Additional technical measures, their reduction potential and costs

1
Additional technical measures, their reduction
potential and costs
Based on a study by Hugo Denier van der Gon,
Maarten van het Bolscher Antoon Visschedijk TNO
Built Environment and Geosciences Presented
by Maarten van het Bolscher, Netherlands
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment
2
Contents

• Output Phase I
• Aims
• Methodology
• Selected Measures and Costs
• Results
• Country specific data
• Conclusions

3
Output of the project Phase I - HM

• For Cd, Pb, Hg 6 other HM (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se
  and Zn)
• For European UNECE Member States.
• Emission inventory for 2000 (base year)
• Projections for 2010, 2015 and 2020 following two
  scenarios
• Current Legislation and Current Ratification of
  HM protocol (CRHM)
• Current Legislation and Full Implementation of
  HM protocol (FIHM)
• Quantify emission reduction due to implementation
  of the HM Protocol
• Preliminary list of possible measures to further
  reduce HM emissions

4
Aims of the study

• Select measures for a possible revision of the HM
  Protocol
• Calculate emission reduction and associated costs
  in 2020 upon a possible revision of the HM
  protocol
• Estimate costs of a possible revision of the HM
  Protocol
• Phase I II
• Provide input for predictive modeling of
  environmental distribution, exposure of
  ecosystems, sourcereceptor relationships

5
Methodology Phase II HM

• Starting point HM emissions in 2020 Full
  Implementation HM
• Key source analysis of remaining emissions upon
  FIHM
• Selection of sources for a possible revision of
  the HM Protocol
• Select source-specific measures and their
  associated costs
• Package 1 dust control oriented (all HM)
• Package 2 gaseous emission control (more
  specific Hg)
• Calculate emission reduction upon revision and
  quantify associated costs
• Distribute emissions to make emission maps for
  modelling

6
Potential additional reduction measures for
selected source sectors are summarized in the
report e.g.
Cement Production Restriction of Hg content in waste fuel (e.g. by prohibiting the use of certain waste fuels)
Sinter plants Replacement of current limit value of 50 mg dust/m3 by 30 or 40 mg/m3 (e.g. by using multiple field ESP, fabric filters or advanced high pressure scrubbing, probably considerable costs)
Blast furnaces Replacement of current limit value of 50 mg dust/m3 by 30 mg/m3 (e.g. by using fabric filters)
Electric arc furnaces Replacement of current limit value of 20 mg dust/m3 by 10 mg/m3 (e.g. by using fabric filters)
Basic oxygen furnaces Introduction of emission limit value (e.g. 10 or 20 mg dust/m3 by using fabric filters)
Example of proposed measure for a HM source sector
7
Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 1
8
Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 2
Note Complete list of measures see accompanying
report
9
Results Phase II

• Avoided emission by country, by measure for 2020
  )
• Annual costs by country, by measure for 2020 )
• Here aggregated results for UNECE-Europe are
  presented and put in perspective to 2000, 2010
  and 2020 emissions with current ratification (CR)
  and/or full implementation (FI) of the HM
  Protocol
• )Detailed breakdown available in annex, addendum
  and CD of the TNO report

10
Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after
possible revision of the HM Protocol, achieved
emission reductions and costs for package 12
11
Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after
possible revision of the HM Protocol package 12
, achieved emission reductions
12
Emissions 2000-2020 with different scenarios - 1
CR current ratification FI full
implementation AM additional measures
13
Emissions 2000-2020 with different scenarios - 2
CR current ratification FI full
implementation AM additional measures
14
Combined report
The work of TNO, EMEP/MSC-E and the Coordination
Centre on Effects (CCE) has been combined in the
report Heavy Metals Emissions, Depositions,
Critical Loads Excedances in Europe. www.mnp.nl/c
ce Final conclusion is that the policy focus on
the three priotrity metals Cd, Pb, and Hg is
justified
15
Cd
16
Relative change HM emissions 1990-2020 with
different scenarios (year 2000 100)
17
Conclusions -1

• Total Costs of AM Package 1 (dust reduction) 9
  billion /yr
• mostly (85) in Non-EU25
• Note costs will also be made in EU but are
  attributed to autonomous measures (e.g. IPPC)
• Total Costs of AM Package 2 (Hg reduction) 18.5
  billion /yr
• equally distributed in EU25 and non-EU25
• Hg is not covered by autonomous measures
• Co-benefit of Package 2 may be reduction other
  gaseous pollutants e.g. PCDD/F
• Co-benefit for PM is mostly by FIHM ( 3.7 Mt
  TSP, 1.2 Mt PM10 and 0.28 Mt PM2.5). FIHMAM has
  limited impact because (partly) focus on gaseous
  emissions.

18
Conclusions-2

• Additional Measures (AM) (27,000 M/yr) are
  expensive compared to the 1998 HM protocol
  (estimated at 440 MECU (1995) Berdowski et al.,
  1998), but probably well below costs of
  implementation 2nd S Protocol (roughly estimated
  at 50-60,000 M )
• Full implementation of the 1998 HM Protocol
  brings about the biggest step in reduction of HM
  emissions a possible revision of the HM protocol
  is a further improvement and should be seen in
  this perspective.

19
Thanks for your attention

• More detailed country data available
• Report available on www.tno.nl/HM_POP
• ? Questions ?

20
Sources not in the HM Protocol HM UNECE-Europe
2020 after FI
Sources Cd Hg Pb
Residential, commercial and other combustion 15.4 8.0 4.5
Industrial combustion 10.2 7.8 4.6
Coke ovens 6.8 2.5 1.1
Peat (Heat and power prod., residential etc, industrial comb.), sec. Al and iron foundries lt0.5 lt0.5 lt0.5