Green Rating
of
Coal-based Power Sector
Priyavrat Bhati
Centre for Science and Environment
CSE’s Green Rating Project - what and why?
 Started in 1997; Rated 6 sectors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Pulp and Paper 1999, revisited 2004, 2013
Automobile, 2001
Chlor-alkali, 2002
Cement, 2005
Iron and steel, 2012
Thermal power, 2014
Centre for Science and Environment
Coal : central to energy mix
Centre for Science and Environment
3
The dilemma : coal’s env. costs
Water: 70 per cent of the total freshwater withdrawal by
industrial sector
Coal: Over 70 per cent of the total coal consumed in India
GHG Emission: over 50 per cent of India’s total CO2 from
fuel combustion is by coal-based power plants
Pollution: Of the total industrial sector
• 60 per cent of PM emissions (includes mining)
• 45-50 per cent of SO2 emissions
• 30 per cent of NOx emissions
• More than 80 per cent of mercury emissions
Centre for Science and Environment
4
Resource needs – coal, water & land
 Coal needs to more than double in 10 years (from ~600 mt
in 2012)
 Increase in evacuation infrastructure
 2-3 times increase in coal beneficiation capacity to use very
poor quality coal
 Ash generation around 160mt; will increase to ~300mt by
2022
 Water – withdrawal from 22 BCM to 24 BCM; consumption
from 2.9 BCM to 5.3 BCM over 10 years
 Land requirement (based on EC granted till Feb, 2015):
2.85 lakh ha (0.75 lakh ha for plants + 2.1 lakh ha for coal
mines, including 46,719 ha forest land)
Centre for Science and Environment
5
Pollution Load (in
million tonnes)
Pollution load, if unchecked
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
13.1
7.8
5.5
2011-12
3.3
0.7
Sox
Nox
1.5
2021-22
PM
Massive increase in clusters
ALL THESE FACTORS DROVE DECISION TO RATE
Centre for Science and Environment
6
Sample selection
 Sample size: 47 plants, 54 GW; Over half of the capacity
when study began in 2012
 wide range representing sector profile
• Geographically diversified
• Varying unit sizes – 30% were 210 MW units; 25% were
500 MW units
• Varying age – quarter each exceeded mid-life and fulllife
Centre for Science and Environment
7
Sample selection
 Diversified by ownership (state, centre and private)
 Good participation by state-owned; Only 2 of 10 central ones
 non-participating also rated based on survey of plant location
and stakeholders, secondary information
Centre for Science and Environment
8
Parameters studied and weights
 Over 60 parameters analysed
 Weights: pollution – 42%; energy – 29%; water/ land
use – 19%; others – 10%
Centre for Science and Environment
9
Poor energy efficiency
Efficiency (%)
38
36
34
32.8
33.3
India (study
average)
Australia
35.7
35.8
China
United States
32
30
 Indian fleet one of the most inefficient – 3 percentage points
below China’s
 Indian plants emit 15% more CO2 than Chinese plants
 14 plants < 32% EE, almost all state-owned; JSEB-Patratu
21%
 Only 12 plants’ efficiency in excess of 36%, around Chinese
avg.
Centre for Science and Environment
10
Reasons for poor efficiency
 Supercritical capacity
• India 15% currently; China was around 30%; US was 27%
 Capacity over 300MW and under 10 years old:
• India 18%; China 58%.
 Efficiency 10% lower than design considered poor O&M
• more than half the plants in the study
• 6 plants were 15% lower than design
• Age is a factor, but huge variations in study; Newer plants
such MPPGCL Birsinghpur – 20%+
• State-owned old plants were the worst performers
• Efficiency and deviation from design vs. PLF (Adani
Mundra)
Centre for Science and Environment
11
Air Pollution : stack emissions
 Over half of the plants were clearly violating PM norms, of
which 85 per cent were state plants; another 10% were
likely non-compliant
 Data reported to regulators was frequently unreliable
 Ambient Air Quality – only 7 monitor continuously
Centre for Science and Environment
12
Water Guzzlers
12
9.8
10
m 3 / MWh
8
6
4
4
2
2.5
2
2
0
USA
China
Indian Average
Study best
Study worst (JSEB
(JSWEL, GIPCL)
Patratu)
 Inefficient water users (both in cooling and ash handling);
 Annual water draw (22 BCM) is over half of India’s domestic
water needs; significant OTC capacity
 Two thirds of the plants located in water stress areas
 Low tariff: as low as 20 paisa/m3; Rajasthan 70 paisa/m3
Centre for Science and Environment
13
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
50
53
57
60
40
20
Percentage Utilisation
Ash Generation in mt
Solid waste - Ash
0
2010-11
Ash Generation in mt
2011-12
Ash Utilization in mt
2012-13
Percentage Utilisation
Second largest solid waste stream of the country.
Average utilisation during 2010-13 was only 53 per cent for
plants in study.
Three-fourths not meeting 2013 ash-use target
Unused ash dumped in poorly maintained ponds (around 80%
non compliance – lining, leakage, piezometers)
Centre for Science and Environment
14
CSE Recommendations : Technology
 Old inefficient , polluting plants should be retired or
modernized at an accelerated pace; Environmental
clearance process should incentivize this
• Estimated12,000 MW capacity below 30% efficiency
• Around 20,000 MW is older than 30 years
 New capacities should be only SC/USC
 Efficient stock should be optimally utilised;
• Inclusion of environmental costs/ compliance in Merit Order
Dispatch – cheaper but polluting plants shouldn’t be called
first.
Centre for Science and Environment
15
CSE Recommendations : pollution &
resource efficiency
 Set strict standards for PM, SOx, NOx and Hg
 Water use to be cut; incorporate norms for water use in
clearances.
 Increase water tariff to promote recycling and reuse
 Promotion, standards for utilisation of policies on ash use
in infrastructure, bricks, cement industry etc.
 Loopholes that allow ash dumping, yet consider it utilization
(for eg. in low lying areas) need to be closed;
Centre for Science and Environment
16
CSE Recommendations : Improved
assessment and regulatory tool
 Capacity concentration in few areas
• Regional carrying capacity assessment and tighter norms
for critically polluted areas
 55 GW of coastal capacity expected to come up
• Potential impacts on marine biodiversity need to be
investigated
 Pollution monitoring and control by regulators are weak;
need capacity and tools
• Protocol and infrastructure for CEMS
• Economic tools (incentives)
Centre for Science and Environment
17
JSW Energy
Vs
Top Performers
Topper- No comparison with average performers
Topper- Higher benchmarks, higher expectations
Proven ability- Move to GLOBAL BEST
Sanjeev K Kanchan
Centre for Science and Environment
Score Comparisons
Energy
Total
Weight
JSW
Torangallu
(% score)
JSW
Ratnagiri
(% score)
Best in Category JPL
Raigarh
Best in parameter
Plant Gross Heat Rate
and Trends
7.0
36.8
26.2
34.0
37.6
Tata, Mundra
Design Gross Heat Rate,
and Tech
5.0
47.8
49.9
43.8
64.0
Tata, Mundra
Avg. Auxiliary
2.0
45.1
21.0
33.5
80.0
Tata, Trombay
Deviation from Design
Heat rate
3.0
57.1
0.0
80.0
80.0
JPL, Raigarh
Availability
3.0
0.0
0.0
56.56
75.00
Dahanu
24.0
9.6
6.2
11.7
Total Weight
Note- Other parameters: Sec. fuel, avg size, GHG
•Among top performers: < 92% PAF
•Ratnagiri- Deviation in GHR >12% , Aux ~9%
Centre for Science and Environment
19
Score Comparisons
Water
Total
Weight
Torangallu
(% score)
Ratnagiri
(% score)
Best in Category
Ratnagiri
Water Sources
4
50
75
75
75.0
Sp. Water consumption
5
62
50
50
64.0
Water Stress
3
10
100
100
100
Total Weight
16 or 12
8.39 / 16
8.5 / 12
8.5
Best in parameter
GIPCL
Note- Other parameters: water use in ash handling, COC
• Toranagallu- uses 13% COREX (Bellary – water stressed)
Can consumption be further reduced?
•Ratnagiri- Sea water based
Centre for Science and Environment
20
Score Comparisons
Air Pollution
Total
Weight
Torangallu
(% score)
Ratnagiri
(% score)
Best in Category
Ratnagiri
Best in parameter
(% score)
PM
4
53
56
56
69
Budge Budge
SO2
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
61
Trombay
Pollution Control Tech
2
41
50
50
100
NTPC Singrauli
Coal Storage &
Handling
6
25
88
88
88
JSW Ratnagiri
Total Weight
19
5.3
8.5
8.5
Note- Other parameters: AAQ index
•Estimated SO2 (FGD plant- given value); compared against
Chinese norm.
Centre for Science and Environment 21
Score Comparisons
Water Pollution
Total Weight
Torangallu
(% score)
Ratnagiri
(% score)
Best in Category
NLC Barsingsar
Score for ETP, STP
1
50
100
100
Water Pollution Index
4
100
20
100
Total Weight
7
5/7
3/7
6/7
Best in parameter
(% score)
100
100
Note- Other parameters: coal run-off treatment, CSE lab test
• Ratnagiri- Water pollution related complaints
Centre for Science and Environment 22
Score Comparisons
Solid Waste
Total Weight
Toranagallu
(% score)
Ratnagiri
(% score)
Best in Category
GIPCL Surat
Best in parameter
(% score)
Type of Ash handling
2
100
100
100
100 Many
Ash Utilization
1
0
0
100
>100 Mettur, Torrent
Gainful Ash Utilization
5
8
69
89
>100 Mettur / RRVUNL Kota
Ash Pond Maint.
4
80
40
60
Total Weight
15
7.59
8.27
11.03
80
Torangullu /
NLC - Barsingsar
Note- Other parameters: stakeholders observation ash pollution
• Imported coal – at-least 80% ash use criteria
(domestic coal at-least- >58%)
• Gainful- Imported at-least- 33% (Domestic at-least- 48%)
•Ash pond maintenance- Ratnagiri- bund, pipeline
Centre for Science and Environment
23
JSW- Toranagallu
Energy
• SBU-I (2x130 MW)- in 2000, SBU-II (2x300 MW)- 2009
• Avg. GHR - 2,261kCal/kWh (38 %), design GHR 2,162 kCal/kWh,
(BAT- <1,800kCal/kWh, Nordjylland-Denmark)
• Deviation - 4.6% (Hissar, Mundra etc.- <1%)
• Auxiliary -7.6 % (Maithon/Hissar etc.- ~6%)
• PAF- 90.9%; PLF- 94% (PAF- 99%, PLF- >100%)
• Sp. Coal consumption at 0.46 kg/KWh (13% energy from COREX)
Water
• Water stress area
• ZLD, Sp. Water- ~2m3/MWh {Best- 1.6 ; Dry- 0.11(m3/MWh)}
• COC of 5-7 (Jojobera- 8, achievable 10)
Centre for Science and Environment
24
Issues to Deal
• Community complaints- Red dust emission (steel), vehicular movement
through village (steel, power, mines)
• CSR (< 2% of profit)- demand for more access to heath facility
•Study of impact (of complex) on Daroji bear sanctuary
Centre for Science and Environment
25
JSW- Toranagallu
Solid Waste
• Dry ash handling; Bottom as- Dry/Semi-wet
• Ash use-79%; (Budge Budge, Torrent, Mettur, Kota etc.- >100%)
• Gainful use- 51 % (Mettur, Kota- >100%)
Air Pollution
• No visible emission
• PM- 60-62 mg/Nm3 (norm 100 mg/Nm3)
• SO2- 665-934 mg/Nm3
• NOx- 366-429 mg/Nm3
• No mercury emission monitoring
(Implication of new pollution norms) ? CEMS ?
Centre for Science and Environment
26
JSW- Ratnagiri
Energy
• 300 MW x 4 - in 2010/11
• Avg. GHR - 2,418kCal/kWh (35.5 %), design GHR- 2,151
kCal/kWh (39.9%), (BAT- <1,800kCal/kWh, NordjyllandDenmark)
• Deviation - 12% (Hissar, Mundra etc.- <1%)
• Auxiliary ~9 % (Maithon/Hissar etc.- ~6%)
• PAF- 89%; PLF- 81% (PAF- 99%, PLF- >100%)
• Sp. Coal consumption at 0.49 kg/KWh (Imported)
• Covered coal storage- only one in India
Water
• Sea water with CT- Sea water requirement- 9.7m3/MWh
• Issues to deal- Ground water contamination, CT saline mist
Centre for Science and Environment
27
Issues to Deal
• Community complaints- Saline mist & leakage from CT, coal dust emission, hot
CW discharge -Impact on orchards, fishes
•How to convey your work/improvement?
Centre for Science and Environment
28
JSW- Ratnagiri
Solid Waste
•
•
•
•
Dry ash handling
Ash use-77.6%; (Budge Budge, Torrent, Mettur, Kota etc.- >100%)
Gainful use- 83.8 % (Mettur, Kota- >100%)
Issues to deal- ash pond maintenance, ash transport pipeline,
complaints on ash emissions
Air Pollution
• No visible emission
• PM- 9-24 mg/Nm3 (norm 50 mg/Nm3)
• SO2- 373-405 mg/Nm3
• NOx- not monitored
• No mercury emission monitoring
(Implication of new pollution norms) ? CEMS ?
Centre for Science and Environment
29
Implication of new pollution norms
Pollutan
Unit size
ts
Installed before
Dec 31st, 2003
(shall meet within 2
yrs)
Installed after Dec
31st, 2006
(shall meet within 2
yrs)
Installed Jan 1, 2017
onwards
(Includes accorded EC,
under construction)
PM
All
100mg/Nm3
50 mg/Nm3
30 mg/Nm3
<500MW
600 mg/Nm3
--
--
>=500MW
200 mg/Nm3
200 mg/Nm3
100 mg/Nm3
All
>=500MW
600 mg/Nm3
0.03 mg/Nm3
300 mg/Nm3
0.03 mg/Nm3
100 mg/Nm3
0.03 mg/Nm3
SO2
NOx
Hg
Centre for Science and Environment
30
Implication of CEMS ?
CEMS- Selection, installation, certification, calibration/re-calibration, daily
check, data recording, record keeping, compliance check, publish
• Device health check- daily 10.00 a.m.; zero drift
• calibration verification- 3 months
• Zero and span drift – every week
• >85% data capture
• Data verification/ calibration- 6 monthly by empanelled Lab
• Compliance
 Any exceedance- violation
 Data spikes (< 1 min)- not for avg
 Continuous exceedance upto 10% of norms,
o >30 mins- preventive action by industry
o >60 mins- to inform SPCB/PCCs about preventive action
o Second time- closure
 Frequent exceedance- > 5% of data/day- action by SPCBs/PCCs
 Industry fails to control emissions- closure as per SOP
 Start-up/shut down ( batch process for 30 mins)- not for avg
Centre for Science and Environment
31