37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated 37th meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010, Assessment Modeling. 22-24 February 2010,

UNECE, GenevaUNECE, Geneva

Towards widening the application of integrated Towards widening the application of integrated

assessment for abatement costs and benefits assessment for abatement costs and benefits

modelling in EECCA: case study Belarusmodelling in EECCA: case study Belarus

Sergey Kakareka, Tamara Kukharchyk, Hanna MalchikhinaSergey Kakareka, Tamara Kukharchyk, Hanna Malchikhina

Institute for Nature ManagementInstitute for Nature Management

Minsk, BelarusMinsk, Belarus

Rationale: - up to now application of IAM in EECCA is limited;- potential of wider application of IAM in these regions and at a local scale on the whole exists;- what should be done for its realization?

Starting points:- IAM modelling results for application in scientific provision of national and local air abatement policies need to be of a certain level of accuracy and detail;- testing of accuracy of IAM estimates and model parametrization using all available information may act as a method of verification.

Such analysis is made for Belarus on example of RAINS/GAINS as an IAM model.

Methodology:- statistical etc. national data vs RAINS/GAINS assessments and parameters.

Included in this presentation:- emission abatement efficiency and costs statistics for Belarus;- marginal and specific operational costs;-RAINS/GAINS efficiencies and costs for key technologies;- comparisons and conclusions.

1. Abatement efficiency by sector in BelarusAverage emission abatement efficiency in Belarus in

2007 comprised 87%; waste gases from fuel combustion abatement amounted 5%, from technological processes - 90%. PM (TSP) is mainly controlled: for PM efficiency comprised 35% and 98% accordingly.

Among economy sectors highest level of PM abatement is typical for industry – about 99%. In steel production PM abatement level is about 99%, in cast iron production – 80%, in cement production – 97%.

Average efficiency of PM abatement from fuel combustion in industry comprise 68%, in residential-communal sector – 17%. No emission abatement in domestic sector.

Average abatement efficiency by pollutant in Belarus

PM

CO NOx

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

ind

us

try

Po

we

r in

du

str

y

Fu

el i

nd

us

try

Pe

at

bri

qu

ett

ep

rod

uc

tio

n

Fe

rro

us

ind

us

try

Ch

em

ica

lin

du

str

y

Ma

ch

ine

-b

uild

ing

ind

us

try

Bu

ildin

gm

ate

ria

lsin

du

str

y

Tra

ns

po

rt a

nd

co

mm

un

ica

tio

n

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Re

sid

en

tia

l-c

om

mu

na

ls

ec

tor

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mac

hine

-bui

ldin

gin

dust

ry

All

indu

stry

Ferr

ous

indu

stry

Bui

ldin

g m

ater

ials

indu

stry

Pow

er in

dust

ry

Res

iden

tial-

com

mun

al s

ecto

r

Tran

spor

t and

com

mun

icat

ion

Agr

icul

ture

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gla

ss-fi

ber

prod

uctio

n

All

indu

stry

Mac

hine

-bui

ldin

gin

dust

ry

Ferr

ous

indu

stry

Pow

er in

dust

ry

Res

iden

tial-

com

mun

al s

ecto

r

Tran

spor

t and

com

mun

icat

ion

Agr

icul

ture

%

2. Total abatement costs

Total air and climate protection costs in 2007 in Belarus amounted 59.2 mln Euro; operational costs comprised 58%, major repair costs - 2,6%, investment costs - 39,4%.

Share of operational costs in the costs structure is the greatest and vary last 8 years from 58 to 91%.

Investment costs share vary from 9% to 53%.

Structure and trends of air protection costs in Belarus

0

20

40

60

80

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

mln

. E

uro

Operational costs Major repairs costs Investment costs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Operational costs Major repairs costs Investment costs

3. Abatement costs by sector95% of total costs on air protection are spent in industry.

Share of transport and residential-communal sectors were about 2% each; costs in agriculture by statistics were lower than 0.1% of total air protection costs.

In industry greatest operational costs were in chemical and petrochemical industries (10.8 mln. Euro) - 34% of total costs, in fuel industry - 21% of total costs. In cement industry costs amounted 0.87 mln Euro, in ferrous industry – 3.9 mln. Euro, in machine building – 2.9 mln Euro.

GAINS estimates rather different picture of costs distribution: significant costs is expected in residential and domestic sectors.

4. Specific costs by sector Volumes of collected PM were estimated by sector; these

values were used for specific abatement costs per ton of pollutant estimation.

Highest specific operational costs are in energy sector (about 3.3 thous. Euro per ton).

In machine-building industry specific costs are 0.16 thous. Euro/t; in ferrous industry – 0.17 thous. Euro/t, in fuel industry – 0.05 thous. Euro/t, in chemical industry – 0.008 thous. Euro/t; lowest operational costs are in cement industry – 0.001 thous. Euro/ton.

Specific operational air protection costs in Belarus

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Po

we

rst

atio

ns

Dis

tric

th

ea

ting

Fu

el i

nd

ust

ry

Fe

rro

us

ind

ust

ry

Ma

chin

e-

bu

ildin

gin

du

stry

Tra

nsp

ort

an

dco

mu

nic

atio

n

Re

sid

en

tial-

com

mu

na

lse

cto

r

Eu

ro/t

5. Costs of additional abatement measures (marginal)These costs were estimated according to data on measures

costs and projected emission reduction. Methodology of calculation is not sophisticated to results are very preliminary.

Average cost of additional measures in 2008 – 1.5 thous. Euro/ton of pollution reduction. Level of marginal costs vary greatly. Highest marginal expenses are in energy sector – 2.3 mln Euro/t additional pollutants emission reduction.

Marginal costs comprise: 10 thous. Euro/t in chemical industry, 1 thous. Euro/t in ferrous and fuel industries, 0.9 thous. Euro/t in cement industry, 6.2 thous. Euro in agriculture.

Average marginal abatement costs by sectors

0

10000

20000

30000

Mea

n fo

rIn

dust

ry

Fue

l in

dust

ry

Pea

t br

ique

tte

prod

uctio

n

Fer

rous

indu

stry

Che

mic

alin

dust

ry

Mac

hine

-bu

ildin

g

Bui

ldin

gm

ater

ials

Agr

icul

ture

Tra

nsp

ort

and

com

mun

icat

ion

Res

iden

tial-

com

mun

al

Eu

ro/t

6. Specific and marginal costs of PM abatement in Belarus according to RAINS/GAINS (industrial processes)

GAINS/GAINS databases on abatement costs were analyzed; marginal costs for different options were assessed.

Specific costs of PM emission abatement (technological processes) in Belarus by RAINS, Euro/t

Case studies with in-depth analysis – cast iron and cement

0

100

200

300

400

500

E F with 1 pole E F with 2poles

E F with 3poles

F abric filter C yc lone Wet s crubbers

C as t iron S teel G las s C ement L ime

Cast Iron production

TSP emission from cast iron production – about 900 t/year

Open cupolas and induction furnaces are used in cast iron production in Belarus

Open cupola – predominant technology for cast iron production in Belarus and EECCA.

Only wet dedusters (scrubbers) with CO afterburning are used for emission abatement from open cupolas;

Every abatement system is individual and projected separately;

TSP abatement efficiency for cast iron enterprises of Belarus vary from 50 to 92% with average about 80%.

Wet dedusters at open cupola

Variability of wet deduster efficiency by

facilities

Variability of TSP emission factors from cast iron production

by facilities

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

%

Wet deduster efficiency Wet scrubber efficiency by RAINS

0

4

8

12

16

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

kg/t

Variability of PM content in waste gases and wet

dedusters efficiency for open cupolas

Correlation of PM content in waste gases and

volume of waste gases for open cupolas

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

mg/

m3

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

PM content before abatement PM abatement efficiency

0

20000

40000

60000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

m3

0

6000

12000

18000

mg/

m3

Waste gases volume PM content before abatement

New abatement

unit

Initial abatement

unit

Wet scrubber

EF with 1 pole

EF with 2 poles

EF with 3 poles

Fabric filter

Cyclone 745.4 304.5 384.1 455.3 512.2

EF with 1 pole

- - 1640.8 1834.6 2411.3

EF with 2 poles

- - - 2101.4 3472.0

Marginal costs for PM abatement in cast iron production in Belarus according to RAINS, Euro/t PM

Shift from cyclones to wet scrubbers in cast iron will cost 745 euro/t additional PM emission reduction, to EF with 1 pole – 305 Euro, to EF with 2 poles – 384 Euro etc. All this options are not applicable for open cupolas.

Cement production is among key PM emission source in

Belarus: about 3.4 thous. tons PM is emitted annually;

Dry and wet technologies are used in cement production;

TSP abatement efficiency for cement production in Belarus vary

from 88.5 to 99.5% with average about 97%.

Cement production

Variability of PM abatement efficiency by cement kilns

Correlation between PM emission factors and

abatement efficiency by cement facilities

85

90

95

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

%

ESP 3 efficiency ESP 3 efficiency by RAINS

0

0,4

0,8

1,2

1 2 3

kg/

t

40

60

80

100

%

Actual emission factor Abatement efficiency

Marginal costs for PM abatement in cement production in Belarus by RAINS, Euro/t PM

New abatement

Initial abatement

EF with 1 pole

EF with 2 poles

Wet scrubber

EF with 3 poles

Fabric filter

Cyclone 11.6 14.6 43.6 17.4 16.3

EF with 1 pole - 34.4 259.2 48.5 41.3

EF with 2 poles - - - 105.4 68.5

Shift from EF with 1 field in cement production to EF with 2 fields will increase PM abatement efficiency onto 3% with additional costs 34,4 Euro/t PM, to bagfilters - 4% and 41.3 Euro/t accordingly etc. In reality all clinker roasting furnaces at cement plants in Belarus are equipped by EFs with 3 poles but efficiencies are rather different.

Conclusions

- further verification of abatement costs and efficiencies in RAINS/GAINS databases is necessary for its effective application in preparation of national and regional air protection programs in EECCA; national statistics and inventory data may be widely used;-more detailed classificators of abatement options and technologies are needed;-additional flexibility in the model, for instance possibility of emission scenario assessment from emission projections data will be useful;-as a result of analysis guidelines on integrated assessment modelling (with emphasis on RAINS/GAINS) usage will be issued.

Thank you for your attention!