IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1995
307
Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation:
A Global Perspective
Arnulfo de Castro
Student Member
Saifur Rahman
Senior Member
Energy Systems Research Laboratory
Bradley Department of Electrical Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-011 1
e-mail: SRAHMANQvtvml .cc.vt.edu
Abstract.
Efforts are now underway in the
industrialized countries to significantly reduce the emission of
greenhouse and acid rain gases from power plants.
However, indications are that rapid growth in the developing
countries is quickly replacing what is being eliminated. This
paper provides data and projections on these emissions from
electricity generation in selected countries around the world,
makes some comparisons and suggests possible options.
Keywords:
Greenhouse Gases, Acid Rain, Emission
Reduction, Generation Planning, Developed and Developing
Countries.
1.O Introduction
All over the world, electricity remains to be a vital
component of national development. Easy to transport and
convert to and from other forms of energy, and available at
the flick of a switch, it has kept its place as the main source
of energy in commercial and residential applications and in
many industrial applications as well. It accounts for about
40% of the total global energy consumption [l], and is
considered to be a good indicator of economic progress.
Table I gives the expected global electric energy
generation based on growth experienced over the last
decade. At the beginning of this decade, the world’s
electricity generation was a little more than 12 billion
megawatt-hours (MWh) [2]. Developing countries, which
accounted for 75% of the world‘s population, consumed
about 20% of the world’s electric energy generation. On the
average, each person in the least developed countries
consumed about 250 kWh of electric energy per annum,
compared with 12 700 kWh consumed by each U S . citizen.
These figures are very significant in that the rapid economic
growth of developing countries is expected to result in
considerable expansion in electricity generation. During the
last decade, the world’s electricity generation grew by 3.6%
on the average. While the growth in electrical demand in the
industrialized countries was in the neighborhood of 3%, the
electricity requirements of developing countries increased by
7% annually, on the average. Developing countries will
require around 1 300 000 MW of new generating capacity in
the next 15 years [3]to serve their growing economies and
populations. The world currently spends around $1 00 billion
per year on new generation capacity [4],with the developing
countries accounting for some $50 to $60 billion. To meet
the growing demand, developing countries will have to raise
this figure to $125 billion per year [3]. The investments
required for the developed world, however, are still
substantial. If current trends continue, the countries of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) will need to add about 400 000 MW of new
generating capacity in the next 15 years.
Table I
World Electric Energy Projections
Regionl
Country
IECD
:ountries
No. America
Europe
Pacific’
Jon-OECD
:ountries
Africa
Latin Amer
Asia**
China
India
Europe
Former
19811991
;rowth
3.0
1995
Projn.
(TWh)
7 656
3 721
2 449
1077
2.8
2.9
4.3
3 907 4278
2 618 2915
1134 1277
4684
3246
1438
4 833
4.6
5 847
7545
9752
330
632
542
680
309
429
1 682
4.7
5.4
8.9
8.2
9.0
1.1
2.4
396
779
762
870
436
447
1 849
497
1011
1116
1200
670
471
2083
624
1312
1784
1510
1030
496
2347
308
447
649
1991
Gen.
Wh)
7 247
(“w
USSR
94 SM 367-3 EC A paper recommended and approved
by t h e IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation
Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society f o r
presentation a t the IEEE/PES 1994 Summer Meeting,
San Francisco, CA, July 24
28, 1994. Manuscript
submitted January 4, 1994; made available for printing May 3 , 1994.
-
Middle East
IWorld
229
7.7
12 080
I 3.6
13 503 16020 19134
‘Japan, Australia and New Zealand
“Excluding China and India.
“‘Country submissions for OECD [5, 61,projected from 1981-1991
growth for non-OECD except China 17,81. 2005 projections are all
based on past growth except for China.
0885-8969/95/$04.00 0 1994 IEEE
308
In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the socalled economies in transition have registered negative
growth rates over the last two to three years. Nevertheless,
many of these countries report the need to upgrade or
replace old, inefficient plants both in terms of energy
consumption and emission reduction.
The developing countries
of
Asia, currently
experiencing a growth rate of 8.7%, will need to increase
their capacities five-fold in the next two decades. Thailand,
for example, will more than triple its 1991 peak demand of 8
045 MW to 25 515 MW by year-end 2006 [9]. The
Philippines expects a quadrupling of its demand of 4 202
MW over the same period [IO].
The continued growth in electrical demand raises
concerns about the ability of the environment to sustain this
development without harm to itself. Roughly 63% of the
world's electricity is obtained by burning fossil-fuels, 60% of
which is coal. In other words, about 38% of all electricity is
generated by coal. These fossil-fired plants, particularly
coal, emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides
which are known contributors to either global warming or
acid precipitation, or the depletion of the ozone layer. Fossil
plants also emit toxic chemicals aside from heat and ash.
While it is recognized that international cooperation is
needed to solve such global problems, two major roadblocks
still need to be hurdled.
One of these is the wide
discrepancy between the per capita energy consumptions of
the developing countries and the developed world. For
example, Japan's clean-air efforts predate those of the US.
However, neighboring China, with 555 million MWh of fossil
generation (about 82% of its total electricity production), only
has limited emission abatement rulings in place. This has
raised concerns about the transport of acid rain emissions
across their boundaries. Japan, however, has a per capita
energy consumption of more than 7 000 kWh per year
versus China's 590 kWh. Many developing countries feel
that imposing environmental restrictions would hamper
economic growth, and their trade-offs simply follow a
different equation.
terms of the tons of carbon released to the atmosphere.)
Coal combustion, which accounts for 60% of total fossil
generation, also emits sulfur dioxide (S02) and nitrous
oxides (NOx) which produce acid rain and, in the case of the
latter, are also possibly involved in the depletion of the ozone
layer. CO2 emissions are unique because of their global
impacts and because their reduction essentially limits the
other two major chemical pollutants.
Table II
Percentagesof Electricity Generation by Fuel Type
for Selected Countries (1 991)'
I ! 111I1
COL;;;^
World
OECD
Australia
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
JaDan
Non-OECD
Banoladesh
Coal
&
M
n
I;
I
I
Oil
Gas Nucl lH
;;y;
Others
12 080
38.4
11.3 13.5 17.6
7247
157
508
455
539
222
888
40.3
76.9
18.0
8.9
58.1
13.3
14.5
8.6
2.4
2.6
3.1
2.7
47.0
30.1
10.6
10.4
2.0
1.4
8.4
17.7
19.3
23.7
0.0
16.7
72.9
27.3
4 8331 35.71 15.41 17.81
81 0.01 19.7) 70.11
8.41
0.01
0.0
24.0
16.8
10.3
60.7
13.5
3.4
22.0
12.1
22.
10.1
Another problem concerns the uncertainty of the actual
environmental impacts of electricity generation. Opposition
to emission abatement feeds on the inability of science to
come up with more definite answers.
In this paper, we attempt to evaluate the effects of
electricity generation on the environment in terms of their
greenhouse and acid rain emissions. We particularly view
this in the light of recent environmental legislation in the US,
emission abatement efforts in the developed countries and
the fast-paced growth of the developing countries. We then
attempt to identify dominant issues and alternative
approaches to the problem.
2.1 Impacts on the Environment
'Calculated from data on electricity production from fossil fuels from
OECD and UN reports [5,6,7,111.
"Data for the former USSR and Eastern Europe were based on
incomplete official data.
The estimates in Table I show a projected increase in
the global electricity production from 12 080 billion kWh in
1991 to 19 134 billion kWh in 2005. More than 60% of the
world's electricity is generated by burning fossil-fuels (Table
I I). These combustion processes produce carbon dioxide
( C 0 2 ) which are major contributors to global warming.
(Throughout this paper, CO2 emissions will be quantified in
Carbon dioxide is estimated to have contributed to 66%
of global warming between 1880 and 1980. Between 1980
and 2020, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is expected
to about double from 15.6 ppm to 27.8 ppm. Estimates of
the temperature change resulting from this increase vary
from 1.5 to 5.0"C. This increase in temperature has been
2.0 Electricity Generation and Environment
309
predicted to result in climatological changes, a rise in the sea
level and adverse effects on vegetation [12].
2.2 Implications
Increasing concern in the developed countries about
the potential harmful effects of global warming and the role
played by carbon dioxide have resulted in pressures on both
industrialized and newly-industrializing countries to reduce
emissions of this gas. On a regional scale, similar problems
are arising from the transport of acid precipitation across
national boundaries. Particular interest has centered on
China and India whose emissions rival those of the
developed countries (Table Ill).
some analysts are looking closely at China and India. In
view of the linkage between electricity consumption and
development, it is popularly believed that some increase in
energy intensities will have to accompany the progress of
developing countries despite efforts to decouple them [13].
India and China are expected to exploit their rich coal
deposits to support this growth, and, therefore, may be
penalized heavily by any effort to limit carbon dioxide
emissions. The additional expense necessary to limit these
emissions amount to 5-6% of their GDP versus 1-3% of GDP
for the industrialized nations [14].
Table 111
Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide
Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Generation of
Electricity for Selected Countries (1991)"
I
Countnr/
Region
World
I
I
I
Non-OECD I
Bangladesh
China
India
Indonesia
Nepal
Philippines
Poland
I
'Saudi Arabia I
Singapore
South Africa I
IFormer USSR]
I
Million
MWh
12 080
1
Carbon
I
SO7
I
NOY
1
1 890
I
47 655
I
21 857
4833
I
787
39
1
27
135
66
17
168
1682
I (106 MT) 1 (000 MT)I (000 MT)
I
1
I
I
I
OECD
Australia
Canada
*
0
4
39
12
4 1
46 1
246
1
208
84
1439
4968
I
I
I
34
550
3219
kWh
per capita
I
1 885
81 4
84
4 903
2 103
206
Country/
Region
Non-OECD
Bangladesh
China
India
Indonesia
NeDal
TonC
per
capita
kgSO2
Per
capita
kgNOx
Per
capita
8 425
8 965
18 952
1.28
2.22
1.17
32.38
64.92
34.04
14.24
27.01
13.91
1108
76
592
358
21 3
46
0.18
0.01
0.1 4
0.08
0.04
0.00
4.53
0.08
4.26
2.43
1.14
0.01
2.20
0.1 5
1.64
0.94
0.46
0.00
1
'Calculated from data on electricity production from fossil fuels from
OECD and UN reports [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 111. C02, S o p and NO, emissions
per kWh used to multiply coal, oil and gas-fired generation in each
country were basedon US. experience [ 17. Japan data was based on
TEPCO report [15]. MT represents metric ton.
*Calculated from data on electricity production from fossil fuels from
OECD and UN reports [5,6,7,11]. Japan data were also based on
TEPCO report[l5]. Population information taken from OECD
National Accounts [18], and Energy Statistics [7].
"Data for the former USSR and Eastern Europe are based on
incompleteofficial data.
Table IV shows the per capita electricity consumption
and pollutant emissions of the countries given in Table I l l .
Table V gives these emissions per kWh of electricity
generated. An observation of these numbers shows why
Table VI presents the projected C02, SO2 and NOx
emissions from the generation of electricity in a sampling of
OECD and non-OECD countries. Projections for OECD
310
countries used expected electric energy generation and fuel
shares for the years 1995 and 2000 as provided in the 1991
IEA review of energy policies.
Projections for OECD
countries for 2005 used 1995-2000 electricity generation
growth rates and 1995 fuel shares given in the report [6].
Projections for non-OECD countries except China used
1981-1991 energy generation growth rates and 1991 fuel
shares reported in the OECD report on energy statistics of
non-OECD countries [7]. China projections were based on
the OECD report and their presentation in the UN power
system planning seminar [7, 81. Japan emission rates were
based on the TEPCO report [15]. U.S. emission rates from
1995 on were based on an EPRl study [16]. All other
calculations used current emission rates of typical U.S.
electric generating plants [I 71.
Table V
The numbers in Table VI indicate that if current trends
continue within the next decade, developing countries and
other non-OECD nations will surpass the emissions of OECD
countries, in effect negating efforts in the developed world to
limit such pollutants. Such effects are shown in figure 1 to
figure 3 which compare the projected emissions of the U.S.,
Japan, China and India.
These figures show the
considerable progress made by Japan towards emission
reduction and the results of U.S. legislation limiting acid rain
emissions. This makes China the more dominant producer
of acid rain emissions.
Table VI
Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide
Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Generation of
Electricity (Projections for 1995 and 2000)
Cop, SO2 and NOx Emissions from
Fossil Generation of Electricity per kWh for
Selected Countries (1 991)*
(Spain
Sweden
UK
I
us
Non-OECD
Bangladesh
China
India
I
Nepal
'
Philippines
Poland**
Saudi Arabia
Sinqapore
South Africa
Former USSR**
I
0.1 31
0.01
0.22
0.1 9
3.861
0.31
6.50
5.25
0.16
4.1 0
1.99
0.14
0.24
0.22
1.01
7.21
6.80
2.03
2.77
2.63
0.01 II
0.1 3
0.29
0.1 8
0.21
0.271
0.1 51
0.1 51I
3.31
8.94
3.1 6
5.08
8.551
2.951
1.521
0.14
2.54
2.29
0.06 I
1.30
3.43
2.1 3
2.02
3.27
1.91
France
Germany
Italy
Jaoan
Noway
Spain
Sweden
UK
us
Non-OECD
Africa
Lat Amer
Asia
China
India
Europe
Former
USSR
I
I
388
2749
1088
2261
156
1198
571
2711
20
104
57
1241
528
2886
1294
2351
242
1292
695
2821
25
2
62
566
724
36
1687
13250
301
19
740
7580
30
3
63
620
769
52
1597
8950
376
30
1
782
6750
957
24385
31555
14776
2474
900
2775
6269
2965
2593
5463
11643
1018
537
1278
2410
1148
1083
3540
1220
85
46
107
60
170I
283
149
3106
1169
4247
8646
4555
2733
61%
1278
698
1956
3324
1763
1142
3987
13
97
48
1171
I
0
111
205
97
89
271
94
305
3.0 Environmentally Benign Capacity Options
*Calculated from data on electricity production from fossil fuels from
OECD and UN reports [5,6,
7, 111. Japan data were also based on
TEPCO report [15]. Population information taken from OECD
National Accounts [18], and Energy Statistics [7].
"Data for the former USSR and Eastern Europe are based on
incomplete official data.
Decision-making in the planning of electric utilities is
now taking on a broader scope. The utility planner now
needs to investigate the economic implications of the
different conditions being imposed on him and the political
dimensions of the electricity supply problem. There is much
uncertainty, and with more players in the arena, more
requirements have to be met in addition to economy and
311
reliability.
Planning then extends beyond the realm of
technical analysis, and the engineer must now consider the
political implications of his decisions.
Year
The players in the utility industry now include, in
addition to governments and funding agencies, private power
developers and producers, private investors and an
environmentally aware public.
As a result, issues of
profitability and emissions limiting are now getting greater
emphasis. The utility planner is challenged to have an
understanding of these various dimensions of the decision.
Among the alternatives in the new planning environment are
legislative and regulatory strategies, and supply-side and
demand-side options.
Much more so in the developing countries, the need to
exhaust all possible expansion options is imperative, Where
resources are meager, however, the requirements for
supporting development takes precedence and the need for
taking the rational, sustainable options is often set aside in
favor of the immediate. The following discussion of options,
however, shows that this need not be so, as there are lowercost paths that have so often been ignored.
c\1
3.1 Regulatory Strategies
Figure 1. Projected CO2 emissions (measured in MT of
carbon) for selected countries.
Country
Figure 2. Projected SO2 emissions for selected countries
While researchers agree that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide have a warming effect on the atmosphere,
opponents of any immediate abatement action point to
inconsistencies in the results of emission models and the
burden that such abatement actions impose on the economy.
There is thus an on-going international effort to study the
phenomenon of global warming. The results of these studies
will be instrumental in legislation being conceived for limiting
CO2 emissions in many countries.
Fortunately for the issue of acid rain, its effects are less
uncertain, more observable and much closer to home. Thus,
it has received greater attention among utilities, regulators
and governments. In 1970, the U.S. congress passed the
Clean Air Act which set emission standards and, after a
series of amendments, overhauled the Act to provide a
market structure for allowance trading and facilitate the
economically efficient reduction of SO2 emissions (Clean Air
Act of 1990 [19]). To address the other half of the acid rain
problem, NOx controllers are now being required on specific
boiler designs.
Japan's strict emission standards allow only two-thirds
of the acid rain emissions allowed in the U.S. and in Europe
[ 151. Antipollution agreements between the utility companies
and local governments further reduce these emissions, so
much so that Japan's SO2 and NO, emissions per kWh of
electricity generated are only one-twentieth and one-seventh
of those in the U.S., respectively.
E
3.2 Supply-side Options
2
Although the technology is already available for
reducing SO2 emissions, it puts an additional financial
burden on the utility and, ultimately, the electricity consumer.
Scrubbers cost around $175 to $200 per kW to install [20]
and penalize the plant efficiency. Lower sulfur coals (those
with less than 1% sulfur content) can only be bought at a
premium. Electricity prices of American Electric Power Co.
(AEP) are expected to increase by about 5% on the average
(and up to 20% for some customers) due to acid rain
compliance [21]. Low NOx burners likewise entail an
additional cost.
f
Figure 3. Projected NOx emissions for selected countries
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) turbines,
pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (PFBC) turbines and
312
steam-injected gas turbines are expected to play major roles
in future power systems in view of their greatly reduced SO2
emissions and their higher efficiencies which essentially
reduce CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity generated.
Still, these options could barely improve on the CO2
problem.
Much of the focus in emission abatement has been on
fuel switching and scrubber technology. Conditions in less
developed countries, however, indicate that other alternatives
might be more promising in view of the limited resources
available to their utilities.
The other available supply-side options also encounter
obstacles. The much touted fusion reactor is still about 50
years to commercialization, and even the supposedly benign
hydro
is
meeting
considerable
opposition
from
environmentalists. Solar and other renewable technologies
hold considerable promise but still need to take off with large
grid connection due to cost constraints.
Table VI1
Costs of Capacity Options
Supply Side Conventional
~ 3 1
3.3 Demand-Side Options
Aside from the increase of production capacity, the
utility can avail of demand-side alternatives which delay the
requirement for additional investments.
Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) studies show the benefits of load
shifting, peak shaving and valley filling not only in the
reduction of the load and in improving operating efficiencies
but in emission reduction as well [22]. American utilities plan
to meet up to one-third of new capacity needs with DSM [2].
Studies show that considerable improvements can also be
achieved in the efficiencies of residential appliances such as
lighting, refrigerators, air conditioners and heaters (use of
heat pump). Better energy management control systems
and variable-speed motors can also be used to reduce the
total electric energy consumption.
cost
(c/kWh)
5-7
Capacity Option
I
Coal with
compliance
I Hvdro
I
2-3
F=wl
I
Cogeneration
IAlternative [4]
lvG+-%-i
Photovoltaics
Biofuels
Solar Thermal
Geothermal
Demand
Side
5
10
5-7
Valley Filling [22]
2-3
Refrigerator
Efficiency
Improvement (2) Water Heater
3
1-3
1-2
1-3
1-3
HVAC
Lighting
High-Effy
Motors
Table VI1 lists some of these capacity options and their
estimated costs. Trends in utility planning integrate both
supply-side and demand-side alternatives to maximize
benefits to the utility. The costs of efficiency improvement
are evidently very competitive with traditional capacity
expansion
options
and
much
more
acceptable
environmentally.
References
4.0 Conclusions
The next two decades will see considerable growth in
the developing countries which must be accompanied by
corresponding expansion of the electrical supply systems.
Since fossil fuels still provide the backbone for electricity
generation, this growth is expected to bring about increasing
amounts of atmospheric emissions. It may seem expedient
to shrug off this problem with excuses of uncertainty and the
precedence of development. The reality, however, is that
environmental awareness is rising, particularly in the
developed countries, and there is increasing consensus that
we must act before it is too late. And since much of the
capital that would be needed to fund development flows from
the north, environmental challenges will have to be met in
both hemispheres.
The relative levels of emissions, specially on a per
capita basis, show a large disparity between developed and
developing countries.
This has been taken by some
developing and newly-industrializing countries as a license to
pollute, citing the more urgent need for improving their
economic conditions. Throughout the developed world,
however, emissions numbers are going down while those in
the developing countries are rising, suggesting that the
externality cannot be removed without international
cooperat ion.
1. Davis, Ged R., "Energy for Planet Earth," Readinas from
Scientific American: Enerav for Planet Earth, W.H.
Freeman and Company, New York, 1991, pp. 1-10.
2. Levine, Mark D., "Electricity End-Use Efficiency:
Experience with Technologies, Markets, and Policies
Throughout the World," presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Institute of Electrical Enaineers. JaDan, March
1993,43p.
3. "Can Independent Power Satisfy World Demand?"
(Power International Edition: Power Generation
Technology) Power, vl33, n12, Dec 1989, p. S42(3).
4. Yeager, Kurt E., "Electric Vehicles and Solar Power,"
IEEE Power Enaineerina Review, Oct 92, v12, n10, pp.
13-18.
5. International Energy Agency, Enerav Statistics of OECD
Countries: 1990-1991, OECD, Paris, 1993.
6. International Energy Agency, Enerav Policies of IEA
Countries. 1991 Review, OECD, Paris, 1992.
7. International Energy Agency, Enerav Statistics and
Balances in Non-OECD Countries: 1990-1991, OECD,
Paris, 1993.
~
313
8. Guangyao, Wei, "Electric Power in China," presented at
the United Nations Seminar on Svstem Plannina in the
Power Sector, 8-12 November 1993, UN Headquarters,
New York, USA.
Acknowledgment
The work reported in this paper is made possible in part
by a grant from the US National Science Foundation, Grant
Number INT-9214655.
9. Wayachut, Jutamas, "Power Policy in Thailand,
Balancing Supply and Demand Constraints," presented
at the United Nations Seminar on Svstem Plannina in
the Power Sector, 8-12 November 1993, UN
Headquarters, New York, USA.
Saifur Rahman (IEEE S-75, M-78, SM-83) graduated from
the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology in
1973 with a B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering. He
obtained his M.S. degree in Electrical Sciences from the
State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1975. His
Ph.D. degree (1978) is in Electrical Engineering from the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
10. Office of the President, National Power Corp., Power
DeveloPment Proaram, Generation Projects (19932005),
as
of
October
13,
1993, personal
communications.
11. Economic Commission for Europe, Annual Bulletin of
:
vol. XXXVII, United
Nations, New York, 1993.
Saifur Rahman has taught in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, the Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, the Texas A&M University and
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where
he is a full Professor. He also directs the Energy System
Research Laboratory at VPI.
His industrial experience
includes work at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New
York, the Carolina Power and Light Company, and the Tokyo
Electric Power Company. He serves on the System Planning
and Demand Side Management subcommittees, and the
Long-Range Planning, the Load Forecasting and the
Photovoltaics working groups of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society.
His areas of interest are demand side
management, power system planning, environmental impact
studies, alternative energy systems and expert systems. He
has authored more than 160 technical papers and reports in
these areas.
12. Kane, R.L., et al., "Global Climate Change: A Discussion
of Major Uncertainties," Proceedinas of the American
Power Conference 53rd Annual Meeting, v53-I, April 29 May 1,1991, Chicago, pp. 646 - 652.
,
]
13. Holdren, John P., "Energy in Transition," Readinas from
t
W. H.
Freeman and Co., New York, 1991.
14. Douglas, John,"The Cost of Greenhouse Insurance,"
0
1
, Dec
1992, pp. 26-33.
15. Environmental Protection Department, Tokyo Electric
Power Company, Enerav and the Environment, Tokyo,
Japan, July 1992.
16. Lamarre, Leslie, "Responding to the Clean Air
Challenge," EPRl Journal, ApriVMay 1991, pp. 21 -29
17. Customer Systems Division, "Technical Brief: Electric
Van and Gasoline Van Emissions: A Comparison,"
Flectric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1989.
18. Statistics Directorate, National Accounts: Main
Aaareaates Volume 1, 7 960-1 991, OECD, Paris 1993.
19. "Clean Air Act Amendments,"
NOV24, 1990, pp. 3934-63.
V
~
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
v
20. Stallard, G. Scott and Alan W. Ferguson, "Addressing
the Challenges of the New Clean Air Act," Proceedinas
S
e
, Vol. 53-1, 53rd
Annual Meeting, April 29-May 1, 1991, pp. 326-333.
21. McManus, John M., "American Electric Power's Acid
Rain Compliance Program," October 1993, personal
communications.
22.
customer
Systems
Division, nnTechnical Brief: Load
Management and the Environment," Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRII Report RP2788, 1991.
23. Hubbard, Harold M., "The Real Cost of Energy,"
Scientific American,
264 no 4, April 991, p36(6),
Arnulfo de Castro (IEEE S-93) obtained his B.S. and M.S.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of the
Philippines in 1977 and in 1983, respectively. He is an
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
University of the Philippines where he has been teaching
since 1983. He is presently working towards his Ph.D. in
,
Electrical Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Arnulfo de Castro worked for the Energy and
Information Technology Corporation in the Philippines and
was involved in software development and consultancy
services for electric utilities.
His experience includes
generation, transmission and distribution planning, and
economic operations studies for the (Philippine) National
Power Corporation and the Manila Electric Company. He
Was also active in performing energy studies for the
Philippine Department of Energy and for industry. His
principal areas of interest are power system planning, energy
systems, environmental aspects of electricity generation,
optimization techniques and decision analysis.
3 14
Discussion
D. M. Vinod Kumar (Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, India): The authors are to be complimented for
bringing the attention to the Environmental impacts of
electricity generation due to fossil fired plants particularly
coal. The discusser appreciate the authors response on
following:
In Table-VI1 authors provided cost of capacity options
of different conventional and non-conventional energy
sources. But did not provided various non-conventional energy sources total capacity of OCED/nonOCED countries.
In future what will be the role of non-conventional
energy sources. And out of various non-conventional
energy sources (Photovoltaics, Wind, Solar, Geothermal etc.,) which is the most efficient and low cost.
For reducing SO, emission authors pointed out the
use of Scrubbers for the existing power plants, whose
cost is very high. For the developing countries, authors would have suggested low cost emission reduction equipments instead of critisizing developing and
newly industrializing countries.
electricity generation from non-conventional sources by
country and by region can be obtained from OECD
reports [l,21.
b) Future role of non-conventionalenergy sources
Non-conventional energy sources will continue to make
inroads into the electric power supply mix; first, for offgrid remote locations, and then slowly for gridconnected applications. As different countries begin to
internalize the cost of pollution mitigation from fossil-fuel
and nuclear power plants, the penetration of nonconventional sources to the utility generation mix will
increase.
It is hard to say what is most efficient and low cost when
PV, wind, solar and geothermal are compared. In these
cases we are inputing different types of energy (e.g.
sun, wind, trapped heat, etc.) so efficiencies cannot be
meaningfully compared. In terms of $/kwhr energy cost,
geothermal is probably the cheapest under the best
conditions. This is followed by wind, solar thermal and
photovoltaics.
c) Use of low-cost scrubbing equipment
S. Rahman and A. de Castro:
Low cost SO2 scrubbing equipment is available, but
these do not remove SO2 as much or as efficiently. In
the US,Japan and Europe the utility industry is required
to scrub SO2 at a level of 90% or above. It is always
better to scrub some SO2 out of the stack emissions.
The objective of this paper was to show how much SO2
can be removed using the best available technology.
This would then set standards that could be used as
targets for SO2 removal.
a) Total capacity for non-conventionalenergy sources
References
Much of this capacity is non-utility owned, and therefore
not reported in official reports. The data reported in
official reports is, therefore, representative of a fraction
of what is available in the field. Thus, providing this
partial data for non-conventional energy sources will
present a very prejudiced picture for these sources.
Hence, this data was omitted in the paper. For those
who are interested in these figures nonetheless, data on
1.
International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics of
OECD Countries, 1990-7991, OECD, Paris, 1993.
2.
International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics and
Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 1990-1991,
OECD, Paris, 1993.
Manuscript received August 22, 1994.
Manuscript received October 24, 1994.