIS-GO 2
Power generation GW
2030/KIS-GO 1
2020/Progressive high
Power generation
(publ health, materials,
monuments, crops)
2020/Progressive low
2020/TREND
2015/ER
2015/GS
2015/BG
2010/KIS-GD 3
2010/KIS-GD 2
2010/KIS-GD 1
2010/KIS-GO 3
2010/KIS-GO 2
2010/KIS-GO 1
2004 electricity plan
1999 electricity plan
1994
1993
1992
1990
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Figure 8.3 Average electricity production damage estimates for Core (YOLL approach) and
IPCC global warming mid estimate (3 % discount rate) in mECU/kWh.
204
Policy Case Study
2030/KIS-GD 3
2030/KIS-GD 2
Others
2030/KIS-GD 1
2030/KIS-GO 3
2030/KIS-GO 2
Power generation GW
2030/KIS-GO 1
2020/Progressive high
Power generation
(publ health, materials,
monuments, crops)
2020/Progressive low
2020/TREND
2015/ER
2015/GS
2015/BG
2010/KIS-GD 3
2010/KIS-GD 2
2010/KIS-GD 1
2010/KIS-GO 3
2010/KIS-GO 2
2010/KIS-GO 1
2004 electricity plan
1999 electricity plan
1994
1993
1992
1990
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Figure 8.4 Average electricity production damage estimates for Sensitivity 1 (VSL approach)
and IPCC global warming mid estimate (3 % discount rate) in mECU/kWh.
205
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
8.4 Conclusions and discussion
The damages are estimated by using four combinations of valustion:
1. With core data for public health impacts (YOLL approach) and with ExternE global
warming damage valuation (ExternE mid range estimates - 18-47 ECU/tCO2);
2. With sensitivity 1 data (Value of Statistical Life -VSL- instead of the YOLL approach) and
with ExternE global warming damage valuation (ExternE mid range estimates - 18-47
ECU/tCO2) and
3. With core data for public health impacts (YOLL approach) and with IPCC global warming
damage valuation (IPCC mid estimate at 3% discount rate - 6.0 ECU/t CO2).
4. With sensitivity 1 data (VSL instead of YOLL approach) and with IPCC global warming
damage valuation (IPCC mid estimate at 3 % discount rate - 6.0 ECU/tCO2).
The damages are estimated for the past and future power production. The past power
production is included to see whether trends in the externalities of average and total power
production can be observed.
The power production in the years 1999 and 2004 is already set, so for these years no
scenarios have to be analysed. For the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030 electricity production
scenarios are analysed. The most plausible electricity production scenarios most in line with
policy (except for the KIS scenarios) for these years are discussed shortly below.
•
2010/2030 scenarios
In the KIS-GO 2 scenario (a “coal use study” scenario) no nuclear electricity
production takes place in the Netherlands and because gas prices are linked to the oil
price. However, the KIS scenario is probably not very realistic as no policy for CO2
reduction is prescribed in these scenarios. This means that in the scenarios no CO2
removal technologies are implemented as these raise the internal costs considerably.
The resulting damages are given in Table 8.12, Table 8.13 and Figure 8.5.
•
2015 scenario
In the European Renaissance (ER) scenario (a ‘National Energy Investigation’
scenario) the European integration is successful, the economic growth is high and a
moderate CO2 tax is implemented leading to the introduction of CO2 removal
technologies. The resulting damages are given in in Table 8.12, Table 8.13 and Figure
8.5.
•
2020 scenario
In the ‘Progressive low’ scenario is held the most plausible scenario from all ‘Third
Energy Bill’ scenarios. In this scenario the policy is focused on energy savings and
decreased environmental burdens (especially CO2 reduction) from energy use.
Furthermore, there is a liberalised energy market, the Netherlands will have a relative
small energy intensive industry and will be a net importer of electricity. The resulting
damages are given in in Table 8.12, Table 8.13 and Figure 8.5.
206
Policy Case Study
As already mentioned earlier, the ‘Progressive low’ scenario from the ‘Third Energy Bill’ and
the ‘European Renaissance (ER)’ scenario from the ‘National Energy Investigation’ are
probably most in line with Dutch energy policy as:
1. The relative share of gas is high in this scenario compared to all other scenarios;
2. The share of renewables is more than 10% of total electricity production;
3. The European integration is successful and also the Eastern European and the GOS
countries are members of an Energy Charter, and
4. The CO2 emission reduction policies will lead to implementation of CO2 removal
technologies.
From the different combinations of valuation a number of conclusions can be drawn. First of all
the power generation stage damages appear to be very sensitive to changing from the YOLL to
the VSL approach. The difference is roughly a factor 6 on average. With respect to the global
warming damages the difference between the lower bound of the mid range from this project
(the ExternE range) and IPCC is only a factor 3. The high and low estimates (i.e. the 95%
confidence intervals) of global warming impacts are roughly a factor 8 higher and lower than
the mid estimate. For both the public health impacts estimated with the YOLL and the VSL
approach the uncertainty is roughly a factor 4-6.
Based on the results it can be concluded that there is a trend towards decreasing total and
average externalities of electricity production in the next decades. In some scenarios (2015 ER
and 2020 Progressive low) the CO2 damages decrease because CO2 removal takes place while
in the KIS scenarios the amount of coal technology is increased without implementing CO2
removal leading to increasing CO2 damages. In all scenarios the emissions of other air
pollutants (SO2 and NOx) decrease considerably leading to a decrease in the damages to public
health, materials, monuments and crops. With the KIS scenario the ‘other’ impacts increase
considerably as more coal is used leading to increased coal mining occupational damages. The
‘other’ impacts in the 2020 Progressive low scenario is also high. This is due to the large
amount of biomass transport associated externalities.
Thus, it can be concluded that the introduction of strict CO2 reduction policy could lead to a
decrease in the externalities with up to 70 % in the next two decades (relative to 1990 levels).
Without any CO2 reduction policy the average externalities would probably decrease less.
207
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Table 8.12 Average and total externality estimates of electricity production in the Netherlands
for the most plausible scenarios.
Year
Core + ExternE GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010/KIS-GO-2
2015/ER
2020/Progessive - low
2030/KIS-GO-2
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010/KIS-GO-2
2015/ER
2020/Progessive - low
2030/KIS-GO-2
Core + IPCC GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010
2015
2020
2030
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010
2015
2020
2030
a
Power generation a Power generation GW
Total
12.6
9.4
7.9
6.9
4.9
5.0
4.7
2.1
2.1
1.4
7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.0 6.9 3.4 3.0 9.2 -
20.4
20.0
19.7
20.1
18.6
18.3
17.8
8.7
7.8
23.9
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.6
2.5
1.3
3.0
3.5
22.8 19.3 17.8 16.9 13.9 13.6 14.1 6.8 8.1 14.2 -
35.3
31.6
29.9
29.3
25.3
24.9
25.1
12.2
12.9
28.9
70.4
52.9
44.5
37.0
26.8
27.7
26.1
12.0
11.6
7.8
7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.0 6.9 3.4 3.0 9.2 -
20.4
20.0
19.7
20.1
18.6
18.3
17.8
8.7
7.8
23.9
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.8
4.9
2.2
7.3
6.5
80.7 63.0 54.6 47.2 36.1 36.5 37.8 17.5 21.9 23.5 -
93.3
75.3
66.7
59.6
47.5
47.8
48.7
22.9
26.7
38.2
12.6
9.4
7.9
6.9
4.9
5.0
4.7
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.3
1.1
1.0
3.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.8
17.1
13.8
12.3
11.4
8.8
8.6
9.0
4.3
5.6
7.3
70.4
52.9
44.5
37.0
26.8
27.7
26.1
12.0
11.6
7.8
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.3
1.1
1.0
3.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.4
4.4
1.9
6.8
5.7
75.1
57.5
49.1
41.7
31.0
31.5
32.7
15.0
19.5
16.6
Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages
208
Others
Policy Case Study
Table 8.13 Total externality estimates of electricity production in the Netherlands for the most
plausible scenarios.
Year
Core + ExternE GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010/KIS-GO-2
2015/ER
2020/Progessive - low
2030/KIS-GO-2
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010/KIS-GO-2
2015/ER
2020/Progessive - low
2030/KIS-GO-2
Core + IPCC GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010
2015
2020
2030
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
1990
1992
1993
1994
1999
2004
2010
2015
2020
2030
a
Power generation a Power generation GW
Others
Total
1.1
0.86
0.73
0.64
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.24
0.25
0.21
0.69
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.77
0.71
0.68
0.38
0.36
1.33
-
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
0.98
0.94
3.4
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.16
0.25
0.15
0.36
0.51
2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 3.2 0.76 0.98 5.5 -
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.6
4.2
6.2
4.8
4.1
3.4
2.9
2.8
2.6
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.69
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.77
0.71
0.68
0.38
0.36
1.3
-
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
0.98
0.94
3.4
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.18
0.48
0.25
0.88
0.93
7.1 5.7 5.1 4.4 3.9 3.7 5.5 2.0 2.6 6.8 -
8.2
6.9
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.9
4.8
2.6
3.2
5.5
1.1
0.86
0.73
0.64
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.24
0.25
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.13
0.12
0.44
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.30
0.41
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.94
0.87
1.5
0.48
0.68
2.2
6.2
4.8
4.1
3.4
2.9
2.8
2.6
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.13
0.12
0.44
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.44
0.22
0.83
0.83
6.6
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.3
1.7
2.4
2.4
Public health, materials, monuments and crop damages
209
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
100.0
Combinations of valuation:
Core +ExternE GW
Sens 1 + ExternE GW
Core + IPCC GW
Sens 1 + IPCC GW
90.0
80.0
Scenarios:
70.0
2010/2030 KIS-GO 2 scenario
2015 European Renaissance scenario
2020 Progressive low scenario
mECU/kWh
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Year
Figure 8.5 Average damage estimates for electricity production in the Netherlands for the
different scenarios and the different combinations of valuation.
210
Conclusions
9. CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first comprehensive attempt to estimate the externalities of electricity
production using a bottom-up approach which uses atmospheric dispersion modelling of air
pollutants in combination with stock at risk data, relevant exposure-response relations and
monetary valuation through a Willingness to Pay (WTP) approach. In this report the results of
the implementation of this approach, with some minor elaborations in certain fields, for the
Netherlands is given.
The total damages (using the Years of life lost approach for valuing the mortality impacts and
using the ExternE global warming damage estimates) for electricity production at the analysed
reference plants are given in the table below.
Table 9.1 Externalities of the analysed Dutch coal, natural gas and biomass
mECU/kWh.
Externality estimate ranges
Coal Natural gas
Biomass
co-firing
Conservative 95% confidence interval
12-175 3.1-69
3.5-18.3
Mid range
28-56 9.9-22
4.0-4.8
fuel cycles in
Biomass
gasification
5.1-23.1
5.6-6.5
For the nuclear fuel cycle only radiological impacts were analysed thus far. They were
estimated at around 7 mECU/kWh.
The externalities of electricity production with coal are roughly once as high as with natural
gas and nuclear while the externalities of biomass based electricity production are even lower.
It was found that the long-range (100-3000 km from the power plant) impacts of PM10, SO2
and NOx emissions from the power plant during normal operation were higher than expected.
The high damages of SO2 and NOx emissions are not due to these pollutants themselves but
due to ammoniumsulphate and -nitrate aerosols (particles) formed in the atmosphere causing
severe health impacts. Local impacts can, depending on the population density within a short
distance (0-100 km) from the power plant, also be substantial. This is especially the case for
PM related damages.
Furthermore, it was found that for fossil fuel cycles the global warming damages due to CO2
emissions dominate the overall damages. Partial substitution of coal with biomass in coal
technology electricity plants and a shift from coal and natural gas based to biomass based
211
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
electricity production could thus decrease the externalities of the electricity sector. The main
benefits are due to reduced CO2 emissions.
The externalities from non-power generation fuel cycle stages are found to be low relative to
the power generation stage externalities.
The externalities, although still considered to be order of magnitude estimates, are significant
compared to the private costs of electricity production (around 40 mECU/kWh) in the
Netherlands in 1997 even though the analysis represents the best available technologies in
1995.
The results (using the Years of Life Lost approach for valuing the mortality impacts and using
the ExternE global warming damage estimates) for the average externalities of the current
(1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994) and future (1999, 2004, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030) electricity
sector in the Netherlands are given in the next figure.
The division over the different fuel sources is already set until 2004. Between now and 2004 no
new large power generation capacity will be installed. The scenarios for the years 2010, 2015,
2020 and 2030 use different assumptions with regard to policy, in particular with respect to
global warming. The results for these years can thus not be interpreted as subsequently in time,
but rather as different possible future developments.
40.0
35.0
mECU/kWh
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
year
Figure 9.1 Illustrative restricted ranges of the average externalities for the planned electricity
production until 2004 and the scenarios for 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030.
212
Conclusions
The introduction of strict CO2 reduction policy (assumed for the estimates in the years 2015
and 2020) would, according to electricity scenarios analysed, lead to a decrease in the average
externalities of up to 70% in the next two decades relative to 1990. Without any CO2 reduction
policy the average externalities would probably decrease with only some 25% in the next three
decades relative to 1990.
Due to the limitations mentioned it is recommended to use the results provided by this report
only as background information and order of magnitude estimates of the externalities
associated with electricity production.
The results can be used directly for planning processes where the quantitative results are not so
relevant. For example; the optimisation of power plants site selection and for choosing among
different energy alternatives. Another possible use of these results is in the field of cost-benefit
analysis of environmentally-friendly technologies. With the results a first attempt towards the
integration of environmental aspects into energy policy can be carried out. This information
might be very helpful for establishing economic incentives for pollution reduction.
Further research is required to refine the methodology and to remove the existing large
uncertainties.
213
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
214
References
10. REFERENCES
Abbas, D. (1997). EPZ beslist binnenkort over houtvergassing, Duurzame Energie, vol. 97/4
Abrahamse J.C., et al (1995), Radiation Protection Experience Through 20 Years of Operating a
PWR, in Nuclear Europe Worldscan 1-2/1995.
ACC (1993), Non CO2 Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Austria, summaries of research reports 19911993', Research Series of the Academy for Environment and Energy, Federal Ministry of Environment,
Youth, and Family Affairs, Austrian CO2 Commission (ACC), Vienna-Luxenburg, Austria.
Australia (1994), 'Australian Methodology for the estimation of Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks',
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee, Energy, Workbook 2-0, Australia.
BAS (1991),'Occupational safety 1986' (in German: Arbeitssicherheit '86 / Referat Öffentlichkeitsarbeit), Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Socialordnung (Editor 1991), Bonn, Germany.
BFC (1996), ‘Externalities of fuel cycles, “ExternE project”, Part 1: Assessment of the externalities
of biomass fuel cycles in Portugal, Centro de Estudos em Economia de Energia, dos Transportes e do
Ambiente (CEETA), Lisbon, Portugal.
BG Bergbau (1991), Jahresbericht Bregbau-Berufsgenossenschaft, Postfach 100423, 4630 Bochum,
Germany.
Biewinga, A.A. and G. van de Bijl (1996), Sustainability of energy crops in Europe: A methodology
developed and applied, Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bijenberg, A.N. (1988), Valuing the negative externalities of car traffic (in Dutch), Center for Energy
Conservation and Environmental Technology (CE), Delft.
Blok, K., W.C. Turkenburg, W. Eichhammer, U. Farinelli and T.B. Johansson (eds.) (1995),, Overview
of energy RD&D options for a sustainable future Report no. EUR 16829 EN, European Commission
DGXII, Science Research and development, Brussels.
Blonk, T.J., R. van Duin en P.A. Okken (1991), CO2 and Materials, the CO2-emission 1988 due to
Dutch production and Materials' (in Dutch), ECN, report nr. ECN-I--91-058, Petten, The Netherlands,
December.
215
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Bock -Werthmann, W. (1986), Construction Risks of Nuclear Power Plants for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Considerations, GSF-Berichte 28/86, Germany.
Boneschanker, E. and A.L. ’t Hoen (1993), External costs of goods transport (in Dutch), Instituut voor
Onderzoek en Overheidsuitgaven (IOO), Den Haag.
Boonekamp, P.G.M., O., van Hilten, R. Kroon and M. Rouw (1992), Nationale Energie Verkenningen
1990-2015, ECH report no. ECN-C--92-017, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, Petten,
the Netherlands.
Broek, R. van den, A. Faaij, Tkent, K. Healion, W. Dick, G. Blaney and M. Bulfin (1995), Willow
firing in retrofitted Irish peat plants, Department of Science Technology and Society (NWS), Utrecht
University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Brügel, P. (1987), Perspectiven der Energieversorgung, Materialenband V: Nutzung fossiler
Energieträger, Stuttgart, Germany.
CBS (1993c), Ages of population per municipality on January 1 1993, on disk, in Dutch, Central
Bureau for Statistics, Voorburg, The Netherlands.
CEC (1995), Externalities of fuel cycles, Methodology report, Vol2., European Commission
Directorate General XII - Science, Research and Development/Joint Research Centre - RTD Energy
EUR 16521 EN, Brussels, Belgium.
CFC (1994), Externalities of Fuel Cycles, Coal Fuel Cycle, Working document nr. 2, European
Commission Directorate General XII - Science, Research and Development/Joint Research Centre RTD Energy, Brussels, Belgium, February.
Consonni S. and E.D. Larson (1994), Biomass gasifier/aerodderivative gas turbine combined cyclesParts A and B, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 8th Congress and exposition on gas
turbines in cogeneration and utility, industrial and independent power generation, 25-27 October,
Portland, Oregon, USA.
Corbett J.O., et al (1994), Condor Results for a Hypothetical PWR on the Hinkley Site, Nuclear
Electric Internal Report TEP/REP/0055/94.
Cosyma (1991), Cosyma - A New Programme Package for Accident Consequence Assessment,
Commission of the European Communities, Report No. EUR 13028 EN.
COVRA (1987), Locatiegebonden Milieu-Effect Rapport - Verwerking en Opslag van Radioactief
Afval, Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval, the Netherlands.
Darwinkel A. W.C.A. van Geel and H.M.G. van der Werf (1994). Miscanthus, a perennial energy and
fibre crop, In: B.A. ten Hay et al. (eds). Themaday Agrificatie en ‘nieuwe’ gewassem voor de
akkerbouw,
216
References
Davidson, M., J. van Soest, G. de Wit and B. de Boo (1996), Financial valuation of environmental
damages in Dutch agriculture, an approach based on mitigation costs, Centrum voor
Energiebesparing en Schone Technologie, Delft.
DE (1997). Bio: stand van zaken, Duurzame Energie, vol. 97/4
DEN (1996), Derder Energienota, Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, report 24525, SdU Uitgeverij,
’s-Gravenhage, the Netherlands
Dekker, B.G. (1995), Personal Communication. B.G. Dekker, Urenco Nederland B.V.
Dings, J.M.W. (1996), Kosten en milieu-effecten van technische maatregelen in het verkeer, Center for
Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology (CE), Delft.
Dockery, D.W., et al. (1989),'Effects of Inhalable Particles on Respiratory Health on Children', Am.
Rev. Resp. Dis. 139, pp 587-594.
Doorn, J. van (1995), Characterisation of energy crops, biomass residues and waste streams, ECN
report nr ECN-C—95-047, ECN, Petten.
Dorland, C, H.M.A. Jansen and R.S.J. Tol (1995b), Externalities of the Dutch gas fuel cycle’, Institute
for Environmental Studies (IVM) R-95/9, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dorland, C, H.M.A. Jansen and R.S.J. Tol (1996), Externalities of the Dutch biomass fuel cycle,
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) , Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dorland, C, R, Hoevenagel, H.M.A. Jansen and R.S.J. Tol (1995a), Externalities of the Dutch coal fuel
cycle, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) R-95/10, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Dorland, C. and H.M.A. Jansen (1998). Dutch case studies on transport externalities. In: Bickel, P. et
al. (eds.) Externalities of transport in Europe, European Commissiion, DGXII, Science, Research and
Development, Joule, in preparation.
Dreicer, M., V. Tort and P. Manen (1994), ExternE - Externalities of Energy - Vol. 5. Nuclear,
Prepared by CEPN, France, Printed by: European Commission, Directorate General XII, Science,
Research and Development, report EUR 16524 EN, Brussels.
EC (1988), Council Directive on the Limitation of emissions of Certain pollutants into the air from
Large Combustion Plants', Official Journal L 336, December 7, Brussels, Belgium.
EIA (1988), Environmental Impact Analysis of the Coal fired Unit 8, Centrale Hemweg', Energy
production company UNA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March.
EIA (1991), ‘Environmental Impact Analysis, enlargement Eems plant with gas fired units, EPON and
KEMA, Arnhem, The Netherlands, January.
217
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Elliot P. and R. Booth (1993), Brazilian biomass power demonstration project - special project letter,
Shell, the Netherlands.
EPRI (1981), Nuclear Fuel Cycle Accident Risk Assessment, Nuclear Safety, Vol 22 No 3.
EPZ/KEMA (1993), Milieu-effectrapport - Modificaties kernenergie-eenheid centrale Borssele, EPZ
Ref. Moddoc nr. 063-001 Rev. 0, KEMA Ref. 53388-KET, Arnhem.
Euratom (1989), Commission of the European Communities: Council Regulation (Euratom)
No 3954/87 laying down the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and
feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or an other case of radiological emergency, Off. J. Eur.
Commun. L371/11 (1987), amended by Council Regulation 2218/89, Off. J. Eur. Commun. L211/1.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995a). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 1, Summary.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995b). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 2, Methodology.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995c). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 3, Coal and Lignite Fuel Cycles.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995d). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 4, Oil and Gas Fuel Cycles.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995e). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 5, Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE (1995f). Externalities of
Fuel Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Report Number 6, Wind and Hydro Fuel Cycles.
European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, Joule (1998). Externalities of Fuel
Cycles ‘ExternE’ Project. Updated Methodology Report, Brussels. (in prep.).
ER (1996), Digital data on Electricity production in the Netherlands. Emission Registration, TNO,
Delft.
Faaij , A., J. van Doorn and L. Waldheim (1995b), Characterization and availability of biomass
waste-streams for conversion to electricity, Department of Science Technology and Society (NWS),
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Faaij, A (1997), Energy from biomass and wastes, Ph D thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.
Faaij, A. and B. Meuleman (1996), Externalities of biomass based electricity production in the
Netherlands compared to coal based power generation, Department of Science Technology and
Society (NWS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
218
References
Faaij, A., R. van Ree and A. Oudhuis (1995a), Gasification of biomass wastes and residues for
electricity production, Department of Science Technology and Society (NWS), Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fergusson, R.A.D. (1981),'Comparative risks of Electricity Generating Fuel Systems', Peter Peregrinus
Ltd., Stevenage, U.K.
Fritsche, U., Leuchtner, J., Matthes, F.C., Rausch, L. and Simon, K.-H. (1992). Gesamt-EmissionsModel Intergrierter Systeme (GEMIS) Version 2.0. OKO-Institut Buro Darmstadt, Bunsenstr. 14, D6100 Darmstadt. An English version is distributed under the name TEMIS.
Gasunie (1993), Natural gas transport, Gasunie, Groningen, The Netherlands, August.
GEMIS (1989), 'Modellprogramm Umweltauswirkungsanalyse von Energie Systemen des ÖkoInstituts', herausgegeben vom Hessischen Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie und Bundesangelegenheiten,
Darmstadt, Deutschland.
GFC (1994), ‘Externalities of Fuel Cycles, Gas Fuel Cycle', Working document nr. 5, European
Commission Directorate General XII - Science, Research and Development/Joint Research Centre RTD Energy, Brussels, Belgium, February.
GGFC (1995), Externalities of fuel cycles, the Gernal natural gas implementation, forthcoming, IER,
Stuttgart, Germany.
Gigler, J. and C. Sonneveld (1997). De haalbaarheid van wilg als energiegewas. Duurzame Energie,
vol. 97/4
GKE (1993), Annual report 1993', Gemeenschappelijke Koleninkoopbureau voor de Electriciteitsbedrijven (GKE), De Bilt, The Netherlands.
Heijungs, R., et al (1992). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Part 1. Guide. Part 2.
Backgrounds. Centre of Environmental Science, Garenmarkt 1, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, the
Netherlands.
Hienen, J.F.A. van, et al (1990): Gevolgen van Lozingen bij Normaal Bedrijf van Nederlandse
Kerninstallaties, ECN-C--90-015, Petten.
Hilten, O. van, M. Beeldman, and P. Kroon (1994). Energie aanbod en CO2 reductie in 2010/2015:
Evaluatie van opties ten behoeve van de vervolgnota ‘Energiebesparing’, ECN report no. ECN-C94023, National Energy research Foundation ECN, Petten, the Netherlands.
Hilten, O. van, M. Beeldman, P.G.M. Boonekamp, A.W.N. van Dril, D.J. Gielen, I.C. Kok and P.
Kroon (1996), De ECN-bijdrage aan de Derde Energienota Uitgebreide beschrijving energieschetsen
2020, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, Petten, the Netherlands
219
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Hohmeyer, O, (1988). Social Costs of Energy Consumption. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Hoven, C. van (1996). Counting the Social Costs: Electricity and externalities in South Africa, Elan
Press.
Hurley, J.F. and W.M. Maclaren (1987), Dust-related risks of radiological changes in coalminers
over a 40 year working life, report on work commissioned by NIOSH, Institute of Occupational Medicine, report nr. TM/87/09, Edinburgh. U.K.
IAEA (1985), The Radiological Impact of Radionuclides Dispersed on a Regional and Global Scale Methods for Assessment and their Application, Technical Reports Series No.250, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna.
ICRP (1991), 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,
ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP 21 nos 1-3, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
IER (1994), 'Ecosense model estimations for the Dutch fuel cycle study', IER, Stuttgart, Germany.
ILO (1995). Recent developments in the coal mining industry, International Labour Organisation,
International Labour Office, Geneva.
Information and Knowledge Centre for Erable Farming and Horticulture (IKC-AGV), Lelystad/ Field
Station for Arable Farming and Horticulture in Open Air (PAGV), Lelystad. p 79-89.
ISET (1995) Externalities of photo-voltaics. In the ExternE National Implementation Report for
Germany, written by IER (Universität Stuttgart) and others. To be published in 1998.
Jaarsveld, van J.A. (1990), An Operational Atmospheric transport model for Priority Substances;
specification and instructions for use, National Institute for Public Health and Environmental
Protection (RIVM), report nr. 22501002, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Jaarsveld, van J.A. (1994), RIVM, personal communication, de Bilt, The Netherlands.
Janse, P. and J.H.J. Roos (1994) Differentiatie van de externe kosten van het Nederlandse
goederenvervoer, Center for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology (CE), Delft.
Kaegeson, P. (1993), Getting the prices right, European Federation for Transport and Environment,
Brussels.
Kaltschmitt, M and A. Weise (eds.) (1993), Renewable Energy sources in Germany - Potentials and
Costs, (in German) Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
220
References
Kaltschmitt, M and A. Weise (eds.) (1993), Renewable Energy sources in Germany - Potentials and
Costs, (in German) Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
KEMA (1992), Environmental Impact Report, Structure Electricity supply: Part 1 - design planning
decision, (in Dutch), KEMA, report nr. 12306-KEC 91-343, Arnhem, The Netherlands, May.
KEMA (1994), Informationsheet CO2, SO2, NOx AND DUST, KEMA Nederland B.V., Arnhem.
KEMA (1996), Bijstoken van geïmporteerde biomass uit Estland in de Centrale Maasvlakte (EZH) en
de Centrale Borssele (EPZ): economische haalbaarheid, KEMA, 54202-KES/MAD 96-3021,
Arnhem.
Kenney, W.A., R.L. Ganbles and L. Zsuffa (1991), Energy Plantation Yields and Economics,
Proceedings IGT Conference “Energy from biomass and wastes XV”, Washington, USA.
Kram, T., P.A. Okken, D. Gerbers, P. Lako, W. Rouw en D.N. Tiemersma (1991),_Coaluse study
(KIS), a survey of the role Coal in the period 2000-2030' in Dutch, ECN, rapport nr. ECN-I--91-072,
Petten, The Netherlands, November.
Krupnick, A.J., W. Harrington and B. Ostro (1990),'Ambient Ozone and Acute Health Effects:
Evidence from Daily Data', J. Econ. Manage 18, pp 1-18.
Kuik, O., H. Jansen and J. Opschoor (1991), Valuing the environment, edited by J.P. Barde and D.W.
Pearce, Earthscan Publishing Limited, London, U.K.
LEI (1992), Agricultural accounting model (in Dutch,: Boekhoudnet), Agricultural Ecomomic Institute
(LEI), Den Haag, the Netherlands.
Lhoist (1994), personal communication with Mr Laroche, S.A. Lhoist, Jemelle, Belgium.
Linares, P. et al. (1997), ExternE National Implementation Spain, Ciemat, Madrid, Spain.
Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V., Leskinen, A., Hanssen, O.-J.,
Ronning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (1995). LCA-NORDIC Technical Report Number 10:
Impact Assessment. TemaNord 1995:503, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.
Lysen, E.H., C. Daey Ouwens, M.J.G. van Onna, K. Blok, P.. Oken and J. Goudriaan (1992), The
feasibility of the production of biomass for the Dutch energy supply, (in Dutch), NOVEM report nr.
9208, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
MEERP (1990), Marine Exhaust Emission Research Programme, Steady State Operation', Lloyd's
Register, Netherlands Foundation for the Co-ordination of Maritime Research, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
221
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Müller, W.U. et al. (1992), Die Radonexposition im Steinkohlenbergbau des Ruhrgebiets, in: Reiners,
C. et al., (editors), Strahlenrisiko durch Radon, 32. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung Deutscher
Stahlungschutszärzte in Essen, 30-31. Mai und 1. Juni 1991, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart,
Germany.
NRC (1984), Evaluation of occupational and environmental exposure to radon and radon daughters
in the United States, National Council on Radiation Protection and Management, NRCP report no.78
Bethesda (MD), U.K.
NRLO (1983a), Energy crops in the Netherlands, (in Dutch), Nationale Raad voor Landbouwkundig
Onderzoek (NRLO), Den Haag, the Netherlands.
NRLO (1983b), Energy crops in the Netherlands - Technical-economic follow up study on fast
growing wood, (in Dutch), Nationale Raad voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (NRLO), Den Haag, the
Netherlands.
NRPB (1993), Occupational, Public and Medical Exposure, Documents of the NRPB Volume 4 no 2,
National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton.
O+S (1993),'Quarter statistics of January 1 1993 for Amsterdam', The Amsterdam Bureau for
Research and Statistics (O+S), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
OECD (1992). Proceedings of an OECD Workshop on Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Systems. Paris,
21-22 May, 1992.
Oil and Gas (1995), Oil and Gas in the Netherlands - exploration and production 1994, Oil and Gas
Directorate of Directorate General for Energy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, The
Netherlands, May.
Okken, P.A. (1989), CO2 emissions in electricity generation in the Netherlands' (in Dutch), ECN, Report
ESC-WR-89-11, Petten, The Netherlands, June.
Okken, P.A. (1992), Surroundings and Use of Alternatives, ANWB-theme-day alternative fuels and
techniques' (in Dutch), ECN, report nr. ECN-I--92-017, Petten, The Netherlands, May.
Olsthoorn, X. K. Dorland, H. Jansen, M. van Drunen, A. Bartonova, J. Clench-Aas, C. Guerreiro, J.F.
Hendriksen, S. Larssen, J. Pacyna and M. Ammon. (1997). Economic Evaluation of air quality for
sulphurdioxide, nitrogendioxide, fine and suspended particlate matter and lead, IVM-E97/11, EC, DG
XI, Brussels.
222
References
Oosterhuis and v.d. Linden (1988),'The social valuation of the vitality of forest and heather: research
on the willingness to pay for preventing damage to forest and heather', ’s-Gravenhage, Ministry of
VROM, The Netherlands.
O'Riordan, M.C. (1991), Import of ICRP 60 for general mining, Paper presented at SEPR 4 Congress,
Salamanca, Spain.
Ostro, B.D. (1987),'Air Pollution and Morbidity Revised: a Specification Test', J. Environ. Econ.
Manage 14, pp 7-98.
PAGIS (1988), Performance Assessment of Geological Isolation Systems (Summary), Commission of
the European Communities: PAGIS, CEC, Directorate General for Science, Research and Development,
EUR 11775 EN.
Penninks F.W.H. (1995), Coal and wood fuel for Electricity production: an environmentally sound
solution for waste and demolition wood, NV EPON, Paper presented at the Dutch Solar Energy
Conference 20 April 1995, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Pepper, W., Leggett, J., Swart, R., Wasson, J., Edmonds, J. and Mintzer, I. (1992). Emissions
Scenarios for the IPCC. An Update. Assumptions, Methodology and Results. Supplementary
Documentation to the IPCC 1992 Report.
Perrtu, K.L. (1987), Production of energy carriers in short-rotation forestry in Sweden, Uppsala,
Sweden.
Plagiannakos, T. and J. Parker (1988),'An Assessment of Air Pollution Effects on Human Health in
Ontario', Ontario Hydro, March.
Poland (1994), 'National Workshop "Emission of greenhouse gasses in Poland"', National Foundation
for Environmental protection, Warsaw, Poland, September 21.
Potma, C.J., D. Onderlinden and S. Slanina (1986), Contribution from the coal-fired power station to
local air concentrations and deposition levels, in Dutch, PEO report NOK-LUK 3, no. 20.70.017.10,
National Institute for Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Proc (1992),Proceedings of the first international conference on carbon dioxide removal, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 4-6 March.
Ree R. van (1994), Biomass gasification: A new technology to produce renewable power - An
inventory of technologies, Department of Science Technology and Society (NWS), Utrecht Univerity,
Utrecht, The Netherlands.
RIVM (1990),'Regional Public Health Profile 1990',(in Dutch; Regionaal Gezondheidsprofiel 1990),
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
223
ExternE National Implementation - the Netherlands
Roelofsen, P.M. and H.M. van Rij (1993) De Risico's van de Splijtstofcyclus, Energieonderzoek
Centrum Nederland report ECN-C--93-059, Petten.
Sep 1 (1994), Electriciteitsplan 1995-2004, N.V. Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-productiebedrijven,
Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Sep 2 (1994), Toelichting bij het Electriciteitsplan 1995-2004, N.V. Samenwerkende Elektriciteitsproductiebedrijven, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Silvander, U. (1991), The willingness to pay for angling and ground water in Sweden, Dissertation
no.2. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
SPHE (1988), Stuurgroep Project Herbezinning: Economische schade van een ongeval met een
kerncentrale - Hoofdrapport, Rapport nr. SPH-06-13, the Netherlands.
Statistisches Bundesamt (1991), Statistisches Jahrbuch 1991 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
Verlag W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart und Mainz, Germany.
Steetskamp, I, A. Faaij and A. van Wijk (1994), Space for Biomass, A survey study on the spatial
possibilities for biomass production, (in Dutch), NOVEM report nr. 9428, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Stoep J.W. van der (1994), Information sheets on the elements, compounds and subjects of interest
with the production and transport of electricity in relation to the environment, (in Dutch), KEMA,
Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Stoute, R.J.D. and P.M. Roelofsen (1987) NUDOS 1 - Programma voor het berekenen van
atmosferische verspreiding van radionucliden en daardoor veroorzaakte stralingsdoses, Versie 1,
Modelbeschrijving, ECN-memo 0.898-01/OD86-8/GRI, Petten.
Studsvik Energietechnik, Feasible fuel gas from solid fuels & Circulating fluidized bed gasification
and hot gas clean up, Studsvik Energiteknik AB Nykoping, Sweden.
Taskgroup Energyproduction from Biomass - TEB (1995), Energyproduction from Biomass - Plan
forward (in Dutch: Energewinning uit biomassa - plan van aanpak), report no. 64151-KES/MAD 953012, KEMA Nederland, B.V., Arnhem.
TSSI (1994), Tagungsband: Thermische Nutzung van biomasse -Technik, Probleme und
Loesungsanzsaetze - Stuttgart 14/14.04.1994, Schriftenreihe “Nachwachsende Rohstoffe” band 2,
Bundesministerium fur Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Fachagentur Nachwachsender
Rohstoffe e.V., Stuttgart, Deutschland.
U.S. (1994), 'Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas emissions and sinks 1990-1993', EPA, 230-R-94-014,
Washingtom D.C., U.S.A.
224
References
UNA (1996), personal communication with M. Geurts, NV Energieproduktiebedrijf UNA, Utrecht.
UNSCEAR (1993), Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation - United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 1993 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes,
United Nations, New York.
Urenco (1993), Milieu-Effectrapport - Uraniumverrijkings-industrie Urenco NL te Almelo,
SAF/175.7/93.
USDOL (1994). Mine Injuries and worktime. Quarterly, US Department of Labour, Jan.-March.
Waldheim, L. (1993), atmospheric CFB gasification of biomass, TPS TermiskProcesser AB, Bioenergy
93, Espoo, Finland.
WRI - World Resources Institute (1991), World Resources 1990-91 Ä A Guide to the Global
Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
Ybema, J.R. and P.A. Okken (1993),_Full Fuel Chains and the Basket of Greenhouse Gases', ECN,
report no. ECN-C--93-050, Petten, The Netherlands, December.
Ybema, J.R., P. Lako, D.J. Gielen, R.J. Oosterheert and T. Kram (1995), Prospects for energy
technologies in the Netherlands - Volume 1 and Volume 2, ECN-C-95-038/039, Netherlands Energy
Research Foundation ECN, Petten, the Netherlands.
Zeijts, H. van, E.B. Oosterveld and E.A. Timmerman (1994), Can agriculture produce clean energy ?,
(in Dutch), Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu (CLM) , Utrecht.
225