SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF CROATIAN ... - PowerLab

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF CROATIAN CAPACITY IN CHP SECTOR

Project reference:LIFE 00/TCY/CRO/084 Acronym: LIFECROCHP

DELIVERABLE 4.1 Measures for Optimisation of Social Impact of CHP

IST Project coordinator: Maria da Graça Carvalho Workpackage responsible: Marko Lipošćak Authors: Marko Lipoščak (IST) Naim Afgan (IST) Neven Duić (CTT) Alexandros Rouvas (NTUA) Maria da Graça Carvalho (IST) Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, 2003

LIFECROCHP D4.1 Measures for Optimisation of Social Impact of CHP

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 2 SURVEY ON THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF THE HEATING SYSTEM .................................... 5 2.1 CITY OF ZAGREB, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Organization and structure .................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Climate characteristics .......................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Population ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Zoning of the Zagreb area..................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Survey sample determination................................................................................ 8 2.2.3 Structure of survey .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.4 Carrying out the survey ....................................................................................... 12 2.3 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ................................................................................................... 12 2.4 COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 20 3 SOCIAL INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS.............................................. 22 3.1 HEALTH SOCIAL INDICATOR ............................................................................................ 22 3.1.1 Calculation of NOx emissions .............................................................................. 22 Nitrogen oxides emissions transformed into the health social indicator ........................ 25 3.2 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE SOCIAL INDICATOR......................................................................... 27 4 EVALUATION OF FUTURE STRATEGIES AND MEASURES NEEDED IN CHP SECTOR.. 29

ANNEX ....................................................................................................................................... 30 SURVEY QOUESTIONARE .......................................................................................... 30

2


1 Introduction Beside the resources, economic and environmental aspect it has been recognized that the social aspect is of fundamental importance in understanding the sustainable development. In this respect, the sustainability assessment of energy system, in this case cogeneration energy system has to comprise the evaluation of social impact, which is one of the integral aspects within holistic concept of sustainability. By social impact we mean the consequences to human population of any public or private actions that alter the way in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes in norms, values and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society [1]. Until recent decades, when energy project and policies impact were at issue, attention was usually concentrated on economic and technical considerations. The prevailing view was that money can compensate for any adverse impact. There was little or no accent on social impacts and even less concern for the distribution or “equity” of these impacts on different populations. Social sustainability on the other hand includes the analysis of distribution of the social impacts of policies, justice of those distributions as well as the state of community with regard to safety. In this report (deliverable) short assessment of social impacts of district heating system will be given in terms of efforts to assess or estimate, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific conditions and actions related to district heating, thus cogeneration sector in Republic of Croatia. Cogeneration can have both beneficial and adverse effects on the society. Potential adverse effects could be mitigated substantially, if the cogeneration system is properly selected, designed, and sited, if it is carefully integrated in the energy system of the region, including existing and planned future energy supplies, and if it is properly maintained and operated throughout its lifetime [2]. Also, selection of the operating regimes of the cogeneration plant or district heating system must be assessed with verification of satisfaction of the consumers. Many people advocate the use of dispersed or distributed generating technology not solely because of the perceived technical, economic, or environment advantages, but also due to belief that an energy system based on these technologies will be more compatible with traditional democratic, participatory, and pluralistic institutions than a strategy based on continued reliance on large scale centralized technologies [3]. For those reasons, first task within this workpackage was carrying out the survey on the social aspect of heating system. The analyzed results of the survey are valuable contribution in understanding the social impact of heating system and social aspect and role of the cogeneration technology within heating system. Measuring sustainability is a mayor issue as well as driving force of the discussion on sustainability development. In order to cope with complexity of sustainability related issues for different systems the sustainability indicators have to reflect the wholeness of the system as well as the interaction of its subsystems [4]. In second part of this report, social indicators for the sustainability analysis of the system were determined. Higher efficiency of cogeneration plants has a direct impact on decrease of polluting emissions of energy system provided the fuel used for cogeneration is not lower quality than the fuel(s) used in separate production of electricity and heat. However it is possible to have decrease in the emissions of one pollutant due to use of cogeneration (e.g. CO2), but increase in another (e.g. NOx). Since this kind of effects can have direct impact on health of

3


the people, health social indicator was defined and calculated based on NOx emissions of Croatian cogeneration sectors for different scenarios. Cogeneration plants are of smaller size than central power plants and they are installed more close to the inhabited areas or like in case of Zagreb, within the inhabited areas. That dispersion creates new job opportunities locally and as a result the work force remains in the area and opportunities for other activities related to operation and maintenance of cogeneration system are created. This affects the social aspect of the cogeneration system. District heating system is closely related to the comfort of the social community. In this respect the system has to be verified by defining the appropriate indicator that can comprise validation of the public opinion about commodity achieved by different scenarios considered. Public acceptance indicator was therefore defined to serve as a measurable element for this purpose. Third part of this workpackage was dedicated to evaluation of future strategies and measures needed in CHP sector. Cogeneration technology may have important social and economical implications in sectors such as business development patterns, and role of policies in energy supply [2]. Therefore, as one of the measure within the energy policy the presentation and publication of the social impact assessment results can be demonstrated to the general public to emphasise the social benefits from CHP usage. REFERENCE [1]

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles 1994, Guidelines and Principles for social impact assessment, US. Dep. Commer, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-16, 29 p.

[2]

EDUCOGEN - An educational tool for cogeneration, second edition (2001), published on: http://www.cogen.org/projects/educogen.htm

[3]

OTA (1983), Industrial and Commercial Cogeneration, US. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

[4]

N.H. Afgan, M. G. Carvalho, Sustainable assessment methods for energy system, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000.

4


2 Survey on the social aspect of the heating system Task covered: T4.1. Survey on the social aspects of heating system taking into account different regimes of operation Survey on the social aspect of the heating system is carried out with the aim to determine how the heat consumers in the City of Zagreb are satisfied with the way of heat supply to their households. Special attention was given to the consumers connected to the district heating network since the heat supplied to their homes is heat from large district heating cogeneration plants situated within the city borders. Different options were given in the questionnaire representing different types of fuel and heating system. Option of changing the present heating system was also given in the questionnaire as well as the option of defining the most favourable heating system. The results of the survey provide a valuable guidance for the social impact assessment of the district heating system. Also, the survey will provide the necessary data for calculating “Public acceptance indicator” needed for the sustainability assessment procedure.

2.1 City of Zagreb, main characteristics 2.1.1

Organization and structure

Zagreb is a typical Central European city of about 900 000 inhabitants situated in northern part of Croatia, on the Sava River, 170 km from Adriatic Sea. It is a capital of Croatia and its industrial, financial and university centre. During recent period of time, Zagreb was changing its administrative organization and structure. Until 1990 it was structured as a city comprising 14 local municipalities. In period between 1990 and 1999 there were a number of changes in organizational structure of Zagreb and its status. Since 1997 City of Zagreb is considered as autonomous administrative unit in regional organization of Croatia [1]. Finally, in 1999 the city kept its centralised structure, but was divided in 17 districts and local authorities with limited administrative responsibilities [2]. 2.1.2

Climate characteristics

As well as the most of continental part of Croatia, Zagreb has continental climate. Except the influence of relief (closeness of Medvednica Mountain), microclimate conditions are also influenced by size of the urban area. Average annual temperature measured at meteorological station Maksimir in 2001 was 11.4 °C. Average December temperature of -1.7 °C represented minimum annual average temperature and August was the warmest month with average annual temperature of 22.5 °C. Characteristic for continental part of Croatia and also Zagreb is relatively high value of average annual amplitude in temperature which was 24.2 °C in 2001 [3]. Annual average amount of precipitations in Zagreb is 852 mm. June has the highest amount of precipitations and that maximum is clearly distinct. The lowest amount of recorded precipitation is usually in winter season, especially during the February. Considering

5


geographical altitude and location in the continent, snow is usual phenomenon in Zagreb with average of 35.5 days under the snow cover. Figure 1 represents the average annual monthly values of air temperature for period between 1960 and 1990 measured in meteorological station Maksimir [4].

115 Average temperature [°C] 95

Percipitation [mm]

75 55 35 15

ug us Se t pt em ba r O ct ob ar N ov em ba D r ec em ba r

A

Ju ly

Ju n

ay M

pr il A

Ja nu ar y Fe br ua ry M ar ch

-5

Figure 1

2.1.3

Population

As mentioned before, City of Zagreb area has about 900 000 inhabitants. Under the population census which was carried out in 2001 [5], central part of the city area which consists of 17 local districts has 779145 inhabitants. The source of data presented in table 2 is also the population census. Apart from the information about the number of apartments, useful information is that about 60-65% of apartments are those in the multi-apartment residential buildings. Most of these buildings are connected to the district heating network, hence they are very interesting for the scope of this survey.

6


Table 1 Name of the area

Number of inhabitants

Number of apartments

Surface [m2]

Brezovica Črnomerec Donja Dubrava Donji grad Gornja j Dubrava Medvešćak Maksimir Novi Zagreb - istok Novi Zagreb - zapad Pešćenica - Žitnjak

10884,00 38762,00 35944,00 45108,00 61388,00 36384,00 49750,00 65301,00 48981,00 58283,00

3944,00 16341,00 12172,00 21548,00 23206,00 16437,00 21306,00 25977,00 18421,00 22899,00

300157,00 1103341,00 802139,00 1532647,00 1526908,00 1300099,00 1483705,00 1477626,00 1196586,00 1315758,00

Podsljeme (ŠestineGračani-Markuševac) Podsused - Vrapče Sesvete Stenjevec Trešnjevka - jug Trešnjevka - sjever Trnje City of Zagreb

17744,00 42360,00 59212,00 41257,00 67162,00 55358,00 45267,00 779145,00

6734,00 15378,00 20172,00 14985,00 27463,00 25639,00 20280,00 312902,00

557567,00 1044810,00 1562674,00 932154,00 1578841,00 1437603,00 1163063,00 20315678,00

Average apartment Average surface per surface per household apartment member [m2] [m2] 76,10 27,58 67,52 28,46 65,90 22,32 71,13 33,98 65,80 24,87 79,10 35,73 69,64 29,82 56,88 22,63 64,96 24,43 57,46 22,58 82,80 67,94 77,47 62,21 57,49 56,07 57,35 64,93

31,42 24,67 26,39 22,59 23,51 25,97 25,69 26,07

2.2 Survey 2.2.1

Zoning of the Zagreb area

As a source of data and template for the zoning of Zagreb area, energy policy implementation study in City of Zagreb [6] was used. The study was carried out by Energy Institute “Hrvoje Požar”. Analysis of heat consumption and heating habits of population within a complex structure like a city size of Zagreb has to take into consideration different climate, infrastructure, economic and other characteristics of different areas within the city. For that reason city of Zagreb has been divided into number of zones, each of them having similar characteristics in terms of type of buildings within the zone and type of heating system. Also, it was assumed that all households have electricity supply. Under these assumptions and criteria, city of Zagreb was divided into 13 zones as presented in table 2 [6].

7


Table 2 Zone number

Name of the area

Predominant type of the buildings

Type of heat suppy

1.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

Natural gas network

2.

Gornji grad

Apartment buildings

Natural gas network

3.

Medvednica slopes

Family houses

Natural gas network

4.

Medvednica slopes

Family houses

5.

Donji grad

Family houses

6.

Donji grad

Family houses

7.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

8.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

District heating

9.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

Natural gas network

10.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

Natural gas and District Heating

11.

Donji grad

Mixed

Natural gas and District Heating

12.

Donji grad

Apartment buildings

Natural gas network (LPG before)

13.

Dubrava i Sesvete

Mixed

Mixed

2.2.2

Natural gas network

Survey sample determination

For requirements of the survey, sample of 1000 household was chosen and data from 1039 households was included in the survey in form of questionnaire. Number of households questioned in each zone was determined on basis of total number of houses in particular zone. The main intention was that all households included in survey would be evenly located within the total city area as well as within each zone. List of households included in the survey, their telephone numbers and addresses were already used in before mentioned survey carried out by Energy Institute “Hrvoje Požar” [6]. Organisation of the sample of 1039 households in previously defined zones in terms of total number of objects and number of households included in the survey is given in table 3. The table consists of number of the zone, name of local municipality area, list of former local districts within the area, total number of buildings and total number of households included in the survey within the each zone. It should be noted that the names of the local municipality areas are those from the old city organisation and that the division of zones, thus the whole table is taken from [6]. Table 3 Zone

1.

Former commune name

Former local community name

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, Natural gas Centar

Number of buildings

Households included in survey

36137

Andrija Medulić, August Šenoa, Cvjetni trg, Kralj Petar Svačić, Mimara, Zrinjevac

Črnomerec

Ban Keglević, Bartol Kašić, Petar Zrinski

Maksimir

Eugen Kvaternik, Ružmarinka

Medvešćak

Hrvatski narodni vladari, Knez Mislav, Kralj Zvonimir, Matko Laginja, Nadbiskup Antun Bauer, Petar Krešimir IV

8


Pešćenica

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

Bruno Bušić, Pešćenica, Volovčica

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, Natural gas Centar

Gornji Grad, Ivan Kukuljević-Sakscinski, Kraljevac, Stjepan Radić, Tuškanac

Maksimir

Dinko Šimunović, Mašićeva

Medvešćak

Gupčeva zvijezda, Medveščak, Petrova,Ribnjak, Šalata

City of Zagreb-Obronci Medvednice, family houses, Natural gas Črnomerec

Kornja Kustošija

Maksimir

Bukovac, Dinko Šimunović, Dobri dol, Kozjak, Maksimir, Remete

Medveščak

Gupčeva zvijezda, Medvešćak, Šalata, Gračani

City of Zagreb-Obronci Medvjednice, family houses Črnomerec

Gornja Kustošija, Medvedgrad

Maksimir

Dotrščina, Markuševac, Vidovec

Susedgrad

Gornji Stenjevec, Podsused, Perjavica-Borčec, Vrapče-centar

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, family houses, Natural gas Črnomerec

Kustošija-centar, Matija Gubec

Maksimir

Maksimirska naselja, Mašićeva

Pešćenica

Bruno Bušić

Trnje

Kanal

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, family houses Novi Zagreb

Brezovica, Hrašće, Hrelić, Jakuševac, Lučko, Mala mlaka, Odra

Pešćenica

Ivanja reka, Pešćenica, Petruševec, Volovčica

Susedgrad

Malešnica,Stenjevec, Vrapče – jug

Trešnjevka

Horvati-Srednjaci, Prečko, Rudeš

Trnje

Miramare

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings Novi Zagreb

11312

10917

3382

16153

3448

Remetinec

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, District heating Črnomerec

Šestinski dol-Vrhovec

Novi Zagreb

Dugave, Sloboština, Središće, Travno, Utrine, Zapruđe

Susedgrad

Malešnica, Špansko

Trešnjevka

Gajevo, Horvati-Srednjaci, Jarun, Knežija, Prečko, Rudeš, Vrbani

Tnje

Miramare, Trnjanska Savica

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, Natural gas Črnomerec

Matija Gubec

Maksimir

Maksimirska naselja

Trnje

Kanal, Savski kutić, Sigećica, Veslačko naselje

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, Natural gas and District Heating Novi Zagreb

Siget, Sopot, Trnsko-Krešo Rašić

Pešćenica

Folnegovičevo naselje

Trnje

Cvjetnica, Hrvatskog književnika Mile Budaka

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, mixed type of buildings, Natural gas and District Heating Črnomerec

13427

57759

6426

14357

37270

Jelenovac, Kustošija Centar, Sveti Duh, Šestinski dol-Vrhovec

9


Pešćenica

12.

Gajnice, Perjavica-Borčec, Stenjevec, Vrapče-centar

Trešnjevka

Ante Starčević, Antun Mihanović, Ciglenica, Ljubljanica, Nikola Tesla, Pongračevo, Samoborček, Silvije Strahimir Kranjčević, Stara Trešnjevka

Trnje

Cvjetno Naselje, Marin Držić, Martinovka, Poljanice

City of Zagreb-Donji Grad, apartment buildings, Natural gas (before – LPG) Trešnjevka

13.

TOTAL

Donje Svetice, Ferenščica

Susedgrad

4128

Prečko

Dubrava and Sesvete, mixed type of buildings, different types of heating Dubrava

Klaka, Trnava, Poljanice, Dubrava-središte, I. Mažuranić, Čulinec, N. Retkovec, Studentski grad, Donja Dubrava, S. Retkovec, 30. V 1990.,Dubrava Gornja, Trnovčica, Granešina, Čučerje, Dankovec, Miroševac, Novoselec, Oporovec, Granešinski Novaki, Zeleni Brijeg

Sesvete

Gajšice, Novo Brestje, Sesvetska sela, Sesvetski Kraljevec, Jelkovec, Dumovec, Sesvetska Selnica, Vugrovec Donji, Centar, Luka-Sesvete, Sesvetska soplina, Staro Brestje, Kraljevački Novaki, Dubec, Kobiljak, Šašinovec-Šija Vrh, Cerje-Sesvete, Belovar, Platina Donja, Lužan, Glavnica Donja, Paruževina, Vugrovec Gornji

38747

274086

The Zagreb city map is presented with each zone marked on the figure 2. Some of the zones which include more than one specific area, so called island zones, are marked and highlighted with same colour.

10


Figure 2

11


2.2.3

Structure of survey

Survey was carried out in the form of questionnaire. Questionnaire consists of 12 questions each of them having two to eight options for the answer. Questions were related to issues concerning type and quality of the present heating system of households and also possibilities of eventual change of the heating system and reasons or motivation for doing so. The aim was to get insight of the heat consumers wishes and their opinion about different kinds of heating with special accent on district heating system. The questions were divided in four subgroups: •

Type of consumer heating system, consumer’s satisfaction with present heating system and possibilities and motivation for change of the heating system.

•

Information about economic status of the consumer.

•

Information about heating conditions in the household.

•

Advantages and disadvantages of the present and potential available new heating system.

The survey questionnaire with all the questions and answer options is given in ANNEX I. 2.2.4

Carrying out the survey

The survey was carried out by telephone inquiry for each household. As mentioned before data about 1039 households were included in the survey. However, the number of telephoned households was 1531 because some people refused to be included in survey. This makes total positive response on the survey of 67%. Average time for questioning each consumer was about 5 minutes. Because of easier input and analysis of the data, MS Access® database was created and data about answers to every question during the telephone enquiry was directly imported into the database. The Access database file and the list of participants and their answers to the questions within the survey in Word document format are attached as annexes.

2.3 Analysis of results Type of consumer’s heating system Regarding the type of consumer’s heating system it is obvious from the Figure 3 that the natural gas is most common fuel used in the city of Zagreb. Most of the heating systems consuming natural gas are decentralised systems with natural gas boilers installed, each household having a boiler.

12


District heating Boiler in the building

11,76%

14,97%

Extra lighht fuel oil

8,02%

Liquified Petrol Gas

7,49%

Electricity Coal Natural Gas Wood

3,21%

Petroleum Solar panels

52,94%

Central fireplace

Figure 3 – Distribution of different heating systems in all 13 zones

Type of consumer’s heating system 100% Central fireplace

90%

Solar panels

80%

Petroleum

70%

Wood

60%

Natural Gas Coal

50%

Electricity

40%

Liquified Petrol Gas

30%

Extra lighht fuel oil

20%

Boiler in the building District heating

10% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Number of zone

Figure 4 – Distribution of different heating systems in each zone

However, in certain zones, like zone 8 and 10 district heating system is used in more than 90% of the households. These are areas with big apartment buildings and they are supplied with heat from ELTO and TETO district heating cogeneration plants in Zagreb. Apart from the natural gas and district heating systems, significant number of systems with a central heating boiler in the building is recorded. Besides from district heating, these systems are also interesting in terms of eventual use of cogeneration. This is related with the possibility of switching the heat supply from the boiler to the small or microcogeneration systems. Consumer’s satisfaction with present heating system and preferred heating system Answers on questions 2 and 3 in the survey provided information about how consumers are satisfied with the present heating system as well as about most preferred heating system. As it is clear from the figure 5, great majority of 92.53% of the consumers are satisfied or very satisfied with their present heating system.

13


2,01%

5,47%

44,97%

47,56% Very satisfied

Satisfied

Not satisfied

Very unsatisfied

Figure 5 – Consumers’ satisfaction with present heating system in all 13 zones

Overall consumer’s satisfaction is very equally distributed among the zones within the survey meaning that type of the building and type of the heating system do not make significant difference in terms of the consumers’ satisfaction.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Very unsatisfied

50%

Not satisfied

40%

Satisfied Very satisfied

30% 20% 10% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 Zone

9

10 11 12 13

Figure 6 – Consumers’ satisfaction with present heating system in each zone

Figure 7 and 8 represent how people included in the survey responded when asked about possible preferred heating system for their households. As it can be seen, natural gas fuelled heating system is the most desirable one for more than half of the consumers. District heating follows second with share of more than 30%. It is interesting that, according to the survey, third most desirable heating system is wood fuelled heating system. After analysing data presented on figure 8, correlation can be found between the present heating systems in households and preferred ones. For instance, in the zones where there is highest percentage of households connected to the district heating grid (figure 4), district

14


heating is most frequently mentioned as the most desirable heating system. Same can be said for wood and gas fuelled systems.

2,08%

5,49%

District heating 31,50%

Boiler in the building Extra Light fuel oil Electricity Natural Gas

2,74% 54,49%

Wood

0,85%

District heating with calorimeter

0,95%

Figure 7 – Preferred heating system, all 13 zones

100% 90%

Do not know Double-pipe paralel heating

80%

Solar w all heating Boiler in the building w ith calorimeter

70% 60%

District heating w ith calorimeter Ground heating

50%

Solar panel Wood

40%

Natural Gas Coal

30%

Electricity Liquified Petrol Gas

20%

Extra Light fuel oil Boiler in the building

10%

District heating

0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone Figure 8 – Preferred heating system in each zone

Economic status of the consumers Two questions, number 5 and 6, in the survey were related to the economic status of the consumers. The aim was to investigate does the type of the heating system has any relation with the economic status of the consumer.

15


8,6%

14,3%

0,6% from 500 to 1000 kn from 1000 to 1500 kn more than 1500 kn Not residential object

23,2%

Not know n

53,2%

Figure 9 – Monthly average income per household member

Strong correlation between heating system and economic status of the consumers has not been found. That is clearly visible if the data from the figure 8 is compared with the data on figure 4. However, it is visible from the figure 8 that certain zones have greater number of households with monthly income more than 1500 kn per household member compared to the other zones. These zones are zone1, zone 2 and zones 8, 10 and 11. From the figure 4 it is visible that these zones have lower share of wood fuelled heating systems compared to the other zones which implies that households with wood heating systems could have lower monthly average income.

80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone

Figure 10 – Monthly average income greater than 1500 kn per household member

Heating conditions in households Two parameters related to the heating conditions in the households were included in the survey, temperature when the household is heated and daily duration of heating during the

16


heating period of the year. Average indoor temperatures during the heating period vary from 20.67 °C in zone 12 to 22.96 °C in zone 10. Although these temperatures were not measured meaning that they represent more or less subjective impressions of the members of the respective household, these are relatively high values. The highest values of average temperatures are obtained in zones 7-11. This is indicative information knowing that these zones have biggest share of households connected to the district heating network.

23,50 23,00

Temperature [°C]

22,50 22,00 21,50 21,00 20,50 20,00 19,50 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone

Figure 11 – Average indoor temperatures during the heating period

Average daily heating duration period varies from 9.30 to 17.48 hours a day between the different zones. Apart from zone 7, survey has shown that there are no significant variations regarding heating duration period between the different zones. Reasons for a relatively big difference between data in 7th zone and the average can be explained in relatively small survey sample covered by the survey in the mentioned zone which could have led to statistical error. It should also be mentioned that despite relatively small variations of the average heating duration period between the zones, duration period of 16 hours per diem is recorded in 85-95 % of the households within the zones in which the district heating system prevails. On the other hand, within the zones where natural gas heating prevails, largest share of households are heated throughout the whole day or 24 hours. These results reflect the fact that in the case of district heating systems, daily heating duration period is fixed and cannot be controlled by the consumers whereas in the case of natural gas, heating boiler is usually installed within the household and consumers can freely decide about the operation regime of the heating system.

17


24 22 20 Number of hours

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone

Figure 12 – Average daily duration of heating during the heating period

Advantages and disadvantages of present heating system Most of the consumers find simple control and operation, possibility of heating expenses control and heating duration control as the main advantages of their present heating system. As it could be expected in the zones with district heating network, simple control and operation are recorded as advantage in highest number of cases while the possibility of adjusting the heating duration period is mostly recorded in the zones with natural gas heating systems. The same can be noticed regarding the heating expenses control. Because there is no possibility of precise control of the heating system and the heating duration period in the buildings connected to the district heating grid, the heating expenses control is very limited meaning that this advantage is rarely recorded in these cases.

100% 90% 80% Do not know

70%

Comfortable conditions

60%

Heating duration control

50%

Expenses control Ecological advantages

40%

Simple control and operation

30%

Low energy costs

20% 10% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone

Figure 13 – Advantages of present heating system

18


2,04%

13,44%

Cheap energy

2,21%

11,83%

Simple control and operation Ecological advantages

13,66%

Expences control Heating duration control 37,36%

Comodity Do not know

18,58%

Figure 14 – Advantages of present heating system, all 13 zones

High energy costs and inability of heating system control are found as the most common disadvantages of present hating system of the households. Also, significant number of people questioned in the survey answered that they do not know what would be the biggest disadvantage of their heating system. That confirms even more the fact that the people are mostly satisfied with their heating system. For the zones where district heating system prevails, it is indicative that the high heating costs are found in the smallest number of cases compared with other zones which can imply that the district heating is preferable system from the costs point of view. On the other hand, inability of heating system control is mentioned most frequently as a disadvantage of district heating.

100% 90% 80%

Do not know

70%

Low quality of gas Dry air

60%

Inability of heating duration control Inability of heating expences control

50%

Low heating quality (too high temp.)

40%

Low heating quality (low temp.) Low quality heating conditions

30%

High energy costs

20% 10% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Zone

Figure 15 – Disadvantages of present heating system

19


Expensive energy

10,98%

Bad conditions Low heating quality (low temp.) Low heating quality (too high temp.)

22,81%

1,11% 17,56%

Inability of heating expences control

3,82%

Inability of heating duration control

3,93%

Dry air Low quality of gas Do not know

16,23%

17,03%

3,93%

Figure 16 – Disadvantages of present heating systems, all 13 zones

2.4 Comments and conclusions The survey presented in this chapter was carried out with the purpose of assessing the public opinion about heating system in Zagreb area. On basis of the results of the survey, different types of heating systems can be evaluated from the consumers’ opinion point of view meaning that survey was useful in terms of assesing the social impact of the heating system. The main conclusion is that most of the consumer are relatively satisfied with their present heating system, almost regardles the type of heating system they have in their hoseholds. However, when qoestioned about most preferred heating system in their households, natural gas and district heating system are most frequently indicated as preferred ones with shares of more than 50% and more than 30% respectively. Strong correlation between heating system and economic status of the consumers has not been found. Only in case of wood some data obtained from the survey could imply that households with wood heating systems could have lower monthly average income. Regarding heating conditions in the households, results of the survey show that the zones with the highest share of district heating mostly distinguish themselves from the average in terms of indoor temperature. Namely, higher indoor average temperature is reported in these zones compared with other. From the social impact point of view this fact can have different interpretations. On one hand, higher temperatures can be considered as positive thing. On the other hand, if people find indoor temperature too high, they will open the windows and heat produced in district heating plants is wasted in that case. In terms of dailiy heating duration period, average of 12 to 18 hours per a day of heating is recorded in almost all zones. In case of district heating plants it is found that the daily heating period is fixed on about 16 hours a day. That implies that there is no posibility of controling and adjusting that period from the consumers side which, as found in the results of the survey, was stated as most frequently mentioned disadvantage of district heating system. On the other hand, relatively low heating expences for consumers conected to the district heating grid are stated as most important advantage of district heating system. For further and more precise information, detailed presentation of the answers on each of the questions in the survey is presented in the two Microsoft Excel® files attached.

20


REFERENCE [1]

Zakon o područjima županija, gradova i općina u Republici Hrvatskoj, Narodne novine br:10, Zagreb, 30.1.1997

[2]

Statut Grada Zagreba, Zagreb, 14.12.1999. http://www.zagreb.hr/dokument.nsf/VPD/1B786BCCF67A4718C1256C02003042 AF?OpenDocument

[3]

Državni Zavod za Statistiku, Statistički ljtopis 2002. http://www.dzs.hr/ljetopis2002/01podat.htm

[4]

Statistički ljetopis Zagreba

[5]

Državni Zavod za Statistiku, Popis stanovništva 2001 http://www.dzs.hr/Popis%202001/popis20001.htm

[6]

Energetski Institut Hrvoje Požar, Program Aktivnosti u Stvaranju i Implementaciji Energetske Politike Grada Zagreba, Zagreb 2001.

21


3 Social indicators for sustainability analysis Task covered: T4.2. Determining pollution indicators to be used in the sustainability assessment procedure

3.1 Health social indicator Health social indicator is measurable element in describing how healthy environment is for different scenarios usually including clean water, clean air, sanitary water disposal and adequate supply of healthy food. Population diseases increase health cost end decrease productivity of population which results with lower added value produced. That phenomenon has a direct impact on state of society from social aspect. Health social indicator can be evaluated as the ratio among number of sickness due to presence of the plant, which has to be scientifically verified, and the total amount of energy produced in a lifetime. In this case NOx emissions of Croatian CHP sector for three different scenarios defined in task 2.9 of the project will be used as a measurable element in defining the health social indicator. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) comprise a group of molecules that can contribute to local air pollution, acid deposition and global climate change. They are among most frequently reported atmospheric emissions, and the most commonly regulated ones [1]. Nitrogen oxides can contribute to the environmental problem in several ways. Short term exposure to increased NO2 concentrations (0.2 – 0.5 ppm) for example can cause respiratory symptoms among asthmatics. Atmospheric emissions of NOx contribute to the formation of photochemical smog prevalent in many urban areas. Their high concentration cause respiratory system damage in animals and humans, and even in relatively low concentrations they can cause breathing difficulties and increase the likelihood of respiratory infections, especially in asthmatics and other individuals with pre-existing respiratory problems [2]. When many relatively small and dispersed CHP units replace a central power plant even though decrease of pollutants like CO2 is evident, improvement of local air quality is not certain. Central power plants are usually located in remote areas recently having pollution abatement equipment and tall stacks for dispersion of pollutants whereas cogeneration plants are situated close to the consumers, usually inside urban areas and can have adverse impact on local air quality. 3.1.1

Calculation of NOx emissions

Table 1 presents typical values of specific NOx emissions from cogeneration systems with technologies considered [3] including also the values of specific NOx emissions of GTCC plants [4] and water steam boilers [3].

22


Table 1

System Gas engine CHP Gas turbine CHP

Fuel

Natural gas Natural gas Coal Steam turbine CHP Fuel oil GTCC Natural gas Hot water boiler Natural gas Coal Industrial steam boiler Fuel Oil Natural gas

Specific NOX emissions [gr/kWhe] 1,9 0,5 4,53 1,94 0,095 0,19 1,12 0,78 0,33

Since every plant with technology using natural gas, fuel oil or coal emits particles into atmosphere while in operation all these plants had to be taken into consideration. Since presently in Croatia there is no coal fuelled CHP plant and there are no plans to build cogeneration systems fuelled by coal that leaves us with CHP plants using fuel oil and natural gas as a fuel. These plants were operating in sector of district heating, industry and agriculture, services and households sector. Since there are no predictions about building new CHP capacity in district heating sector it will be assumed that the overall yearly amount of energy generated by burning fuel oil in these plants will remain constant. Industry plants using fuel oil in Croatia are CHP plants in oil refineries owned by INA. For these plants it will be assumed that the yearly share of these plants in overall electricity generation in industry sector will remain constant for each year and each scenario. This share was about 35% between 1995 and 2000 [5] and that value will be assumed for period until 2020. In case of agriculture, services and households sectors (other) gas engine was assumed as dominant technology and according to that NOx emissions for each scenario will be calculated. With above mentioned assumptions and data given in table 1, nitrogen oxides emissions are calculated. Methodology of calculation for each scenario is presented below: Nitrogen oxides emissions in case of ProCHP scenario According to the study of potential for use of CHP in Croatia [5] every new industrial CHP plant would be equipped with be Gas Turbine CHP unit. This assumption was taken into consideration when defining the technology used for rest 65% of energy generation from industrial CHP plants. Yearly emissions of the particles from district heating plants are considered constant and according to data from year 2000 [6][7]. DHNOx= 6,260 ⋅ 10 7

[kg]

Pr oCHPNOx = DHNOx + 0,35 ⋅ EL i Pr oCHP ⋅ SEFiFO + 0,65 ⋅ EL i Pr oCHP ⋅ SEFiNG + EL o Pr oCHP ⋅ SEFO ProCHPNOx = 1,063 ⋅ 10 8

[kg]

23


Where: ProCHPNOx – Nitrogen oxides emissions in case of ProCHP scenario in period until 2020 DHNOx – Amount of NOx emissions in district heating sector in period until 2020 SEFiFO – Specific Emissions Factor for steam turbine cycle CHP fuelled by heavy fuel oil (Table 1) SEFiNG – Specific Emissions Factor for gas turbine cycle CHP plant fuelled with natural gas (Table 1) ELiProCHP - Electricity generation in industry sector in case of ProCHP scenario ELoProCHP - Electricity generation in other sector in case of ProCHP scenario SEFO - Specific Emissions Factor for gas engine CHP plant fuelled with natural gas (Table 1) Nitrogen oxides emissions in case of Business as Usual scenario

Difference between electricity generation in CHP in case of ProCHP scenario and Business as Usual scenario is assumed to be covered using GTCC thermal power plant and difference between heat generation between the two scenarios is assumed to be covered by installing boilers. GTCC power plant is assumed to be fuelled with natural gas and boilers providing heat instead of CHP could be fuelled with natural gas, fuel oil, coal, liquefied petrol gas and wood. According to [6], fuel oil makes 25% of boiler’s fuel consumption in Zagreb and natural gas 45%. Taking into account fact that in period until 2020 gas will be more and more dominant fuel this share is assumed as 60% of overall fuel consumption in boilers. Nitrogen oxides emissions in case of Business as Usual scenario were calculated according to formula presented below. BaUNOx = DHNOx + 0,35 ⋅ EL iBaU ⋅ SEFiFO + 0,65 ⋅ EL iBaU ⋅ SEFiNG + EL GTCCBaU ⋅ SEFGTCC + 0,25 ⋅ HBOIL,BaU ⋅ SEFboil,FO + 0,60 ⋅ HBOIL,BaU ⋅ SEFboil,NG + EL oBaU ⋅ SEFO

BaUNOx =1,032 ⋅ 10 8

[kg]

Where: ELGTCCBaU – GTCC plants electricity generation [kWh] in case of Business as Usual scenario SEFGTCC – Specific Emissions Factor for GTCC plant using natural gas as a fuel (Table 1) SEFboil,NG – Specific Emissions Factor for boilers using natural gas as a fuel (Table 1) ELiBaU - Electricity generation in industry sector in case of Business as Usual scenario HBOIL,BaU - Heat generation from boilers in case of Business as Usual scenario SEFBOIL, FO - Specific Emissions Factor for boilers using fuel oil as a fuel (Table1)

24


SEFBOIL, NG – Specific Emissions Factor for boilers using natural gas as a fuel (Table 1) ELoBaU – Electricity generation in other sector in case of Business as Usual scenario Nitrogen oxides emissions in case of ContraCHP scenario

For calculating nitrogen emission in case of ContraCHP scenario procedure stays the same as in case of Business as Usual scenario. The only difference is that the data about electricity and heat generation in case of Business as Usual scenario is being replaced with the respective data in case of ContraCHP scenario. ContraCHPNOx = DHNOx + 0,35 ⋅ ELiContraCHP ⋅ SEFiFO + 0,65 ⋅ ELContraCHP ⋅ SEFiNG + ELGTCCContraCHP ⋅ SEFGTCC + 0,25 ⋅ HBOIL,ContraCHP ⋅ SEFboil,FO + 0,60 ⋅ HBOIL,ContraCHP ⋅ SEFboil,NG + ELoContraCHP ⋅ SEFO

ContraCHPNOx =1,008 ⋅ 10 8

[kg]

Where: ELGTCCContraCHP – GTCC plants electricity generation [kWh] in case of ContraCHP scenario ELiContaCHP - Electricity generation in industry sector in case of ContraCHP scenario HBOIL,ContraCHP - Heat generation from boilers in case of ContraCHP scenario ELoContraCHP – Electricity generation in other sector in case of ContraCHP scenario Sumary Table 2

Nitrogen oxides emissions NOx emissions in period between 2000 and 2020 [kg]

ProCHP scenario Business as Usual scenario ContraCHP scenario

1,0628E+08 1,0317E+08 1,0078E+08

Nitrogen oxides emissions transformed into the health social indicator

In order to obtain health social indicator nitrogen oxides emissions have to be somehow transformed into a value directly related to impact of these emissions on health of the people affected. The most appropriate method is to calculate the cost per calculated amount of nitrogen oxides emissions for maintaining and improving the health of the people affected

25


with adverse effects of the respective emissions during the considered lifetime of the system. The specific cost of a kg of nitrogen oxides emissions is set up as: SC=6 $/kgNOx Multiplying this value with specific emissions of nitrogen oxides calculated for each of the scenarios, health social indicator is obtained. In table 3 values of health social indicator are given. For further information about the Health indicator calculation procedure Microsoft Excel® file is attached to this deliverable. Table 3

Health social indicator calculated for each scenario

Health social indicator ProCHP scenario Business as Usual scenario ContraCHP scenario

[$/kWhe]

0,00881 0,00855 0,00835

REFERENCE [1]

Lazarus M., Von Hippel D., Hill D., Margolis R., A Guide for Environmental Analysis for Energy Planners, Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston, 1995 p 56, 57

[2]

Doull, J., C.D. Klassen, M.O. Amdur, Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, N.Y., USA, 1980

[3]

EDUCOGEN - An educational tool for cogeneration, second edition (2001), published on: http://www.cogen.org/projects/educogen.htm

[4]

Spath, L. Pamela, Mann, K. Margaret, Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, USA 2000

[5]

KOGEN, program kogeneracije, prethodni rezultati i buduće aktivnosti; Energetski institut «Hrvoje Požar», Zagreb 1998

[6]

Razvitak toplinarstva u RH - grad Zagreb (EIHP, 2001.)

[7]

Hrvatska Elektro Privreda-Croatian Electric Utility (HEP), internal data

[8]

Energy in Croatia, Annual Energy Report, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Economy, Zgreb 2001

26


3.2 Public acceptance social indicator The reason for definition and determination of the public acceptance indicator was to get an overview of opinions related to the heating system from the consumer point of view. Although cogeneration is about combined production of heat and electricity, the assumption was that the source of electricity is not of primary importance from the public acceptance point of view because there is no difference in quality of electricity delivered to the final consumers from different kinds of power plants. On the other hand, quality of heating differs for each kind of heating system. That was the reason why, within defining and determination of public acceptance indicator, the attention was given only to the heating system. Methodology for obtaining the social indicator for each scenario was based on the results of the survey carried out and previously described in this workpackage. Public acceptance is a tricky thing to measure and hard to numerically express. For that reason, specific method has been developed in order to numerically quantify the public acceptance of district heating system having in mind that district heating system supplies heat to consumers from cogeneration plants. Method is based on counting the number of participants in the survey who were members of target group, who answered to defined questions with specific combination of answers related to each scenario. For instance, if the participant in the survey answered on the question number one ( Which heating system do you use presently?) with an answer “District heating” and if the same person answered on question number 2 (How satisfied are you with your present way of heating?) with an answer “Very satisfied”, opinion of that person about the District heating (thus CHP) is very positive and this answer is considered as favourable for CHP and calculated in ProCHP scenario group of answers. If on the other hand participant of the survey uses the district heating system and finds that system very unsatisfactory, this participant of the survey does not favour district heating and cogeneration and his answer is calculated in ContraCHP scenario group of answers. Finally, if it is not possible to determine does somebody favours district heating system or the questioned person doesn’t want to change its heating system, this kind of answers are calculated in Business as Usual scenario group of answers. The analysis carried out in order to obtain public acceptance indicator was limited only to the participants of the survey who use central heating system, i.e. district heating, boiler in the building or Fuel oil fuelled heating system. The reason for this limitation was the aim to concentrate on the consumers who are already consuming co generated heat and on the potential cogeneration users. The potential cogeneration users were defined as those who have the desire and possibility to switch on the district heating or any other central heating (thus potential CHP) system. The consumers who do not use the central heating system and have no possibility of switch were considered as irrelevant from the public acceptance point of view and were not included in the analysis. Combinations of questions and appropriate answers for each scenario considered are presented in table 4.

27


Table 3

Appropriate combinations of questions and answers for each scenario

ProCHP scenario combinations of answers

BaU scenario combinations of answers

ContraCHP scenario combinations of answers

Table 1.1

Table 2.1

Table 3.1

Question 1. Question 2. Question 3. Question 4b. Table 1.2 Question 1. Question 2.

Question 3. Question 4b.

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil Very satisfied

Question 1. Question 2.

Answer District heating Satisfied District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil

Question 3. Question 4b. Table 2.2

Question 1. Table 1.3 Question 1.

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil


Question 2.

Question 3. Question 4b.

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil Very satisfied Satisfied District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil

Question 1. Question 2. Question 3. Question 4b. Table 3.2

Answer


District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil Satisfied

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil

District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building Question 4b. (extra light) Fuel Oil

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

Question 3. Question 4b. Table 3.3

Question 1. Question 2. Question 3.

Natural Gas Electricity Coal Liquefied Petrol Gas (butane) Wood Petroleum Solar panels Central fireplace

Answer District heating Boiler in the building with calorimeter Boiler in the building (extra light) Fuel Oil

Natural Gas Electricity Coal Liquefied Petrol Gas (butane) Wood Petroleum Solar panels Question 4b. Central fireplace

By analysing data obtained in the survey, the total number of answers belonging to each defined group of questions and answers were counted. The total number of participants in the survey who answered exactly as specified for the each scenario represents the Social Acceptance Indicator for each scenario. Values of Social Acceptance Indicators for the respective scenarios are presented in table 4. For more detailed information, Annex in Microsoft Excel® format is attached. Table 4 Values of public acceptance social indicator for each scenario

Public acceptance social indicator ProCHP scenario

356

Business as Usual scenario

482

ContraCHP scenario

181

28


4

Evaluation of future strategies and measures needed in CHP sector Task covered: T4.3. Evaluation of future strategies and measures needed in CHP sector

Concerning the social benefits of CHP plants, data could be collected on: Analysis of users’ satisfaction from the services offered by CHP plants. Laying out an appropriate questionnaire and executing an analysis using a sampling method is the best, although time-consuming tool, for the determination of the level of users’ satisfaction. The type of heat load, daily/annual usage, cost, intention for expansion, availability, maintenance, internal consumption (at user level) is an indicative list of fields of interest which could be included in the questionnaire. Using the data from the above mentioned sampling method, an analysis of the usage of CHP plants at a local and national level could be executed, including the financial and environmental benefits from CHP plants operation and a comparison of maintenance requirements using energy systems for individual power and heat production and (historical data) on the mean availability of CHP plants. The presentation and publication of the results can demonstrate to the general public the social benefits from CHP usage and is a measure for improving society’s acceptance of CHP.

29


ANNEX 1 SURVEY QOUESTIONARE 1. Which heating system do you use presently? 1A.

Central/storey system. Every room heated separately 1B.

District heating system Boiler in the building Extra light fuel oil Liquefied Petrol Gas (LPG) Electricity Coal Natural gas Wood 2. How satisfied are you with your present heating system?

Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied Very unsatisfied 3. Which heating system do you find most appropriate? 3A.


District heating system Boiler in the building Extra light fuel oil Liquefied Petrol Gas (LPG) Electricity

30


Coal Natural gas Wood 4. Does your apartment/house/building have preconditions for change to more favourable heating system?

Yes No 4A. If yes, which one? Multiple answers allowed.


District heating system Boiler in the building Extra light fuel oil Liquefied Petrol Gas (LPG) Electricity Coal Natural gas Wood 4C. Could you name the reasons of not using the more favourable heating system:

Financial reasons Lack of time to do the switch Rest (write down) ………………………………………………………………………………………………... 5. Monthly income per member of household

up to 500 kn 500-1000 kn 1000-1500 kn more than 5000 kn

31


6. Apartment/house surface per member of household

up to 10 m2 10-20 m2 20-30 m2 more than 30 m2 7. Average heating temperature: ____°C 8. Average daily heating duration period: ____ hour/day 9. Disadvantage of your present heating system

High energy costs Lack of amenity Low heating quality (too low heating temperature) Low heating quality (too high heating temperature) Inability of control of heating expenses Inability of temporal control of heating Dry air Do not know __________ (fill in) Other 10.Advantages of your present heating system

Low heating costs Simple control Environmental advantages Possibility of control of heating expenses Possibility of temporal control of heating Do not know __________ (fill in) Other

32


11.Advantages of potential (possible) heating system

Low heating costs Simple control Environmental advantages Possibility of control of heating expenses Possibility of temporal control of heating Do not know __________ (fill in) Other 12.Disadvantages of potential (possible) heating system

High energy costs Lack of amenity Low heating quality (too low heating temperature) Low heating quality (too high heating temperature) Inability of control of heating expenses Inability of temporal control of heating Dry air Do not know __________ (fill in) Other

33