A Case Study on Monitoring Environmental Impact of Flue ... - wseas.us

Models and Methods in Applied Sciences

A Case Study on Monitoring Environmental Impact of Flue Gases to a Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Station CORNELIA A. BULUCEA1 ANDREEA C. JELES2 NIKOS E. MASTORAKIS3 CARMEN A. BULUCEA4 CORINA C. BRINDUSA4 1 Faculty of Electromechanical and Environmental Engineering, University of Craiova ROMANIA 2 Technical College of Arts and Crafts “Constantin Brancusi” of Craiova ROMANIA 3 Military Institutes of University Education, Hellenic Naval Academy GREECE 4 University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova ROMANIA [email protected], [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: The environmental impact of stack gas to Turceni coil-fired electrical generating station has been carried out on basis of pollutant vector assessment. The environmental pollutants belonging to flue gases vector, as sulfur dioxide SO2, nitrogen oxides NOx, particulate matter PM, and carbon dioxide CO2 have been analyzed in this case study performed to Turceni power plant of Romania. Mathematical models of environmental pollutant vector, estimating the emission factors specific to fossil fuel combustion process have been applied for 3 distinct operation situations of the thermal units of 330 MW to Turceni electrical generating station. For each stack gases component of pollutant vector, the results with regard to emission factor and pollutant concentration are presented in this study. Projection in the Mirror of the flue gases pollutant vector had allowed an evaluation of mass concentration of the ash in the combustion gases quill. In this case study to Turceni power plant, for the thermoelectric units of 330 MW the nomograms of ash-particulate matter pollutant have been simulated. Key-Words: Coal fossil fuel, Electrical generating station, Environmental impact, Flue gases, Pollutant vector , Power plant, Sustainable Development the human health impact of burning coal in electrical generating stations represents a serious concern. Being exposed to these toxic air pollutants emitted by a coal-fired power plant, people are experiencing heart diseases, respiratory illness and lung cancer. Air pollution from coal-fired stations is also associated with other health diseases, such as infant death, chronic bronchitis, asthma, adverse reproductive outcomes and other lung diseases [6,7,8].

1 Introduction As it is widely accepted all across the world, within the present industrial metabolism, electric and thermal energy generation, as one of the main consumers of fossil fuels, and coal in particular [1,2,3,4], causes problems related to the environmental releases in operation of the power plants. The coal-fired electrical generating stations represent the larger contributor to acid rain of any industrial activity, since they are the larger source of sulfur oxides. The coal-fired industrial applications are also a significant source of nitrogen oxides, with an impact comparable to that of transportation [4,5,6,7]. Hence, the combustion of coal strongly contributes to acid rain and greenhouse gas, having been connected with global warming [5]. Unfortunately, beyond the environmental impact,

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

2 Process Flow to a Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Station Thermoelectric power generation in a coal-fired plant consists in the conversion of thermal energy into electrical energy, on basis of a coal-fossil fuel source to heat a liquid to produce a high pressure

90


generating station with regard to the flue gases emission. The steam boiler of type CA 330 MW is a main device of thermal units of 330 MW to Turceni coal-fired electrical generating station, as well as to Rovinari and Craiova power plants from Oltenia region. The steam boiler of type CA 330 MW, with a flow rate of 1035 t/h (see Fig.1) is supplied with solid fossil fuel, of type lignite coal. [4,11,12,17]. Fig. 1 Schematic representation The main technical of steam boiler Vulcan 1035 t/h characteristics of a 330 MW generator (see Fig.2), as device within a thermoelectric unit to Turceni power plant are depicted in Table 1.

gas (usually water is heated to produce steam) which then is expanded over a turbine that runs an electric generator [4,9,10]. The driving force for this process is the phase change of the gas to a liquid following the turbine, and this is where the requirement for cooling water arises. A vacuum is created in the condensation process which draws the gas over the turbine, since this low pressure is critical to the thermodynamic efficiency of the process. Mainly, the water requirement in coal-fired power plants is as cooling water for condensing the steam. The steam condensation typically occurs in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger that is known as a condenser. The operating parameters of the cooling system are critical to the overall power generation yield. At power plants, the combustion gases, which are called flue gases, are exhausted to the outside air through the chimney. Flue gas is usually composed of carbon dioxide, water vapor, as well as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon monoxide [11,12,13,14,15,16]. It must be noted that because the combustion flue gases inside the chimney are much hotter than the environmental air, and consequently less dense than the outside air, at the bottom of the vertical column of hot flue gas the pressure is lower than at the bottom of a corresponding column of outside air. That means the driving force moving the combustion air into the combustion zone, as well as flowing the flue gas up and out of the chimney is represented by that higher pressure outside the chimney [3,4, 17,18]. This study deals with the assessment of flue gas pollutant vector, since the most important environmental and human health pollution caused by the coal-fired power plants comes from the emission into the air of gases, that entail sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon dioxide. There are a serious of end-of-pipe technologies for treating and removing pollutants from the flue gases produced by burning coal in the electrical generating stations. Still, aiming to the sustainable framework of Cleaner Production, these emerging technologies for the treatment and removal of pollutants from the combustion gases should be accompanied worldwide by responsible monitoring of the environmental pollutants.

Fig. 2 Thermoelectric block of 330 MW: Steam turbine FIC 330 MW + Turbo generator THA 330-2

Table 1 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Magnitude 388 MVA 330 MW 3000 rpm 50 Hz 24 kV 9334 A 3 Y

3.1 Flue Gases Assessment with SEDD Methodology Flue gases monitoring during the operation of a coal-fired power plant is an essential step in assessing the environmental and human health impact of pollutants. This case study deals with flue gases pollutant vector, and the assessment of the pollutant emissions from Turceni power plant is based on

3 Case Study. Flue Gases Pollutant Vector to Turceni Power Plant This study follows the operation of thermoelectric units of 330 MW on lignite to Turceni electrical

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

Technical characteristics Apparent power Active power Speed Frequency Voltage Electric current Phase number Phase connection

91


SEDD Methodology, that is elaborated by the Strategy and Economic Development Division within Romanian Electrical Department as calculation method (PE-1001). The methodology is based on the mathematical models that are depicting the emission factors specific to fuel combustion process [11,17]. By definition, the emission factor represents the pollutant amount evacuated in atmosphere per heat quantity unit produced by fuel combustion in the boiler [4, 11, 16,17]. For distinct pollutants the emission factors are determined experimentally. They are depending on fuel characteristics, constructive type of the combustion installation, as well on fuel calorific power. Emission factors can be corrected in accordance with the fuel composition and the applied combustion technology. Fuel amount and according calorific power are determined by fuel lot. One could also notice that in case of several fuel types utilization, the total amount of a certain pollutant is determined by summing the emissions corresponding to each of them. The flow rate of the pollutant evacuated into the atmosphere (the emission) is determined [11, 12, 14, 17,18] as: (1) E Pol = B H iC e Pol [kg / h] where: E Pol [kg / h] is the flow rate of pollutant evacuated into atmosphere; B[kg / h] is the fuel flow rate; H iC [kJ / kg ] is the inferior calorific power of fuel, and ePol [kg / kJ ] is the emission factor. Mass concentration of the pollutant evacuated by combustion is determined as: (2) C mPol = E Pol 10 6 / DGaze [mg / m N3 ] where: E Pol [kg / h] is the mass flow rate of pollutant evacuated into atmosphere, and DGaze [m N3 / h] is the volume flow rate of combustion gases.

3.1.2 Pattern of Pollutant NOx Calculation of NOx emission is based on the emission factors that are indicated on Table 2, applying then an oxygen correction for a 100% load of the boiler. Table 2 Fuel

Lignite Coal Oil Natural gas

e SO2

x eNO = e100 NO x [ a + (1 a ) x

g/GJ 260 450 280 170

L 50 [kg/kJ] (4) ] 50

x [kg/kJ] is the emission factor at load x; where: eNO x

e100 NO x [kg/kJ] is the emission factor at load 100%; L [%] is the boiler load, and a is the fuel type coefficient (a = 0.5 for coal fuel). 3.1.3 Pattern of Pollutant PM (ash and dust) Calculation of emission factor specific to particulate matter pollutant is determined as follows: (1 x / 100)(1 y / 100) * A / 100 [kg/kJ] (5) e Pub = H iC

where: e Pub [kg/kJ] is the emission factor for ash; A [%] is the ash content in the coal; x [%] is the retention degree of ash in the focus; y [%] is the yield of the installation for dust retention; H iC [kJ/kg] is the inferior calorific power of fuel. Table 3

(3)

Parameter

MU

Lignite

Coal

A – ash content in coal x – retention degree of ash in focus y – efficiency of dust retention installation (electrostatic precipitator)

[%]

40

30

Coal (import) 20

[%]

15

[%]

94 – 99 depending on time interval after each shaking

3.1.4 Pattern of Pollutant CO2 Emission factors for CO2, according to European Union regulation, are depicted in Table 4. Table 4

where: eSO [kg/kJ] is the emission factor for SO2; M SO [kg/kmol] is the molecular mass of SO2; 2

2

M S [kg/kmol] is the molecular mass of sulfur; S[%] represents the sulfur amount into the fuel; H iC [kJ/kg] is the inferior calorific power of the

Fuel Coal (lignite) Oil Natural gas

fuel, and r is the retention degree of sulfur in slag and ash (r = 0.2 for lignite coal fuel).

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

Thermal power of boiler [MWt] 50 - 100 100 - 300 >300 kg/kJ g/GJ kg/kJ g/GJ kg/kJ 2*10-1 200 2,2*10-1 220 2,6*10-1 3,8*10-1 380 4,2*10-1 420 4,5*10-1 1,9*10-1 190 2,1*10-1 210 2,8*10-1 -1 -1 1,3*10 130 1,5*10 150 1,7*10-1

For the emission calculation at partial loads (>50%) the following correction it is applied:

3.1.1 Pattern of Pollutant SO2 The emission factor for sulfur dioxide is: M SO2 S M S 100 = (1 r ) [kg/kJ] H iC

e100 NO x

92

eCO2 kg/kJ 98*10-6 72*10-6 50*10-6

g/GJ 98000 72000 50000


Calculation of emission factor specific to pollutant CO2 is determined as: eCO2

M CO2 C M C 100 = H iC

350m

300m

[kg/kJ]

(6) 250m

where: eCO2 [kg/kJ] is the emission factor for CO2;

200m

M CO2 [kg/kmol] is the molecular mass of carbon; C 150m

[%] is the carbon content in the fuel; H iC [kJ/kg] is the inferior calorific power of the fuel.

100m

3.2 Projection in Mirror of Flue Gases Pollutant Vector

50m

The flue gases pollutant vector is depicted [11, 17,18,19,29,21] by origin, direction, sense and magnitude: - pollutant vector origin is represented by the gases evacuation chimney of the power plant; - pollutant vector direction has a temporary character and it is defined mainly by the climate factors, wind speed having been the most important; - pollutant vector sense is defined by the evacuation chimney for the combustion gases; - pollutant vector magnitude is determined by the content of pollutants, that is variable, decreasing as distance increased from the chimney. The Projection in the Mirror of the pollutant vector allows the evaluation of the mass concentration of ash in the flue gases quill, on distances of several hundred meters [11,20,21,22,23]. This projection is based on the symmetry between the flue gases chimney and the combustion gases quill related to a higher symmetry axis (see Fig.3).

150m

50m

0m

Fig.4 Iso-mass curves: Iso600, Iso500, Iso400, Iso300, Iso200, Iso100

Table 5 No.

Isomass curves

Iso = Iso-mass indicative

Disom [m] = distance on iso-mass curve

1 2 3 4 5 6

Iso600 Iso500 Iso400 Iso300 Izo200 Iso100

600 500 400 300 200 100

50 50 50 50 50 50

K[ mg / m N3 / m ] = linearization longitudinal coefficient 100 / 50 100 / 50 100 / 50 100 / 50 100 / 50 100 / 50

3.3 SEDD Methodology Applied to Thermoelectric Units of 330 MW to Turceni Electrical Generating Station This case study is performed in Turceni electrical generating station. Subsequently there will be taken into consideration three distinct situations: (1) Operation of Turceni power plant at 33.33% capacity of installed power (660 MW), that is corresponding to 2 thermoelectric units (n=2) of 330 MW in operation for an hour on basis of lignitefired [10,15,16]; in this case, 1 chimney for flue gas is evacuating the pollutants from the two thermoelectric units mentioned as above; (2) Operation of Turceni power plant at 66.66% capacity of installed power (1320 MW), that is corresponding to 4 thermoelectric units (n=4) of 330 MW in operation for an hour on basis of lignitefired; ]; in this case, 2 chimneys for flue gas are evacuating the pollutants from the 4 thermoelectric units mentioned as above; (3) Operation of Turceni power plant at full capacity of installed power (1980 MW), that is corresponding to 6 thermoelectric units (n=6) of 330 MW in operation for an hour on basis of lignitefired; in this case, 3 chimneys for flue gas are

A-A

Fig.3 Symmetry axis A-A: combustion gas chimney – Combustion gas wedge Q=450

This way the flue gases quill can be equated to a body as symmetrical truncated cone (see Fig.4). One could notice that the concentrations of ash and combustion gases pollutants are inverse proportionally with truncated cone height (Table 5).

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

100m

93


evacuating the pollutants from the 6 thermoelectric units mentioned as above. Mathematical models of the methodology SEDD has been used for depicting the emission factors specific to fuel combustion in the thermoelectric units of Turceni power plant. The following operation conditions have been assumed in this case study: a) fuel type is lignite coal with the inferior calorific power H iL =6280kJ/kg, sulfur content S=0,8%, carbon content C=20%, ash content A=25,5%, total wet W=45% ; b) flow rate of consumed coal per a thermoelectric units of 330MW is determined on basis of the medium flow rate of coal pulverized by the 5 coal mills 5*92,6t/h, and accordingly the lignite flow rate that is taken into consideration is BL =5*92,6 t/h =463 t/h = 463*103 kg/h; c) oil as fuel support has the inferior calorific power H iP = 39770kJ/kg, sulfur content S=3%, carbon content C=76%; d) the flow rate of consumed oil per a thermoelectric unit of 330 MW is BP=10*103 kg/h; The flue gases pollutant vector has four main components: sulfur dioxide SO2, carbon dioxide CO2, particulate matter PM, nitrogen oxides NOx.

ePSO2

kg/ kJ

oil

1,51*10-6

Oil: SO2 pollutant flow rate

EPSO

kg/h

oil

600n

Total flow rate of SO2 pollutant

ESO2

kg/h

all fuels

6530n

Concentration SO2 pollutant

C mSO

mg/ m3N

all fuels

3840

Case (n=6)

III

Case (n=2)

I

of

Case (n=4)

II

926 103

1852 103 2778 103

20 103

40 103

2,04*10-6 11860 1,51*10-6 1200 13060 3840

2,04*10-6 23720 1,56*10-6 2400 26120 3840

60 103

2,04*10-6 35580 1,51*10-6 3600 39180 3840

3.3.2 Component CO2 of Pollutant Vector Based on the same methodology, in Table 7 there are depicted the resulting data for carbon dioxide. Table 7

3.3.1 Component SO2 of Pollutant Vector Taking into consideration the SEDD methodology there were resulting: the emission factor for SO2 by lignite combustion eLSO [kg/kJ], the flow rate of 2

pollutant SO2 evacuated by lignite combustion ELSO [kg/h], the emission factor for SO2 by oil 2

combustion ePSO [kg/kJ], the flow rate of pollutant SO2 evacuated by oil combustion EPSO [kg/h], the 2

2

total flow rate of pollutant SO2 evacuated by combustion ESO [kg/h], and the mass concentration of 2

pollutant C mSO2

Oil: SO2 emission factor

SO2 evacuated by combustion [mg / m ] . In Table 6 there are depicted the 3 N

data resulting in this case study for the component SO2 of the gases pollutant vector. Table 6

Parameter CO2

Symbol

MU

Reference values

kg/h

Fuel type lignite

Lignite: fuel flow rate Oil: fuel flow rate

BL

kg/h

oil

10 103 n

Lignite: CO2 emission factor

BP e LCO2

kg/kJ

lignite

116,8*10-6

Lignite: CO2 pollutant flow rate

E LCO

kg/h

lignite

33960n

Oil: CO2 emission factor

e PCO2

kg/kJ

oil

70,1*10-6

Oil: CO2 pollutant flow rate

E PCO

kg/h

oil

27880n

Total flow rate of CO2 pollutant

E CO2

kg/h

all fuels

61840n

Concentration CO2 pollutant

C mCO mg/ m3N

all fuels

36380

Case (n=2)

I

of

Case (n=4)

II

Case (n=6)

III

Reference values

926 103

1852 103

2778 103

kg/h

Fuel type lignite

463 103 n

20 103

40 103

60 103

BP

kg/h

oil

10 103 n

Lignite: SO2 emission factor

eLSO2

kg/ kJ

lignite

2,04*10-6

Lignite: SO2 pollutant flow rate

ELSO2 kg/h

lignite

5930n

116,8* 10-6 67920 70,1*10-6 55760 123680 36380

116,8* 10-6 135840 70,1*10-6 111520 247360 36380

116,8* 10-6 203760 70,1*10-6 167280 371040 36380

Parameter SO2

Symbol

MU

Lignite: fuel flow rate

BL

Oil: fuel flow rate

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

94

463 103 n


3.4 Testing Validation of SEDD Methodology on Thermoelectric Units of 330 MW to Turceni Power Plant

3.3.3 Component PM of Pollutant Vector Table 8 encompasses the resulting data for particulate matter component of pollutant vector. Table 8 Parameter Ash

Symbol

MU

Lignite: fuel flow rate Oil: fuel flow rate Lignite: PM emission factor Lignite: PM pollutant flow rate Concentration of PM pollutant

BL

Case (n=2)

I

Reference values

kg/h

Fuel type lignite

BP

kg/h

oil

10 103 n

ePulb

kg/kJ

lignite

0,345*10-6

EPulb

kg/h

lignite

1003n

C mPulb

mg/ m3N

all fuels

590

Case (n=4)

II

Case (n=6)

1852 103 2778 103

20 103

40 103

60 103

0,345* 10-6 4012 590

0,345* 10-6 6018 590

0,345*10 2006 590

463 103 n

III

926 103 -6

Under the above mentioned conditions, for an acceptable evaluation of the results of SEDD methodology, it is necessary to joint and compare the simulation result with experimental test [11,, 17, 18]. For this purpose we have proposed an experimental validation of the mathematical pattern evaluation of flue gas emission by recordings achieved on Calcination Evaluation Stand together with Chemical Laboratory – Coal Section within Turceni electrical generating station (see Fig.5).

Fig.5.1.Planetary ball mill

Fig.5.2 Calcination furnance

3.3.4 Component NOx of Pollutant Vector Based on the same methodology, in Table 9 there are depicted the resulting data for nitrogen dioxides. Table 9 Parameter NOx

Symbol

MU

Reference values

kg/h

Fuel type lignite

Lignite: fuel flow rate Oil: fuel flow rate

BL BP

kg/h

oil

10 103 n

Lignite: NOx emission factor

80 e LNOx

kg/kJ

lignite

2,44*10-7

Lignite: NOx pollutant flow rate

E LNOx

kg/h

lignite

710n

Oil: NOx emission factor

80 e PNOx

kg/kJ

oil

2,52*10-7

Oil: NOx pollutant flow rate

E PNOx

kg/h

oil

100n

Total flow of NOx pollutant

E NOx

kg/h

all fuels

810n

Concentration NOx pollutant

C mNOx

mg/ m3N

all fuels

480

Case I (n=2) 3

926 10 20 103

2,44*10-7 1420 2,52*10-6 200 1620 480

of

Case II (n=4) 1852 103

Case III (n=6)

40 103

60 103 2,44*10-7 4260 2,52*10-6 600 4860 480

2,44*10-7 2840 2,52*10-6 400 3240 480

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

463 103 n

Fig.5.3 Drying oven

Fig.5.4 Calorimetric bomb

The main devices of the testing station are: a planetary ball mill of type PM 400 RETSCH with 4 grinding posts, a calcination furnace of type NABERTHERM for calcining coal samples, an oven of type ECOCELL 700 for drying the coal sample, and a calorimetric bomb of type 1KA C5003 that allows a controlled burning of coal samples, as well as coal calorific power and composition determining. The recorded data have been processsed using a AMD multiprocessor computer system that allowed the StatSoft STATISTICA - Version 7.0 software running, for date acquisition and processing. This way the conecntrations of flue gases leaving the chimney. One could noe that the lignite coal fuel taken into the case study has: the inferior calorific power H iL =6280kJ/kg; the sulfur content S=0.8%, the carbon content C=20%, the ash content A=22.5%, and the total wet W=45%. The resulting

2778 103

95


data for the flue gases pollutant vector component: sulfur dioxide SO2 , carbon dioxide CO2, particulate matter PM and nitrogen oxides NOx are depicted in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively. Table 10 Parameter

Symbol

MU

Sample I

Sample II

SO2 emission factor Concentration of pollutant SO2

eLSO2

kg/kJ

2.02*10-6

2.06*10-6

C mSO2

mg/ m3N

350m

300m

Sample III 2.1*10-6

250m

200m

3802

3878

3955 150m

Table 11 Parameter

Symbol

MU

CO2 emission factor. Concentration of pollutant CO2

e LCO2

kg/kJ

C mCO2

mg/ m3N

Sample I 114.5* 10-6

Sample II 119.1* 10-6

Sample III 120.3*10-

35652

37108

37471

100m

50m

6

150m

50m

0m

Fig.6 Iso-mass curves: Iso600, Iso500, Iso400, Iso300, Iso200, Iso100

Table 12 Parameter

100m

Symbol

MU

ePulb

kg/kJ

C mPulb

mg/m3N

PM emission factor Concentra tion of pollutant PM

Sample I 0.335* 10-6

Sample II 0.355*10-

Sample III 0.359*10-

572

608

614

6

For the determination by calculation of the mass concentration evolution according to the projection in the mirror of the smoke quill have been developed patterns of diffusion prognosis [11,17,19,] for an appropriate comparison with experimental data and laboratory tests. In this paper, for modelling the ascendant smoke quill according to the projection in the mirror on a 300 meters distance, it has been adopted the pattern of probability density function (PDF), elaborated by Weil [19,21,23]. This model allows entailing the input parameters of the phenomena that govern the pollutant dispersion into the atmosphere.

6

Table 13 Parameter

Symbol

MU

Sample I

NOx emission factor Concentration of pollutant NOx

eLNOx

kg/kJ

C mNOx

mg/ m3N

2.41* 10-7 475

Sample II 2.49* 10-7 490

Sample III 2.51* 10-7 495

Function = 590*Exp(-x*x*y )

3.5 Numerical Validation on Basis of PDF Model Applied to Thermoelectric Units of 330 MW to Turceni Power Plant In this case study, for the thermoelectric units of 330 MW to Turceni electrical generating station, the projection in mirror is developed for distances of 300 meters (see Fig.6 and Table 14). Table 14 No.

1 2 3 4 5

Isomass curves

Iso = Iso-mass indicative

Cm[mg/m3N] = maximum concentation

k[m-2] = correction factor

Iso500 Iso400 Iso300 Iso200 Iso100

500 400 300 200 100

590 590 590 590 590

0,00002 0,00002 0,00002 0,00002 0,00002

z-zc [m] = distance on isomass curve 85 135 185 235 300

500 400 300 200 100

Fig.7 Overall nomogram of mass concentration ash-particulate matter to Turceni power plant (n=2)

Accordingly, in Fig. 7 it is depicted, as example, the overall nomogram of mass concentration ashparticulate matter to Turceni power plant when two thermal units are in operation (n=2), the physical

Distribution of iso-mass curves in case of projection in the mirror for isomorphic curves of order 100 mg/m3N in the smoke quill is depicted in Fig.5.

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

96


parameter being the mass concentration, and in Fig.8, Fig.9 and Fig.10 there are presented the nomograms of ash-particulate matter pollutant for different values of correction factor k, with the mass concentration as physical parameter, under the same assumed case study. (

4 Discussion and Conclusion The analysis in Section 3.4 was carried out on basis of three samples extraction, and according to the data depicted as above, for each component of the flue gas pollutant vector caused by burning of lignite coal fuel the following average values have been illustrated: a) for sulfur dioxide SO2 : the emission factor. eLSO2 = 2.06*10-6 kg/kJ; the pollutant concentration

) Function = 590*Exp(-0,000019*x*x)

C mSO2 = 3878 mg/m3N ; the average error Rmsd S 1%; the maximum error Rmax S 3%. b) for carbon dioxide CO2 : the emission factor.: e LCO2 = 118*10-6 kg/kJ; the pollutant concentration

C mCO2 = 36744 mg/m3N ; the average error : Rmsd S 550 450 350 250 150

1%; the maximum error Rmax S 3%. c) for particulate matter PM: the emission factor eLPulb = 0.35*10-6 kg/kJ; the pollutant concentration

Fig.8 Mass concentration nomogram for k = 1,9*10-5 m-2 (n=2) (

C mPulb = 598 mg/m3N

; the average error Rmsd S 1.5%; the maximum error Rmax S 4%. d) for nitrogen oxides NOx : the emission factor eLNOx = 2.47*10-7 kg/kJ; the pollutant concentration

) Function = 590*Exp(-0,00002*x*x)

CmNOx = 487 mg/m3N ; the average error Rmsd S 1.5%; the maximum error Rmax S 3%. One could conclude that flue gases monitoring during the operation of a coal-fired electrical generating station is an essential step in assessing the environmental and human health impact of pollutants. Procedures should impose worldwide the estimation of yearly emissions of primary particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides on the total megawatt-hours generated by each power plant. Further on, since the emissions from coal-fired power plants are dispersed over a large area, the population living around every power plant should be included in specific databases and a mapping program, aiming that it could be medically useful. Compliance with Sustainable Development imposes on each existing coal-fired electrical generating station to be installed and activated both modern pollution control technology and depollution equipment, assuming that these end-ofpipe treatments would reduce the environmental and human health impacts and will slow the process of degradation of life on Earth. Further on, investing in cleaner production to prevent pollution and reduce coal-resource consumption should be a responsible approach, more effective than continuing to apply the end-of-pipe solutions in the coal-fired power plants.

550 450 350 250 150

Fig.9 Mass concentration nomogram for k = 2*10-5 m-2 (n=2) (

) Function = 590*Exp(-0,000021*x*x)

500 400 300 200 100

Fig.10 Mass concentration nomogram for k = 2,1*10-5 m-2 (n=2)

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

97


of the 5th NAUN International Conference on Energy and Development- Environment - Biomedicine (EDEB’11), Corfu Island, Greece, July 14-16, 2011, ISBN: 978-1-61804-022-0. [12] N.E. Mastorakis, A. Jeles, C.A. Bulucea, C.A. Bulucea, C. Brindusa, “Evaluating the environmental impact of coal-fired power plants through wastewater pollutant vector”, RECENT RESEARCHES in GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT and BIOMEDICINE, Proceedings of the 5th NAUN International Conference on Energy and DevelopmentEnvironment - Biomedicine (EDEB’11), Corfu Island, Greece, July 14-16, 2011, ISBN: 978-161804-022-0. [13] R. Erikson, Environmental Impact Assessment. Academic Press Inc. San Diego, Ca.USA, 1994. [14] E. Hnatiuc (Dir.), Procedes electriques de mesure et de traitment des polluants. Editions TEC&DOC, LAVOISIER, 2002. [15] B.W. Berger, K.J. Davis, C. Yi, P.S. Bakwin and C.L. Zhao, “Long-Term Carbon Dioxide Fluxes from a Very Tall Tower in a Northern Forest: Flux Measurement Methodology”. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 18(4): 529542, 2001. [16] J.M. Breuil, “Input-output analysis and pollutant emissions in France”. The Energy Journal, July 1st, 1992. [17] A. Brîndu[a , J. Kovacs , Thermoenergetic block on coal. Pollution vector: burning gas, ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PETROSANI, Vol..9, :218221, UNIVERSITAS Publishing House, Petro[ani , ROMÂNIA. 2007. [18] A. Brindusa, “Research concerning the environmental pollution vectors specific to the thermoelectric power plants on coal”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Petrosani, 2009. [19] J.C. Weil, “A diagnosis of the asymmetry in topdown and bottom-up diffusion using a Lagrangian stochastic model”. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 47(4): 501-515, 1990. [20] P.K. Misra, “Dispersion of non-buoyant particles inside a convective boundary layer”. Atmospheric Environment, 16(2): 239-243, 1982. [21] J.C. Weil and T.W. Horst, “Footprint estimates for atmospheric flux measurements in the convective boundary layer”. In: S.E. Schwartz and W.G.N. Slinn (Editors), Precipitation Scavenging and AtmosphereSurface Exchange. Hemisphere, Washington, DC, 1992. [22] A.K. Luhar, “The influence of vertical wind direction shear on dispersion in the convective boundary layer, and its incorporation in coastal fumigation models”. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 102(1): 1-38, 2002. [23] J.C. Weil, L.A. Corio, and R.P. Brower, “A PDF dispersion model for buoyant plumes in the convective boundary layer”. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 36(8): 982-1003, 1997.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude and deep appreciation to the WSEAS Research Institute, for the dedicated efforts in creating an appropriate scientific environment, with an endless moral support for the scholars worldwide. The authors are also deeply appreciating the important support of the colleagues of Turceni Power Plant in achieving this study. References: [1] S. Penney, J. Bell, J. Balbus (2009), “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”,. Report at ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE FUND, 2009. Available: http://www.edf.org/documents/9553_coal-plantshealth-impacts.pdf [2] A.J. Cohen, H.R. Anderson, B. Ostro, K.D. Pandey, M. Krzyzanowski, N. Kunzli, K. Gutschmidt, A. Pope, I. Romieeu, J.M. Samet, K. Smith (2005), “ The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution”. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 68: 1301-1307, 2005. [3] U. C. Mishra, “Environmental impact of coal industry and thermal power plants in India”. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol.72 No.(1-2): 3540, 2004. [4] M. Istrate, M. Gusa, Impactul producerii, transportului si distributiei energiei electrice asupra mediului. AGIR Publishing House, Bucharest, 2000. [5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004,” April 2006. [6] A. Lockwood, K. Welker-Hood, M. Rauch, B. Gottlieb, "Coal's Assault on Human Health". Physicians for Social Responsibility Report, November 2009. [7] C.A. Pope, “Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: Biologic mechanisms and who’s at risk?”. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108: 713-723, 2000. [8] Source Watch, Health effects of coal, 2011 (online). Available : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_ effects_of_coal. [9] S. Ehrenfeld, “Industrial Ecology: A new Framework for Product and Process Design”. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 5 (1-2), 1997. [10] S. El-Haggar, Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management. Cradle-to cradle for Sustainable Development. Elsevier Academic Press, 2007. [11] C.A. Bulucea, A. Jeles, N.E. Mastorakis, C.A. Bulucea, C. Brindusa, “Assessing the environmental pollutant vector of combustion gases emission from coal-fired power plants”, ”, RECENT RESEARCHES in GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT and BIOMEDICINE, Proceedings

ISBN: 978-1-61804-044-2

98