Cost Functions for Controlling SO2
Emissions in Europe
Amann, M. and Kornai, G.
IIASA Working Paper
WP-87-065
May 1987
Amann, M. and Kornai, G. (1987) Cost Functions for Controlling SO2 Emissions in Europe. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA,
Laxenburg, Austria, WP-87-065 Copyright © 1987 by the author(s). http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/2987/
Working Papers on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other
organizations supporting the work. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work
for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial
advantage. All copies must bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. For other purposes, to republish, to post on
servers or to redistribute to lists, permission must be sought by contacting [email protected]
COST FUNCXXONS FOR CONTROLLING
SO2 EMISSIONS IN EUROPE
Markus Amann
Gabor Kornai
May 1987
W-87-065
Working Papers are interim reports on work of the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and have received only limited
review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
represent those of the Institute or of its National Member
Organizations.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Preface
This p a p e r marks a n important s t e p in t h e development of the Regional Acidification INformation and Simulation (RAINS) model. One of t h e major goals of t h e
project since i t s beginning f o u r y e a r s ago, has been t o get RAINS used in policy
analysis. To t h a t end t h e model should include variables t h a t a r e v e r y crucial in
t h e eyes of t h e decision makers. The cost of reducing a i r pollutant emissions c e r tainly is such a n important policy relevant variable.
The a u t h o r s have successfully developed a uniform approach f o r establishing
cost-of-control functions f o r emissions of sulfur dioxide in virtually all European
countries. This uniformity is particularly important f o r comparing t h e costeffectiveness of various scenarios f o r controlling acid deposition in Europe.
Currently t h e assumptions and t h e numbers in this p a p e r a r e under review by
e x p e r t s in many of t h e European countries. I would like t o thank t h e members of
t h e Working P a r t y f o r Air Pollution Problems of t h e Senior Advisers t o ECE
Governments on Environmental Problems and t h e Group of E x p e r t s on Cost and
Benefit Analysis of t h e Executive Body f o r t h e Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution f o r providing t h e f o r a f o r discussing t h e work contained in this paper.
The cost-of-control functions allow t h e evaluation of t a r g e t t e d deposition levels at a variety of locations in Europe. This will b e t h e topic of a subsequent pap e r . In t h e n e a r f u t u r e w e will also develop similar control function f o r t h e emissions of nitrogen oxides and will eventually combine t h e functions into one cost-ofcontrol function f o r acidifying emissions.
Finally I would like t o acknowledge contributions both financially and in kind
made by t h e Federal Environmental Agency of t h e Federal Republic of Germany,
t h e Department of Energy of t h e United S t a t e s of America, t h e Air Pollution Group
of t h e Nordic Council of Ministers and t h e Dutch P r i o r i t y Programme on Acidification. Naturally t h e responsibility f o r t h e use and interpretation of t h e materials
provided by these institutions remains solely with t h e authors of t h e paper.
Leen Hordijk
Leader, Acid Rain P r o j e c t
Acknowledgment
The a u t h o r s are grateful t o B. S c h a r e r (Umweltbundesamt, FRG), D. S t r e e t s
(Argonne National Laboratory, USA), and B. Tangena and R. Swart (National Instit u t e f o r Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, t h e Netherlands) who were involved in discussions about t h e cost of control submodel. W e are also indebted to
t h e many individuals who worked and have been working in t h e Acid Rain Project.
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Goals and limitations of t h e Approach
3.
Principles of cost calculation
4.
Abatement Options
5.
P r o c e s s Emission's Removal
6.
National Cost Curve
References
Appendix A: Cost calculation routine f o r desulfurization options
during or after combustion
Appendix B: Data used for t h e cost calculation
Appendix C: National cost c u r v e s
- vii -
COST FUNCTIONS MIR CONTROLLING
SO2 W S S I O N S IN EUROPE
Markus Amann and Gabor Kornai
1. INTRODUCTION
The RAINS (Regional Acidification Information and Simulation) model is a set
of interactive computer based models developed at IIASA to assess long-term acidification in Europe on a regional scale. The available submodels a r e grouped into
t h r e e compartments: the energy, emissions and cost of pollution control submodels,
t h e atmospheric t r a n s p o r t submodel, and t h e impact compartment covering submodels f o r effects on lakes, groundwater, f o r e s t soils and d i r e c t impact of SO2 on
forests. Special emphasis i s put on flexible use of t h e computer model both by advanced interactive software and graphical representation of t h e model r e s u l t s (Alcam0 et al., 1987).
This p a p e r gives a description of t h e cost of control submodel, which is linked
with t h e energy pathways and emission calculations within t h e f i r s t compartment.
2. GOALS AND LIMJTATIONS OF THE APPROACH
The cost submodel of RAINS should s e r v e as framework f o r a consistent assessment of pollution control costs f o r all 27 European countries in o r d e r t o enable
-
a cost evaluation of different abatement strategies, based on different energy
scenarios and
-
a comparison of pollution control costs between countries.
The international comparability of t h e resulting cost d a t a is t h e basis f o r t h e
development of optimized European wide emission reduction strategies, where targeted sulfur deposition levels are achieved in a cost optimal way (Batterman et al.,
1986).
The requirement t o assess abatement costs f o r all countries of Europe limits
necessarily t h e level of detail, which can b e maintained. Data availability and computational constraints r e q u i r e simplifications, which might a p p e a r too rough f o r
studies focused on one country only. Therefore t h e r e s u l t s of t h e cost submodel
should b e considered much more as indicative than as absolute cost estimates: t h e
main emphasis is put on international consistency and comparability.
Keeping in mind t h e broad scope of RAINS
- t o provide
a tool f o r integrated
assessment of acidification from pollutant's r e l e a s e t o ecological impacts
- only
d i r e c t pollution control costs are considered by t h e cost submodel. All indirect
costs of emission reduction (effects on energy prices, t r a d e balance, employment,
etc.) as w e l l as t h e benefits are excluded from t h e evaluation.
3. PRINCIPLES OF COST CALCULATION
A basic assumption of t h e RAINSmcost submodel is t h e existence of ' f r e e t r a d e
and exchange of technology0, o r
-
in o t h e r words
- of
a competitive market f o r
desulfurization equipment, accessible f o r all countries throughout Europe. Based
on this assumption one can specify country independent capital costs f o r a l l abatement technologies, which are determined only by t h e type of t h e equipment. The actual abatement costs ( p e r ton of removed S O z ) of each abatement technology are
defined by national circumstances. These costs differ considerably among count r i e s even f o r t h e same technology mainly. due t o sulfur content of fuels, capacity
utilization and boiler sizes of installations.
The RAINS' cost submodel provides a n algorithm, which takes into account the
technology dependent cost parameters as well as t h e country specific situations of
t h e i r application.
4. ABATEMENT OPTIONS
Basically seven options t o reduce sulfur emissions from energy combustion exist: energy conservation, fuel substitution, use of low sulfur fuels, fuel desulfurization, combustion modification, 'conventional' flue gas desulfurization and advanced, high efficient flue gas cleaning methods (regenerative processes). This
c h a p t e r will discuss t h e s e options in some detail.
Although RAINS is able t o evaluate ecological impacts of energy conserva-
tion s t r a t e g i e s and provides t h e u s e r t h e possibility t o input his own energy
scenario, i t seems not reasonable t o r e l a t e all costs of such policies only to emission reduction benefits, as t h e r e a r e a lot of o t h e r economic benefits (effects to
t h e t r a d e balance, employment, etc.). Therefore t h e cost submodel excludes t h e
cost assessment of energy conservation explicitly.
Fuel sabstitution f o r reasons of emission reduction comprises t h e exchange
of sulfur containing fuels (coal, oil) by sulfur f r e e fuels (natural gas, hydropower,
nuclear energy). A precise evaluation of costs involved would b e very tedious and
would r e q u i r e more detailed energy models. A s this,-would enlarge t h e size of
\
RAINS too much, t h e cost submodel contains only a rough cost estimation p r e
c e d u r e f o r such strategies, assuming t h a t t h e differences between t h e fuel prices
in each country could b e i n t e r p r e t e d as opportunity costs and r e f l e c t somehow t h e
more complex underlying cost s t r u c t u r e of t h e energy system (Inaba, 1985).
The fuel p r i c e s of OECD countries a r e taken from IEA statistics (OECD, 1986).
In o r d e r t o avoid problems of evaluating non-convertible currencies versus hard
currencies, f o r CMEA countries t h e e x p o r t prices of energy t o Western Europe (as
r e p o r t e d by OECD) are assumed t o r e p r e s e n t opportunity costs of fuel substitution
f o r t h e national economies of those countries.
A special algorithm p r e s e r v e s t h e consistency of t h e energy balance, keeping
t r a c k of different combustion efficiencies of fuels and satisfying t h e basic
demand/supply balances. The potentials f o r fuel substitution are derived f o r each
country separately based on differences of extreme, but still on a n European level
consistent, energy scenarios.
According t o one of t h e main assumptions of t h e cost submodel this approach
is able t o assess cost differences between scenarios, but i t does not provide absolute cost figures.
The use of low sulfur fuels in o r d e r t o reduce sulfur emissions is only implemented f o r h a r d coal, where low sulfur coal is defined as coal with 1p e r c e n t sulfur
content. Although in some countries coal with lower sulfur content is available, it
cannot be expected t h a t t h e r e are enough coal r e s e r v e s of this type t o establish a
long-term t r a d e of coal of this quality.
The costs r e l a t e d t o this option are derived from analysis of t h e long-term
p r i c e differences on t h e world coal market f o r low sulfur coal and are assumed t o
b e equal f o r all countries. Because of t h e competitive market f o r low sulfur coal
qualities, also t h e costs of physical coal cleaning have t o decline t o t h e market
p r i c e differential f o r naturally occurring low sulfur coal, if this desulfurization
method is t o b e applied.
Due t o high transportation costs only a negligible international t r a d e of
brown coal and lignite exists in Europe. I t is, t h e r e f o r e , unlikely t h a t domestic
resources of those fuels will b e substituted by imports with eventually lower sulfur
content.
The deaulfnrization of oil products affects different product qualities. The
database of RAINS contains t h e consumption of light fraction products (gasoline,
jet fuel), gasoil (diesel and light fuel oil) and heavy fraction products (heavy fuel
oil). The light fraction products contain a negligible amount of sulfur. Gas oil can
b e desulfurized down to 0.3 percent, and at higher costs down to 0.15 percent.
Heavy fuel oil will b e available with 1 p e r c e n t sulfur content e i t h e r by use of naturally occurring low sulfur c r u d e oils (e.g. from t h e North Sea) as refinery input
or by desulfurization during t h e refinery process.
Because of t h e vivid t r a d e with refined oil products in Europe, t h e cost submodel r e s t r i c t s t h e cost calculation of fuel desulfurization to t h e fuel p r i c e differences, but performs no bookkeeping of refinery capacities and desulfurization investments. The p r i c e increments f o r l o w sulfur oil qualities are valid f o r all count r i e s . The cost d a t a f o r fuel desulfurization are based on t h e experience of t h e
Federal Environmental Agency in t h e Federal Republic of Germany.
D e s u l f u r i z a t i o n during or a f t e r combustion, in c o n t r a s t to t h e already discussed emission reduction options, r e q u i r e s d i r e c t investments at t h e plant site.
Therefore t h e t h r e e methods within t h i s category: combustion modification, flue
gas desulfurization and high efficient regenerative processes are modeled in a diff e r e n t way.
An algorithm w a s developed to derive country specific unit costs of abatement
( p e r ton of removed S O 2 ) f o r t h e s e technologies, taking into account investment eff o r t s as w e l l as fixed and variable operating costs. The investment costs are
described by a function, involving t h e t y p e of technology, t h e flue g a s volume of
t h e fuel and t h e boiler size as well as t h e additional expenses caused by retrofitting installations. In o r d e r to convert t h e one-time payments of t h e investment expenses to costs p e r removed ton of SO2, t h e country specific real i n t e r e s t rate and
t h e a v e r a g e lifetime of plants (depending on t h e s e c t o r ) are used to annualize t h e
costs by t h e p r e s e n t value method. The capacity utilization (operating hours p e r
y e a r ) and t h e sulfur removal efficiency relate those annualized costs to t h e actual
amount of removed sulfur. The operating expenses a r e divided into two categories:
fixed costs, which a r e independent on t h e use of t h e technology (maintenance,
taxes, administrational overhead, etc.) and variable costs, which are directly related t o t h e operation (labour costs, additional energy demand, costs f o r sorbents
and waste disposal, etc.). Together with t h e annualized investment costs they add
up t o unit costs p e r ton of removed SOz. Appendix A gives a n overview of t h e cost
calculations f o r desulfurization options during o r a f t e r combustion.
The technology related input data f o r t h e cost calculation routine a r e different f o r each of t h e t h r e e abatement methods mentioned above. These t h r e e
basic processes represent several different technological solutions, which have
in each group
-
-
similar overall technical and economical characteristics. For
methodological reasons for each group t h e most common process w a s used t o
derive those significant properties, but one can assume t h a t these data represent
also o t h e r competitive methods of t h e same group.
Desulfurization technologies with low investment efforts, but high operating
costs (due t o large amounts of produced waste material), which are applied mostly
for medium efficiency removals, are represented within t h e combustion modifica-
tion group by t h e limestone injection method. A s advanced. but not yet fully commercially available process t h e fluidized bed combustion would also be covered by
this abatement option.
The most common desulfurization technology throughout Europe is t h e flue
gas desulfurization. represented by t h e w e t limestone scrubbing process. Removal efficiencies of 90 percent a r e typical.
Advanced, very high efficient desulfurization proaesses are grouped into t h e
regenerative process methods, which achieve efficiencies in t h e range of 98
percent, but require higher costs. A s example f o r t h e cost calculation t h e already
fully commercial Wellman-Lord method i s taken. For t h e future, e.g. t h e integrated
gasification
- combined-cycle
plants, which are presently under development in t h e
USA would also fit into this technology group.
The cost d a t a f o r t h e s e methods were estimated in cooperation with t h e
Federal Environmental Agency of t h e Federal Republic of Germany, using t h e
specific West German experience ( S c h a r e r et aL.,1987). Appendix B contains t h e
data used f o r cost calculations.
5. PROCESS EMISSION'S REMOVAL
Compared t o emissions caused by energy combustion, man-made sulfur emissions originating from industrial processes not r e l a t e d t o energy consumption, are
badly documented. For purposes of a consistent assessment of emission reduction
potentials and costs, d a t a are only available f o r few countries. These few published
d a t a d o not allow t o derive even rough estimates f o r o t h e r countries. In o r d e r t o
avoid inequalities between countries reporting process emissions and those, who do
not d o so, i t i s necessary t o use some generic assumptions about potentials and
costs of reducing those pollutants. In absence of any data, which could b e generalized, t h r e e reduction levels at different (generic) costs are assumed f o r those
countries, who specify p r o c e s s emissions.
Even if t h e r e would exist more precise d a t a about t h e origin of t h e emissions,
i t would b e extremely difficult t o estimate reduction costs, as emission reduction of
those processes is mostly connected with a change of t h e production technology.
Such a change is neither necessarily induced by environmental interests, n o r
should t h e resulting changes of productivity and efficiency b e ignored.
6. NATIONAL COST CURYE
The national abatement costs are defined f o r each country by t h e unit costs
and t h e actual potential f o r sulfur removal, which is mainly connected with t h e en-
ergy consumption. In o r d e r t o allow comparisons of abatement costs between count r i e s , RAINS contains a procedure t o derive t h e least cost combination of available
abatement options f o r each emission reduction level from z e r o reduction up t o t h e
technically feasible limit.
For a selected energy pathway a compilation of those least cost solutions will
result in t h e 'National Cost Curve'. The cost efficiency serves a s common criterion
to select a set of pollution control policies out of t h e infinite number of possible
combinations within each country and enables therefore a consistent international
comparison and evaluation of abatement efforts.
The cost submodel performs in t h e f i r s t step f o r all implemented reduction
possibilities (see Table 2 of Appendix A) t h e calculation of t h e country specific
unit abatement costs, as long as they are technical feasible, irrespective whether
they a r e cost efficient o r not. In t h e second phase of t h e model run, these sets of
theoretical options are used to form cost efficient combinations. It should be mentioned, t h a t this process does not take care of introduced environmental legislation of individual countries, as otherwise difficult evaluation problems between
countries would arise. It is assumed t h a t limitations t o some abatement methods, f o r
example due t o waste disposal problems, are reflected by t h e related (country
specific) cost f a c t o r (e.g. disposal costs), which prohibits a cost efficient application of this process in a country.
However, t h e r e are some other underlying assumptions, influencing t h e construction of t h e cost curves. To evaluate t h e abatement costs f o r future years, one
should also know t h e potential of new and old power plants, as t h e investment costs
t o r e t r o f i t old plants are much higher. The cost submodel is based on t h e generic
assumption, t h a t t h e power plants of t h e y e a r 1985 are phased out in a linear way
within t h e i r lifetime of 30 years. The resulting gap in electricity production
depending on t h e selected energy pathway
-
- has t o b e filled with new installations.
For reasons of internal consistency i t should b e assured t h a t desulfurization
equipment, which h a s been constructed once, h a s t o o p e r a t e until t h e end of i t s
calculated lifetime, otherwise t h e c o s t calculation, which i s based on a n annualization procedure, would fail. A s result of this condition only those old power plants
are allowed t o b e r e t r o f i t t e d with desulfurization equipment, which will b e still in
operation at t h e end of t h e time horizon of t h e c o s t of control submodel (in t h e
y e a r 2000). For those plants, which are to b e closed down e a r l i e r , only t h e use of
l o w sulfur fuels i s applicable.
Appendix C contains t h e abatement cost c u r v e s f o r all 27 European countries.
They are based on t h e official energy pathways as they were r e p o r t e d from individual governments to IEA and ECE and r e l a t e to t h e y e a r 2000 (IEA coal information, ECE energy database).
A s they should r e f l e c t t h e original energy scenario,
f o r t h e purpose of t h i s p a p e r , no fuel substitution i s included although t h e cost
submodel i s a b l e t o handle also this option (as described above).
The c u r v e s show t h e least costs t o r e d u c e emissions f o r increasing reduction
levels, starting from t h e amount of unabated emissions, which would result from t h e
forecasted fuel consumption without any abatement measures. The level of t h e 30%
reduction (compared to 1980 emissions), t o which m o s t countries a g r e e d in t h e Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, i s indicated by a star. The
g r a p h s contain t h e c u r v e s f o r t h e total annual abatement costs and marginal costs
curves.
REFERENCES
Alcamo, J., Amann, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., Holmberg, M., Hordijk, L., Kamari, J.,
Kauppi, L., Kauppi, P., Kornai, G. and Makela, A. (1987). Acidification in Europe: a simulation model f o r evaluating control strategies. Ambio (forthcoming).
Batterman, S., Amann, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., Hordijk, L. and Kornai, G. (1986). Optimal SO2 abatement policies in Europe: some examples. IIASA Working Paper
WP-86-42,IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
ECE Energy Data Base (1987) (on tape), Geneva.
Inaba, S. (1985). Costs of Meeting Stricter Environmental S t a n d a r d s for Stat i o n a t y Sources of Emissions - The Electricity Sector. International Energy
Agency, Paris.
International Energy Agency, Coal Information 1986, OECD, Paris.
OECD (1986). Energy Prices a n d Tarzes, Second Quarter 1986,No. 4 , International Energy Agency, OECD, Paris.
S c h a r e r , B., and Haug, N. (1987). The cost of flue gas desulfurization and dentrification in t h e Federal Republic of Germany. Economic B u l l e t i n for Europe,
39 (1).Pergamon Press.
APPENDIX k an overview of the cost calculations f o r
desulfurization options during or after combustion.
Table 1: Parameters used for cost calculation.
Country specific data
sc
hv
ST
bs
Pf
q
c e ,c l ,
c ,c
sulfur content
h e a t value
sulfur retained in ash
a v e r a g e boiler size
capacity utilization
r e a l i n t e r e s t rate
p r i c e s f o r electricity ,labour,
s o r b e n t s and waste disposal
Technology specific data
I
c if
ciV
v
It
x
Pi
Ae , A 1 ,
A S , Ad
investment function
intercept
slope
r e l a t i v e flue gas volume
lifetime of plant
sulfur removal efficiency
maintenance costs and
administrational overheads
specific demand f o r energy,labour,
s o r b e n t s and waste disposal
Investment Function
ciV
I =(cif +-)v
bs
/ bs
Annualized investments
Fixed operating costs:
0hf-1~
=I
Pi
Variable operating coats:
SC
OMvaT=(A1cl+Aece+(-(1-sr))z(AscS
hv
Unit Costa per PJ
Unit Costs per ton S O 2 removed
c ~ 0 =, C P J / (
SC
(
hv
1- s r ) z )
+ A
d
c
d
))
Table 2: Pollution control options (excluding fuel switching).
Low
sulfur
Conversion
Power plants
Hard coal
Heavy fuel oil
Brown coa1,old
Brown coa1,new
Hard coa1,old
Hard coal.new
Heavy fuel oi1,old
Heavy fuel oi1,new
x
x
x
x
x
Hard coal
Coke,Briquettes
Gas oil
Heavy fuel oil
x
x
Transport
Gas oil
x
Industry
Hard coal
Coke
Gas oil
Heavy fuel oil
x
Domestic
Combustion
modification
Flue g a s
desulfuriz.
Regener.
process
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
APPENDIX B: Data used for the cost calculation.
Technology Specific Cost Data
Table 3: Technology specific data
Combustion Modlficatlon
Investment Cost Functions
Intercept
cif
Slope
ci"
Resulting Specific Investments for a 210 MWeL plant:
Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs
Other Overheads
Labour Demand
Additional Energy Demand
Pi
Flue Gas Desulfurlzation
Regenerative
Processes
new
retrofit
new
retrofit
52.0
22500.0
67.6
29250.0
167.0
20000.0
217.0
26000.0
275.0
22500.0
159.1
207.2
262.2
340.9
382.1
DM / kWeL
X of total investments/year
% of total investments/year
Manyear/100 MW
he
4.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
10.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
10.0
5.0
Sorbents
Sorbents Demand
AS
Limestone
4.68
Limestone
1.56
NaOH
0.06
t Sorbents/t SO2 removed
By-product
Amount of By-product
hd
Waste material
7.80
Gypsium
2.60
Sulfur
0.50
t Product/t SO2 removed
50.0
90.0
98.0
Sulfur removal efficiency
*Ih
z
The notation of the parameters refers t o the equations on page 12.
%
X
- 16 Country Specific Parameters
Table 4: Average Boiler Size (bs )- Powerplants (in MW el)
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
CSSR
Denmark
Finland
France
FRG
GDR
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Brown
Coal
Hard
Coal
Heavy
Fuel Oil
210
139
210
210
210
210
210
202
235
210
243
210
210
153
210
220
160
210
210
178
134
252
206
210
210
210
300
335
210
128
158
210
210
201
82
306
190
210
155
210
106
227
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
USSR
Yugoslavia
Brown
Coal
Hard
Coal
Heavy
Fuel Oil
210
210
210
210
210
210
257
210
210
195
210
210
99
210
328
210
210
300
210
254
502
210
150
245
210
370
210
193
210
210
150
210
195
203
150
126
291
210
149
Note: In case a fuel is not used in a country as powerplant input, f o r computational
reasons a default boiler size of 210 MW i s used.
Table 5: Capacity Utilization (pf)- Powerplants (in hours per year)
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
CSSR
Denmark
Finland
France
FRG
GDR
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Brown
Coal
Hard
Coal
Heavy
Fuel Oil
4000
3504
4000
4818
4818
4000
4000
3767
6745
4818
6132
4292
4000
3679
4000
3504
3416
4818
4818
3592
2365
3767
4205
4818
4000
4292
3592
4030
4000
3066
3679
4380
3153
526
3854
1489
1226
2716
3504
4292
3416
4030
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
USSR
Yugoslavia
Brown
Coal
Hard
Coal
Heavy
Fuel Oil
4000
4000
4000
4380
4000
4380
4730
4000
4000
4993
4000
5168
4380
3504
3154
4000
4468
4117
4380
4468
4000
4000
2978
4468
5168
1927
3504
3942
964
4468
4117
4380
4468
1314
1401
2978
876
5168
1927
Note: In case a fuel i s not used in a country as powerplant input, f o r computational
reasons a default capacity utilization of 4000 hours p e r y e a r i s used.
/ Table 6: Electricity Prices. labour Costs and Real Interest Rata
-
1
-
ElePrice
[10**6DM
p e r PJ]
Labour
Costs
[lOOO DM/
Manyear]
Real
Interest
Rate
c l3
cl
P
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
CSSR
Denmark
Finland
France
FRG
GDR
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
I talv
[XI
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
USSR
Yugoslavia
4.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
5.7
7.0
7.1
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.8
5.6
ElePrice
[10**6DM
p e r PJ]
Labour
Costs
[lOOO DM/
Manyear]
Real
Interest
Rate
c l3
c1
Q
115.0
126.0
41.0
88.0
153.0
88.0
135.0
88.0
141.0
88.0
135.0
88.0
88.0
28.1
24.8
39.8
10.8
5.9
8.8
12.8
34.9
41.4
3.2
22.8
13.2
10.9
4.0
5.3
8.0
4.0
4.O
4.0
8.0
6.9
2.2
8.0
4.4
4.0
4.0
Note: The d a t a f o r electricity p r i c e s r e p r e s e n t t a r i f s f o r industrial consumers
(without taxes). The differences in labour costs between countries are assumed to
be reflected by t h e GDP (NMP) p e r capita.
1 Table 7: Default values assumed for all countries: 1
Average Boiler Size
bs
Industry
Capacity Utilization
~f
Industry
Costs of Sorbents Material
cS
Limestone
NaOH
Costs of By-products
Waste Disposal f o r
Limestone Injection
Gypsum
Sulfur
c
[XI
General Parameters valid for all Technologies
Table 8: General Parameter valid for all Technologies
Lifetime of Pollution
Control Equipment
It (in years)
Conversion
Powerplants
Industry
20
30
20
Flue G a s Volume relative
t o Hard Coal Combustion
u
Brown Coal
Hard Coal
Heavy Fuel Oil
1.2
1.0
0.9
I Table 9: Process Emissions Control Costs:
Reduction from 0 % t o 30 % :
Reduction from 30 % t o 60 % :
Reduction from 60 % t o 80 % :
5000
10000
20000
DM/t SO2
DM/t SO2
DM/t SO2
I
APPENDIX C:
The following cost c u r v e s a r e based o n t h e official e n e r g y pathways, as t h e y
w e r e r e p o r t e d from t h e individual governments to IEA and ECE and r e l a t e to t h e
y e a r 2000 (IEA Coal information, 1986; ECE E n e r g y d a t a b a s e , 1986). A s t h e y
should r e f l e c t t h e original e n e r g y s c e n a r i o s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s p a p e r n o fuel
substitution is included, although t h e cost submodel is a b l e t o handle a l s o t h i s
option ( a s d e s c r i b e d above). The c u r v e s show t h e l e a s t costs to r e d u c e emissions
f o r increasing r e d u c t i o n levels. Displayed a r e t h e c u r v e s of t o t a l annual and marginal c o s t s , v e r s u s t h e remaining emissions f o r t h e y e a r 2000.
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987 (c) IlASA
500:
II
I
~
- 5 0
Albania
\
-----
\
I
\
I
\
n
6 400:
r40
-
<
z
---
Q,
---
\
\
..-5-- 300
E
v,
A
4
3
2 loo!
se
0
--
\
-,20
---
\
5200;-0
--
\
--
V
z
I30
-
\\!
\
\
---
\
--:lo
-----
\
\
\
\
----
\
\
\
\
\
1
\
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I t I I I I f , I I I ; J I I I I I
0
50
150
100
200
0
250
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987 (c) IlASA
I
I
1600-
r50
-----
----
I
I
I
--
n
L
0
'-%1200.
i3
-
--E
" 800-E0 --0
-4
3
z 400-Z
<
-< -+
\
\
\
+
0
--
\
\
-120
\
\
A
0
*-
\
-
\
k
\
\
\
\
---
\
\
--
,,,,
l l l . l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l - l
0
100
0
-0
-C
-2i
i30
0
--0
-0
\
0
..--
N
~
- 4 0 v,
. Austria
\
C
/4
200
300
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
--!lo
------
0
400
-
w
V)
6
0
U
a
$
Z
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
I
3000:
-I
-1
-1
,2500
<-baJ
.2
z 2000 ;!
i --..-E
--1500:
-I
~
- 5 0
----
Belgium
\
\
\
--
---i30
---
\
\
\
\
\
--
\
\
-
81 0 0 0
:
-20
\
----
\
s
\
--500,-F
P
\
Z
Z
4
rt
\
-----
\
%
8
rC
0
<
Z
0
0
0
V
E
az
0
U
f10
\
A
0-
N
F40
\
E
A
o
%
Z
0
I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 7 L I - ~ I I I I I I I I ~
0
200
400
800
600
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
,
Bulgaria
\
---------.
-------
\
\
\
\I
-
,20
---F
\
\
-
\
y o
-----
\
\
\
\
\
'+.
1
0
---
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
\
\
\
\
1
1
1
~
1000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
500
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y1 0
1500
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(c) IlASA
25/05/1987
(a) 30w reduction of 1980 emissions
I 4000I
I
I
I
7
- 50
---
-
L
0
'.
%. 3000
8
-8-..0
--
r40
---
\
--
\
\
-E
-- 2000 --
\
--
\
--
r
Czechoslov.
\
-
n
---
1.30
-----
\
\
\
\
\
120
\
\
5z 1 0 0 0 ---
\
---
--
Z
u
se
---
0
1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 r , l l
0
500
10 0 0
1 500
2000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
2500
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(a) 30w reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 3095 reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, year 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IIASA
I
I
I
8000-
y50
-
----
I
I
n
x 6000 -B
-b
,
------:40
----
France
\
----
C
-.-0E
-4000
P
f30
l
\
-
L
--
I/)
0
0
\
\
--
a
\
\
1
2000 1
z
-
u
J
u
+
P
0
-----20
----
\
I0
---
hl
0
v,
rC
0
C
Z
0
0
0
w
g0
U
g
d
I
i
11 111 11 I I 1 111 11
0
n
I
I1711 1 I I I I I H
I
1000
15CO
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
900
1
IIlill"
l IIIIIII
I
0
2800
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2 0 0 0 , OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
, F.R.
Germany
\
\
\
\
\
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
I
I
I
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
6000-
--
I
I
0
4
-E
-P
v,
0
0
2000 -a3
z
z
Q
aI-e --
\
\
0
-----
1
\
\
---
f30
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
.
--20
-----
\
\
\
\
\
:lo
--
\
\
\
\
~
n
hl
F40
\
8
..--
0
----
\
if 4 0 0 0 -
(c) IlASA
~ 5 0
German D.R.
\
--
I
25/05/1987
zob'd
~
I I I I I
iz6d
~ 4bb;
I I I IJ
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
1
I
-
1
>bbo 0 ~
v-
0
<
Zi
0
0
0
C
w
g
0
U
az
?
Zi
~
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1 9 8 0 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
Hungary
\
-
---800 ----400
-----
\
--
L
\
---- 30
---
\
\
\
\
--- 20
----
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
t
\
:lo
-
---
\
\
\
\
0
l , , l l l l l l I l l l I I I I l I l ~ - l l l l l l l l l
0
500
1000
1500
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
--
0
2000
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
NATIONAL CO!3 FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 3095 reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
.\\\>
2000/
\
4
olllllllll,,lllll,llllll,l
---
, , , , , , , , 1 1 , 1 1 1 , , , 1 :
0
500
1000
1500
*
2000
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
1 , , 1 , , 1 ,
-:lo
--
L
--;;,;~,,,
2500
--
0
3000
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(a)
3056 reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
3056 reduction of 1980 emissions
2500:
25/05/1987
(8)
I
I
I
---
--
I
I
2000
Q,
-?
,
:
-
3
-6 r 5 o o i..-E
---
Netherlands
\
\
\
\
500:
3
P
0
-----
--
--
\
\
\
\
J\ [
I-
a
z
lo
\
?I
\
lllllllll,lllllll,l,llll,llll,l,lllll,l,lsllllll
\
\
0
.
0
U
\
\
2*
V)
\
\
0
7
--
\
(V
v,
+
0
w
1.20
\
n
g
--
\
g
1000:
0
3z ---J
I.30
\
-
P
----1.40
-----
\
V
(c) IlASA
50
100
200
300
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
400
0
500
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e o r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
1000:
1
I
I
I
I
800:
.=
Q,
2
0
..-S-
-----
P
~ 5 0
--
---:
-- 40
----
\
\
\
----
\
\
\
\
----
E
\
130
-
\
\
\
\
-d
3
-z
f 200: a ---+
-P
0
J
\
\
, \
-,20
----
1
til 0
\
------
\
\
I
0
---
\
400:
0
(c) IlASA
Norway
6004
w
25/05/1987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
40
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
[
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
80
120
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
1
0
160
I
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e o r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
I 8000
1
I
I
I
--
-o
% 6000 I
\
-i3
0
0
a
----
\
\
\
\
F30
-----
\
\
\
\
120
----
\
_I
\
1
2000 f
z
-<
$
-P
-0
L40
\
---
E
----
\
---
-4000
750
-
Poland
L
E
(c) IlASA
,
n
..-S-
25/05/1987
-
\
--
\
1000
C'J
%
%-
0
C
2
a
0
0
0
C
V
m
0
U
a
z
2
:lo
Z
\
\
\
\
-.
2000
3000
4000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
--
0
5000
I I I I I h I I I l I r l I I I l I I I 1 I ~ l 1 I I I I I I I " I ' I ' I ~ t I l I I I I I l
0
n
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IIASA
1200j
I~ o r t u g a l
1I
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
-
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
I
I
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
5000 1
----
I
I
I
n
8
50
-----
--
\
4000 1
--
<z
-C
o
-.-- 3000 :
--E
-P
g 2000 .-I
i40
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
---
J
4
3
\
-
z
0
\
\
\
\
--
5
I
---t20
-----
\
2 1 0 0 0- ~
:lo
--
\
\
---
\
\
\
\
-- 0
I I 1 I I I r I I r I I I I I l I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I ~
0
500
N
%
+
0
.T:
I
F30
\
V
0
----
\
A
1000
1500
2000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
2500
0
0
0
7
w
0
U
d
z
g
I
NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(=) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, y e a r 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(=) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
--
(c) NASA
---140
----:30
--
L
, Sweden
--
\
\
----------------------
\
\
\
\
----
\
-
\
\
L\
--~ 2
---:lo
--
\
\
\
*
\
.
'..
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
---
L
'..
1
0
25/05/1987
1
100
200
300
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
-.
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
400
0
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(s)
25/05/1987
30% reduction of 1980 emissions
\
(c) IlASA
Switzerland
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, yeor 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(s)
30% reduction of 1980 emissions
\
c,
~
0
1
1
1
1
1
~
~
1000
1
1
,
(c) IlASA
25/05/1987
1
1
1
1
2000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
1
1
1
1
0
3000
1
,
1
1
1
~
~
NATIONAL COST FLINCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987 (c) IlASA
, United King.
----
--
\
-:30
---
\
\
--
\
--
----
\
-
\
----------
120
\
--
\
---
\
\
\
\
~
1
1
\
. -. -. .1
1
1
-
1
lllllll,o
~
0
I I I l l l
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
5000
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS, year 2000, OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(*) 30% reduction of 1980 emissions
25/05/1987 (c) IlASA
I
I
40000 -
---
I
I
I
--
n
L
O
%30000
\
1----
B
C
.-0
-
!
USSR
i40
\
z
u
A
u
I-
10000
e
0
\
<
0
0
0
---
\
\
\
\
-----
\
\
\
I
----
I I I I I I I I I
\
\
I I I I I I I I I
.
I I t : , I I I I I
sob0
Iodoo
15doo
EMISSIONS (kt of S02)
0
U
-:lo
----
\
k
7
V
3
- 0
\
\
o
a
o
---
\
I , I I I I I I I
tw
~ 3 05
\
A
A
'4-
--
\
I/)
s
--
i
-E
-- 20000 -Li0
-0
-.-
-- 50
---
0
20000
az
?!i
Z
NATIONAL COST FUNCTIONS. veor 2000. OFFICIAL ENERGY PATHWAY
(r)
3035 reduction of 1980 'emissions
\
\
'
25/05/1987
(c) IlASA
Yugoslavia
\
0
l
1000
l
l
l
~
,
2000
3000
EMISSIONS (kt of S 0 2 )
l
l
~
4000
l
~
o