We developed an algorithm for the estimation of harmful emissions depending on the amount of supplied electricity and heat at coal-fired TPP. By this algorithm, we calculated the emissions of SO2 and dust at Ukrainian TPP in 2017 and 2018. The values of SO2 concentrations in dry flue gases at Ukrainian TPP in 2017 and 2018 depending on fuel brand, sulfur content, and method of slag removal in the boiler were in the range of 1520–5900 mg/Nm3, and the general gross emissions of SO2 were about 620 thousand t. The specific emissions of SO2 were at a level of 14–15 g/kWh of supplied electric energy as compared with 1.2 g/kWh – the level for coal-fired plants of EU countries. At Ukrainian TPP, about 100 thousand t of dust were thrown away. The dust concentrations in flue gases at Ukrainian TPP were equal to 300–1800 mg/Nm3. The values of specific dust emissions per 1 kWh of supplied electricity constituted 0.8-5.1 g against 0.2 g/kWh characteristic of present-day coal-fired TPP of EU countries. The level of gross emissions of SO2 and dust at the TPP of Ukraine did not exceed the maximum possible according to the National Emission Reduction Plan of Pollutants from Large Combustion Plants.
1. Dai, Н., Ma, D., Zhu, R., Sun, B., & He, J. (2019). Impact of Control Measureson Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide and Particulate Matter Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plantsin Anhui Province, China. Atmosphere, 10(1), 35. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10010035.
2. Coal Unit Characteristics. (2019). National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS v6 December 2019) frame (EPA, 2019) with additional information EPA, February 10, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/coalunitcharacteristi....xls
3. Climate analytics. (2020). Coal phase-out – global and regional perspective. Retrieved from https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/coal-phase-out
4. Eur-lex.(2010). Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj.
5. Gouw, J.A., Parrish, D.D., Frost, G.J.,& Trainer, M. (2014). Reduced emissions of CO2, NOx , and SO2 from U.S. power plants owing to switch from coal to natural gas with combine dcycle technology. Earth's Future, 2(2),75–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000196.
6. Graham, D.Р., Salway, G., & Stack, R.P. (2007). Gas Flow Rate. Calculation for Emissions Reporting – A Guide to Current Best Practice for the Operators of Coal Fired Boilers– PT/07/LC422/R. Retrieved from http://www.vgb.org/vgbmultimedia/rp338_flue_gas.pdf.
7. Graham, D., Harnevie, H., van Beek, R., & Blank, F. (2012).Validated methods for flue gas flow rate calculation with reference to EN 12952-15. NyKoping, Ratcliffen-on-Soar, Arnhem. Retrieved from https://www.vgb.org/vgbmultimedia/rp338_flue_gas-p-5560.pdf
8. Lecomte, Т., Ferreríadela Fuente, J. F., Neuwahl, F., Canova, M., Pinasseau, A., Jankov, I., Brinkmann, T., Roudier, S., & Sancho, L. D. (2017). Best Available Techniques (BAT). Reference Document for Large Combustion Plants, EUR 28836 EN. Seville: European Commission. doi: https://doi.org/10.2760/949.
9. Malovanyy, M., Mozghovyi, V., Kutsman, O., & Baran, S. (2019). Increasing the efficiency of the use of thermal power plants waste in road construction and repair. Environmental Problems, 4(4), 179-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.23939/ep2019.04.179
10. Ministry of Energy of Ukraine. (2020). Reports on the implementation of NPSV for 2018-2020 . Retrieved from http://mpe.kmu.gov.ua/minugol/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=245522821&cat_id=245255478
11. Mitin I., Kindzera D., & Atamanyuk V. (2021). Application of slag from thermal power plant for the production of porous filler. Environmental Problems,6(2). doi:: https://doi.org/10.23939/ep2021.02.110
12. National Emissions Reduction Plan for Large Combustion Plants:Adopted by the direction of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine 2017, №796-r (2017). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/796-2017-%D1%80#Text
13. Ren, Y., Wu, Q., Wen, M., Li, G., Xu, L., Ding, X., Li, Z., Tang, Y., Wang, Y., Li, Q., & Wang, S. (2020). Sulfur trioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in China and implications on future control. Fuel, 261. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116438.
14. Technological standards permitted emissions prohibits the use of thermal installations, rated thermal capacity exceeding 50 MW: Nakaz Ministerstva ekologii ta pryrodnykh resursiv Ukrainy 2018, № 541 (2018). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0290-18
15. Volchyn, I. A., & Haponych, L.S. (2014). Estimate of the sulfur dioxid econcentration at thermal power plants fired by Donetsk coal. Power technology and Engineering, 3(48), 218-221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10749-014-0511-0.
16. Volchyn, I.A., & Haponych, L.S. (2016). Engineering method for calculating the parameters of flue gas parameters of coal-fired thermal power plants based on solid fuel characteristics. Ukrainian Journal of Food Science, 4(2), 327-338. doi: https://doi.org/10.24263/2310-1008-2016-4-2-14.
17. Volchyn, I.A., & Haponych, L.S. (2019). Estimation of pollutants emissions at ukrainian thermal power plants. The Problems of General Energy, 4(59), 45-53. doi:: https://doi.org/10.15407/pge2019.04.045
18.Volchyn, I., Dunayevska, N., Haponych, L. Chernyavskyi, M.V., Topal, A.I., & Zasyadko, Ya.I. (2013). Prospects of the Implementation of Clean Coal Technologies in the Energy Sector of Ukraine. Kyiv: GNOZIS.
19.Vykydy zabrudniuiuchykh rechovyn v atmosferne povitria vid energetychnykh ustanovok. Metodyka vyznachennia, GKD 34.02.305–2002 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016287120698
20. Wu, R., Liu, F., Tong, D., Zheng, Y., Lei, Y., Hong, Ch., Li, M., Liu, J., Zheng, B., & Bo, Y. (2019). Air quality and health benefits of China's emission control policieson coal-fired power plants during 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 094016.