FOUNDATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - SLOVAKIA
This study has been supported by Climate Network Europe.
Written by Emil Bedi
1 9 9 5
Published by Foundation for Alternative Energy - SZOPK
Bratislava, Slovakia
C O N T E N T S
Central and East European (CEE) NGOs actively working in the field of lobbying recognised that viable environmental policy that supports the ideas of sustainable development must include energy issues as well.
Energy problems in Slovakia and in other CEE countries are closely linked not only to local (most visible environmental problems but have influence also on global environmental issues like climate change. Slovakia is going to ratify Climate Convention and thus will have to come with measures leading to fulfilment of our commitments. Foundation for Alternative Energy (FAE) prepared this study with the aim to give ideas on how to solve some energy and environmental problems through development of combined heat and power (CHP) production.
Study also include first comparison of options for future Slovak energy sector development based on their economic and environmental impacts. Facts of this kind are urgently needed just now, because decision on this development is to be met at the end of 1994 when EBRD will decide on loan for nuclear power plant Mochovce. FAE´s proposal is aimed at stimulating the discussion on other options in the framework of decision making process.
The goals of this study are following:
Emil Bedi
Any strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must involve the energy system, because fossil-fuel-based energy consumption currently causes cca 50% of global greenhouse forcing.
Energy savings and increasing of energy efficiency are those issues where reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved at least costs. On the supply side CHP production or cogeneration is one of the most cost effective measures where large potentials for installing additional power output at lower emissions do exist in all CEE countries.
CHP plants can be developed more rapidly than traditional energy production centres including nuclear power plants. And CHP production is environmentally friendly. Through CHP production energy can be produced so efficiently that consumers with their own power station can sell energy to other consumers or even utilities, and this energy can be produced also from renewable sources (biomass.
CEE countries should follow the example of some West European countries with ambitious CHP program. National plan for energy conservation in Netherlands set a target of 6000 MW of cogeneration capacity by the year 2000. Denmark is one of Europe's leaders in the development of CHP production. Nearly all large power plants operate as CHP and there is about 9230 MWe installed. Now there is a major programme for development of smaller scale plants. U.K. set a target of doubling cogeneration capacity from 2000 MW to 4000 MW by the year 2000 1. Throughout West Europe, cogeneration is already at work.
CHP production is not a new way of producing of electricity and heat in CEE countries. Such facilities do exist in this region. In Slovakia some of them have been build after the year 1950. But it has never been so urgent to stressed the advantages of this technology as it is now.
REASON NR. 1 - ENERGY
During the communist regime with centrally planned economy and cheap (heavy subsidised fossil fuels mostly imported from former USSR the energy supplies were secured in the whole region. Situation has changed - market economy leads to cutting subsidies, imported fuels have to be paid in hard currency and CEE market collapsed. Most countries in the region are willing to substitute or decrease dependence on imported fuels. One of possible ways and the least cost option is energy saving and increasing energy efficiency.
It is obvious that energy efficient measures are hard to handle in centralised way. There are simply hundreds of various measures small in output that need to be realised in numerous places virtually in all regions. Large centralised solutions that still dominate energy sector in CEE are against these efforts towards increasing energy efficiency.
If CEE NGOs are willing to influence domestic energy policy , they sometimes need to come even with proposals which are not fully in line with our sustainable energy strategy : phasing-out fossil fuels, least cost planning , renewables etc. but which are simply more environmental friendly than those options forced by our governments (nuclear power. CHP production is one of those examples because it is presently mostly based on firing fossil fuels mainly natural gas. But high energy efficiency and possibility to use renewable energy fuels (biomass in future makes this option most attractive among those on supply side.
Why energy lobby could be interested in our proposal for increasing energy efficiency through CHP production?
The first reason is that these people favour supply side options - more clearly saying they like to earn money on consumers instead of saving consumer's money-what is the case of energy saving measures (least cost planning in USA is an exception. CHP production could do both jobs.
Second reason is that CHP plants can even be realised as large scale facilities with more than 100 MW of power and heat capacity at a single place what is favoured by energy monopolies in CEE.
REASON NR. 2 - ECONOMY
From economical point of view to build and operate CHP facility is cheaper than to build steam power plant and heating plant of the same size, not to mention costs of nuclear power. Pay-back times of investment costs are shorter than in the case of any other option.
Prices of electricity, heat and natural gas for industry are in some CEE countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary on the level of world prices. Thus most of the cost-effective measures utilised in West could be introduced in East.
Saving of fuel resources (and money through CHP production is obvious if we take a closer look at current state of electricity and heat production in CEE. More than 95% of all heating and power plants are working with efficiency around 30%. Nearly 70% of energy content of the fuels are lost in the form of waste heat. CHP production means using of this waste heat for heating purposes and thus increasing energy efficiency to sometimes more than 80%.
Figure 1. Conventional condensing power plant.
Figure 2. Combined heat and power plant.
Fuel saving means decreasing the dependence on imports and thus improving balance of domestic economy not to mention energy security.
It is also important that in countries as Czech Republic, Slovakia or others in the region do exist companies that produce components for CHP plants. Large gas turbines and also smaller gas engines are produced in CEE countries. Broader introduction of CHP production thus could stimulate economical activity of domestic markets that are hardly hit by transition to market economy and collapse of East markets.
Another important point is that CHP needs district heating system (DHS as the infrastructure. DHS are common in CEE and in most cities where large scale CHP facilities could be installed they already do exist. In many larger cities in Slovakia DHS are supplied with the heat from older heating plants where reconstruction is needed. This can be done with converting them to CHP plants at less cost than to build new CHP plants.
REASON NR. 3 - ENVIRONMENT
All CEE countries signed FCCC some of them have ratified (e.g. Hungary and some are in process of ratification (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic. It means that these countries will have to commit themselves to stabilise CO2 emissions or as NGOs require to adopt stricter targets (Toronto target in near future. According to this convention countries will have to produce their own national reports on strategy of CO2 emission reduction. And here the NGOs could force some measures that fit well to our overall goals. Energy sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and thus it could be treated separately.
CHP production means reduction of CO2 emissions by sometimes more than 50% at the point of energy production. And this could be huge amount if we consider total electricity and heat production in the region. Not in each place CHP can be installed. What is needed is the heat market (assuming that electricity market do exists all the time . For some small heating units which provide heat during restricted time of the year CHP production is not always cost-effective. Nevertheless overall CO2 emission reduction through converting large heating or power plant to CHP would be enormous.
There is another way of reduction of CO2 emissions through CHP production. Most heating plants and power plants in CEE region are fired by coal and if this fuel is substitute by cleaner fuels like natural gas or biogas farther reduction of CO2 emissions can be achieved.
Figure 3 compares cogeneration systems with central - station plants that provide no useful heat. Cogeneration based on natural gas offers an additional 38% emission reduction beyond the best available combined-cycle plants fired with coal 2 .
Figure 3. Equivalent of CO2 emissions per kWh produced from various power plants.
Legend
1- Average conventional steam turbine (efficiency 34% - coal fired
2- Best steam turbine (efficiency 39% - coal fired
3- Pressurised fluidized bed combustion (efficiency 42% - coal fired
4- Average conventional steam turbine (efficiency 38%- oil fired
5- Best available steam turbine (efficiency 48% - oil fired
6- CHP plant average steam turbine (efficiency 78% - coal fired
7- Average combined-cycle gas turbine (efficiency 36% - natural gas fired
8- CHP plant, best available steam turbine (efficiency 83% - coal fired
9- Best available combined-cycle gas turbine (efficiency 45% - natural gas fired
10-CHP plant. Pressurised fluid bed combustion (efficiency 86% - coal fired
11-CHP plant. Best available steam turbine (efficiency 81% - oil fired
12-CHP plant. Steam injected gas turbine (efficiency 75% - natural gas fired
13-CHP plant. Best available combined-cycle gas turbine (efficiency 77% - natural gas fired
FUELS
CHP production is mostly based on natural gas and this is more environment-friendly fuel than for instance coal. During combustion, there are no emissions of SO2 and, compared with coal in average only 50% of the emissions of CO2 per unit of fuel. From the point of view of Slovakia there is suitable infrastructure for utilising of natural gas. Pipelines provide virtually all regions with natural gas. Investments have thus been made what makes CHP production based on natural gas cost efficient.
With the emergence of highly efficient gas turbines new opportunity for utilising gasified solid fuels such as biomass and coal emerged. Advanced gas turbines using gasified coal have been demonstrated in coal-integrated-gasifier/gas turbines (CIG/GT. Advanced gas turbines fired with gasified wood (BIG/GT have not been demonstrated, but detailed design studies indicate that it may be possible to commercialise them more quickly than CIG/GT schemes. This is because biomass is inherently cleaner and easier to gasify than coal and because the scale of demonstration plants is also appropriate for commercial application 3 .
Biomass in the form of straw or wood is frequently used as the fuel in Danish CHP plants. Biomass is an important fuel from the point of view of CO2 emissions because biomass does not release more CO2 during combustion than during biodegradation. The released CO2 enters into the natural CO2 cycle in the same way, irrespective of whether it is released through biodegradation or combustion.
In Slovakia especially waste straw and waste wood contains huge potential of energy not used until now. Manure is another major potential energy source, since it can be used to produce biogas before being spread on the fields. To ensure a reasonable biogas production larger groups of animals are needed. Present situation with large collective farms favours this renewable source as the fuel for CHP production.
To show some of the advantages of CHP production mentioned earlier let take a closer look at concrete example of Slovakia. Slovak energy sector is similar to those in other Central European post communist countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary hence cost - effective measures applied here could be repeated in other countries of the region as well.
Recent situation in Slovakia is influenced by cutting subsidies for energy production with the aim to fully cut them at the end of 1994. This opens the way for broader installation of CHP plants based on natural gas in block DHS. Efforts in this direction should be stimulated by stricter emission limits set in law Nr. 309/91 and other environmental regulations (see APPENDIX.
ELECTRICITY
Electricity consumption in Slovakia is continuously decreasing and it follows the development of energy consumption as the whole. According to governmental expectation it will reach the bottom in 1995. Since 1989 consumption decreased by 20% thus making Slovakia independent on imports of electricity.
Large part of electricity is produced in steam power plants with considerably lower efficiency (29-32% than in developed countries.
Electricity is generated in facilities of Slovak state utility - SEP and industrial power plants. The amount of electricity produced by other independent producers is negligible and is based on small hydro power plants owned by individuals.
Table 1. Production and consumption of electricity in Slovakia (GWh
1985 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
SEP
- thermal power 7547 6573 6997 6630 6556 5580
- hydro power 2642 2597 2378 1853 2727 3800
- nuclear power 9382 12157 12036 11679 11049 11020
INDUSTRIAL POWER
PLANTS 2928 2754 2652 2538 2409 2358
TOTAL PRODUCTION 22499 24081 24063 22700 22346
22758
TOTAL 27687 30328 30154 27390 25816
24260
CONSUMPTION
POWER PLANTS IN SLOVAKIA
Power capacity of all Slovak power plants installed or under construction is illustrated in following tables.
Table 2. Nuclear power plants in Slovakia
Nuclear power plants CAPACITY (MW Jaslovske Bohunice V-1 2 x 440 Jaslovske Bohunice V-1 2 x 440 TOTAL 1760 Mochovce * 2 x 440
* under construction
Table 3. Condensing steam power plants in Slovakia
Condensing power plants CAPACITY (MW Vojany I (hard coal 6 x 110 Vojany II (natural gas 6 x 110 Novaky A (brown coal 2 x 22,4 and 2 x 32 Novaky B (brown coal 4 x 110 Kosice (natural gas 1 x 66 and 1 x 55 TOTAL 1990
Table 4. Other power plants in Slovakia
Hydro power 1648 MW Industrial power 850 MW
Total power capacity in Slovakia: 6248 MW
(5398 MW is owned by Slovak utility SEP.
HEAT SUPPLY
Recently the heat is delivered to consumers by two ways:
The heat for large DHS above 50 MWt is mostly produced in big community owned heating plants and in industrial heating plants. Coal and natural gas are dominating fuels. Small heating plants build in the centre of heat consumption are based on firing of cleaner fuels like natural gas or light oils.
Table 5. Heat consumption in Slovakia in 1992.
RESIDENTIAL AND TERTIARY SECTOR 104 500 TJ INDUSTRY 162 500 TJ TOTAL 267 000 TJ
From 104 500 TJ of heat supplied to residential and tertiary sector 29 647 TJ has been provided by state energy facilities (SEP and REP as a by-product of nuclear power and coal power generation (Jaslovske Bohunice, Novaky. Rest of the heat delivered to residential sector has been covered by community heating plants.
Recently there are 42 industrial heating plants in operation in Slovakia with total capacity of 7414,7 MWt.
The amount of heat for residential and tertiary sector decreased in 1993 to 96 891 TJ.
Table 6. Structure of heat supply in TJ without industrial facilities in 1993.
TYPE COMMUNITY FAMILY OFFICES AND TOTAL
APPARTM. HOUSES OTHERS
LARGE HEATING
PLANTS 23 616 0 15 500 39 116
SMALL HEATING
PLANTS (DHS
- coal
- oil 4 690 4 100 17 210 26 000
- nat. gas 0 113 1 180 1 293
3 990 11 232 7 040 22 262
SUBTOTAL 8 680 15 445 25 430 49 555
INDIVIDUAL
HEATING
- coal 350 3 403 1 000 4 753
- oil 20 556 0 576
- natural gas 51 860 1 500 2 411
- wood 0 230 0 230
- electricity 20 230 0 250
SUBTOTAL 441 5 279 2 500 8 220
TOTAL 32 737 20 724 43 430
96 891
From the table 6 it can be seen that only a small fraction of houses in Slovakia is individually heated. More than 90% of heat is delivered by large centralised heating systems or small heating plants through district heating systems. This situation is advantageous for installing CHP plants especially in larger towns.
Evidently CHP plants have enormous potential when considering thermal efficiency and lower environmental impacts. The basic technology is proven and it would be relatively simple to satisfy a substantial part of the energy demand. High energy efficiency means reduced pollution especially in large CHP plants with flue gas cleaning to remove particles, SO2, nitrogen acids. In Slovakia this would be especially important in high polluted areas.
There exist huge potential to convert some large heating plants in bigger cities to CHP plants and thus provide additional power supply in more environmental friendly and safely way.
According to aims of Slovak energy policy, which include retrofitting of energy facilities, higher utilisation of natural gas and increasing number of consumers supplied from large centralise sources of heat it is proposed to build energy facilities based on CHP production fueled with natural gas. Realisation of this aim is possible where sites are equipped with needed infrastructure (heat market, DHS, natural gas pipelines etc..
Following considerations on development of CHP production in Slovakia are based on governmental suggestions 4 . According to these data more than 1200 MW of power capacity should be established until the year 2008. These facilities are supposed to provide heat for large central heating systems in some Slovak towns. List and data about these facilities are summarised in table 7.
Table 7. Possible large CHP plants in Slovakia.
CHP PLANT POWER HEAT POWER INVESTM. NAT. GAS
CAPACITY CAPACITY PRODUC. COSTS CONSUMPT.
MWe MWt GWh mil. Sk mil. m3/year
BRATISLAVA 2 206 210 1 100 2 714 270
VOJANY * 326,6 - 1 900 5 321 470
KOSICE 200 200 1 100 3 830 270
PRESOV 150 100 850 2 545 210
ZIAR N. HR. 150 100 850 2 550 210
SENNE 70 - 400 1 417 95
ZILINA 60 70 350 1 405 86
MARTIN 60 70 350 1 430 80
NOVAKY 60 290 350 1 535 -
TOTAL 1 282 - 7 250 22 747 -
* The largest condensing power plant Vojany with the current power capacity 1320 MW is located near Slovak - Ukrainian border and near main natural gas pipeline (Transgas. Data on possible heat production are not available.
According to estimates of Energy Institute 5 another 790 MW of power capacity in CHP plants can be installed (see table 8. All data are based on potential heat market in these locations. Investment costs have not been estimated until yet.
Table 8. Other possible CHP plants which can be build in Slovakia.
CHP PLANT POWER CAPACITY HEAT CAPACITY
(MWe ( MWt
DUSLO SALA* 200 64
NOVE ZAMKY 55 60
BANSKA BYSTRICA 55 60
POVAZSKA BYSTRICA 50 60
RIMAVSKA SOBOTA 60 60
RUZOMBEROK 150 100
SEREd 220 -
TOTAL 790 -
* industrial facility
Putting data from tables 7 and 8 together we can see that total potential for large-scale CHP plants is higher than 2000 MW what represents one third of whole power capacity in Slovakia.
It is possible to use above mentioned governmental data as an input for economic analysis of cost effectiveness of CHP production. The results can be compared to other possible options of Slovak energy sector development.
With the aim to provide additional 880 MW of power capacity what is the output of nuclear power plant Mochovce now under construction and forced by Slovak government, following options has been considered:
OPTION 1
This option is based on building five large CHP plants in Kosice, Presov, Ziar nad Hronom, Zilina and Vojany all fired by natural gas. Data on investment costs, energy inputs and outputs stems from table 7.
OPTION 2
Building two separate facilities also fired by natural gas - one large condensing power plant and one heating plant with outputs comparable to those in Option 1.
This option is based on technical-economic analyses on possible substitution of nuclear power plant V-1 in Jaslovske Bohunice by gas firing CHP plant. Study has been prepared by Energy Institute 6 .
OPTION 3
Completion of nuclear power plant Mochovce seems to be another important issue of Slovak energy policy. Nearly 80% of this plant (2x440 MW is constructed and due to the lack of money Slovak government is looking for foreign investment. Electricite de France, Bayernwerk and EBRD are strongly involved in this facility. This option has been included with the aim to provide economic comparison of CHP plants vs. nuclear power plant in Slovakia.
Investment costs of 22 billion Sk spent until 1993 has not been included in analysis. Fuel cost are based only on spent fuel storage in Russia - 1200 USD/kg (30 tones/year. Fresh fuel cost has not been available and thus it is not included. Production of electricity - 5 200 GWh/year 7 and investment cost needed for completing of two reactor blocks - 1,3 bill. DM (26 000 Sk are based on governmental data 8 . Decommissioning of power plant, disposal of low and medium radioactive wastes, insurance and other safety measures are even not included.
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF ALL OPTIONS
To compare above mentioned options it has been supposed that investment costs will be completely covered by banking loans. Present Slovak bank interest rates-19% discourage large investments hence other rate (10% has also been included. Prices for heat in district heating systems, electricity and natural gas are in table 9.
Table 9. Energy prices in Slovakia.
PRICE OF HEAT 150 Sk / GJ PRICE OF ELECTRICITY 1 468 Sk /MWh PRICE OF NATURAL GAS 3,55 Sk/m3
Table 10. Comparison of various options.
OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
ELECTRIC. CAPACITY 886,6 826,5 880
(MWe
THERMAL CAPACITY 500 400 -
(MWt
ELECTRICITY 5 050 5 259,5 5 200
PRODUCTION (GWh/year
HEAT PRODUCTION 8 670 6 936 -
(TJ/year
NATURAL GAS 1246 1 997,2 -
CONSUMPTION
( mil. m3/year
CASH FLOW from 7 413,4 7 720,9 7 633,6
electricity
production
(mil. Sk/year
CASH FLOW from heat 1 300,5 1 040,4 -
production
(mil. Sk/year
FUEL COST 4 423,3 7 090,1 1 152*
(mil. Sk/year
CASH FLOW -FUEL COST 4 290,6 1 671,3 6 481,6
(mil. Sk/year
INVESTMENT COSTS
(mil. Sk 15 651 11 186 26 000
SIMPLE PAY-BACK 6,79 any 8,26
(years**
SIMPLE PAY-BACK 4,76 11,61 5,38
(years***
* only cost of spent fuel export ,** 19% interest rates , *** 10% interest rates
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
As it can be seen the least cost variant is the OPTION 2 - conventional steam power plant and heating plant. Required power capacity can be obtained for 11 186 mil. Sk what is less than 50 % of investment costs needed for completion of nuclear power plant Mochovce (OPTION 3.
Least cost is not the only feature which must be taken into consideration. If we take a closer look at fuel prices we can see that this option is most expensive, hence other evaluation criteria are needed.
Cost effectiveness is determined by pay-back times of investment costs. Simple pay-back times used in this comparison take into consideration only investment costs and difference between cash flow and fuel cost.
From the results shown in table 10 it is clear that OPTION 1 - CHP plants and OPTION 3 - nuclear power plant achieved under present Slovak banking interest rates condition (19% the shortest pay-back times - 6,8 years and 8,3 years respectively. Least cost OPTION 2 - condensing steam and heating plants has no pay-back of investment costs so this option can be excluded from further comparison. This is the result of the highest fuel costs what is caused by inefficient use of energy content of the fuel.
If we compare only OPTION 1 and OPTION 3 we can see that not only shorter pay-back times but in particular less than 40 % investment costs make OPTION 1 - CHP production the best choice for meeting future energy needs in Slovakia.
Due to the lack of data it has been supposed that maintenance costs, profits and all other expenses are the same for all options what is certainly not the case of nuclear power where much higher cost in the future are to be expected (decommissioning.
It is important to mention that also under the most pessimistic conditions in the case of CHP plants determined by the highest price of natural gas and idealistic conditions for nuclear power plant (not included prices for fresh fuel and decommissioning the result is still in favour of CHP plants.
Pay-back time has been selected as the criteria, because it is important from the point of view of financial institutions providing loans for these power plants. Another criteria could be the price of kWh produced during the lifetime. But in this case full cost of nuclear power must be included and that was not possible to estimate at present time. Rough estimate of investment costs of nuclear power plant Mochovce is 62 bill. Sk (22 bill. Sk spent until yet, 26 bill. Sk needed for completion and 24 bill. Sk expected for decommissioning. This figure is 4 times higher than for OPTION 1 what makes nuclear power less cost-effective also from the point of view of kWh price.
WHY SMALL CHP?
Power output can be increased also by converting existing heating boilers in small DH markets by small-scale CHP plants. One of the principal aims of this conversion in Slovakia should be to produce as much electricity as possible in local heat markets. This reduces the amount of of electricity that has to be produced at steam power stations fired by low-quality brown coal (Novaky power plants.
Improving local environment around heating plants firing coal by converting them into CHP plants firing natural gas is another advantage of this technology. There are some differences in emissions per unit of energy produced in small-scale and large CHP plants as it is shown in table 11.
Table 11. Comparison of emissions from various facilities 9 . Emissions are in grams per kWh of heat produced.
SO2 NOx CO CmHn
Dust
GAS-BOILER 0,09 0,17 0,14 0,058 0,01
LARGE CHP 0,86 0,36 0,01 0,005 0,03
SMALL CHP 0,08 2,48 1,02 0,817 0,01
POTENTIAL OF SMALL CHP PLANTS
Possibility to retrofit small heating plants with capacity up to 25 MWt connected to DHS to CHP production do exist in all regions of Slovakia. To estimate the potential of CHP production small heating plants has been divided into four groups:
A - heat capacity above 12 MWt
B - heat capacity between 8 and 12 MWt
C - heat capacity between 4 and 8 MWt
D - heat capacity under 4 MWt
Table 12. Number of small heating plants according to heat capacity in Slovakia.
GROUP NUMBER OF NUMBER OF INSTALLED CAPACITY
HEATING PLANTS BOILERS (MWt
A 47 243 852,48
B 74 301 707,43
C 120 383 734,34
D 41 104 109,35
TOTAL 282 1 031 2 403,6
Installed heat capacity in small heating plants is relatively high but at present there are not appropriate conditions to convert all these facilities to CHP plants. Thus the estimate covers only part of them, mostly boilers in hospitals, schools and other institutions where heat market does exist during most of the year. The whole CHP potential depends on heat consumption diagram (heat needed through the year. According to our estimate small CHP plants could be cost-effectively installed in:
Most appropriate units for retrofitting to CHP plants are in groups A and B (4-12 MWt.
Potential for CHP production in these units is estimated to be 180 MWe and 270 MWt.
This potential seems to be underestimated according to other sources. According to Danish analyses it is technically feasible to establish small CHP plants with an electricity generating capacity of at least 1500 MW in Denmark where heat consumption is somehow comparable to that in Slovakia (350 PJ for DK and 270 PJ for SK. Danish government decided to established 450 MW out of this potential until the year 1995 10 .
Most appropriate technology to be used in small CHP plants seems to be gas engine. The engines can be placed in sound-damped buildings of urban areas without serious noise nuisance for neighbouring properties.
POTENTIAL OF MINI CHP PLANTS
Another unused potential lies in mini CHP plant. A mini CHP unit is term used for gas engine plant set up in existing boiler-houses at housing estates, institutions, water treatment plants, etc. Generating capacities of these units are ranging from 10 kW up to 1000 kW. According to some foreign data this potential can be really high. Theoretically 5,2 million such facilities of average capacity 12 kWe can be installed in Germany instead of traditional boilers in houses used only for heat production. These mini CHP plants could yearly produce as much as 116 000 GWh of power, where large CHP could produce 76 000 GWh 11 .
We estimated the potential of mini CHP plants according to purchase power, yearly load (2500 hours and present natural gas consumption to be 7 MWe and 10 MWt. Theoretically more than 400 such cogeneration unit could be installed in Slovakia.
POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRIAL CHP PLANTS
Potential for industrial CHP plants can be huge, but it has not been estimated because of crucial changes in Slovak industry towards market economy. While power production at small CHP plants depends on the demand for heat, power production at industrial CHP plants depends on the company's need for process heat and steam. These needs are changing during transformation process of industry very rapidly.
Option based on building CHP plants which was described in previous chapter is viable not only from the point of view of economy, but through saving of fuel sources for power production it can considerably reduce CO2 and other emissions in Slovakia.
From 1 ton of hard coal 8100 kWh of electricity in conventional steam power plants can be produced. Generating this amount of electricity leads to average emissions of 3,8 ton of CO2.
Potential annual production of 5050 GWh in CHP plants (OPTION 1 mean that
623 000 tons of coal could be saved annually in Slovak thermal power stations. This figure means that virtually all thermal power plants firing coal could be substituted by CHP plants.
In monetary value savings reach 1 billion Sk what is nearly 1 % of Slovak GDP.
Substitution of 5050 GWh leads to reduction of CO2 emissions by 2.37 million tons each year. This amount represent cca 5% reduction of total Slovak CO2 emissions which has reached 49,6 million tons in 1990 12 .
Farther CO2 emission reductions could be achieved by development of small or mini CHP systems based on firing of natural gas which can substitute coal fired in current heating plants.
Evidently this reduction of CO2 would fit very well to future Slovak National Plan in the FCCC and thus should be incorporated into this document as one of the crucial measures.
Reduction of other pollutants especially SO2 from Slovak coal power plants through CHP productions could be also considerably high. Three largest coal power plants (Novaky A+B and Vojany 1 with power capacity which can be substituted by CHP plants produce 140 000 ton of SO2 yearly. This amount of emissions which could be cut by CHP plants is higher than total SO2 emissions of Austria (124 000 tons in 1989 13 and represent cca 30% of total Slovak SO2 emissions.
Conclusion Nr. 1
Total power capacity which can be installed in large and small CHP plants is higher than 2200 MW what is more than one third of total power capacity in Slovak power plants.
Conclusion Nr. 2
It is evident that development of CHP production in Slovakia could easily substitute the proposed output of nuclear power plant Mochovce (880 MW which is now under construction.
Conclusion Nr. 3
It has been shown that CHP production is the least cost option among three possible ways of providing same power and heat outputs (CHP plant, nuclear power plant and condensing steam power plant and heating plant in Slovakia.
Conclusion Nr. 4
Not only financial advantage, saving of fuel resources (cutting of imports and improving balance of economy but also considerable CO2 reduction could be achieved by development of CHP production. Reduction of emissions by more than
2 million tons of CO2 annually what is 5 % of total CO2 emissions is huge steak which can not be omitted in future Slovak national CO2 reduction plan. This plan expected to be submitted in March 1995 will be crucial document on future energy and environmental policy in Slovakia. Including measures based on development of CHP production into this document should be the ultimate goal of NGOs strategy in Slovakia.
Conclusion Nr. 5
Other pollutants from Slovak power plants especially SO2 emissions could be considerably reduced through the development of CHP production as well. In the case of SO2 this amount is estimated to be more than 140 000 tons each year.
Suggestions for other NGOs in CEE
Forcing the development of CHP production should be one of NGO priorities in CEE countries. Reason for this is simple: energy production systems with its inefficiency and environmental pollution are quite similar in the region. Countries like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic which ratified FCCC or will do it soon has also enormous potential for CHP production.
One possible obstacle seems to be that CO2 reduction has been achieved in many CEE countries. This is the result of decline of economic activity due to the process of transformation towards market economy. Nevertheless all countries expect increase of gross domestic product in near future and this is mostly connected with increase of energy consumption which will lead to higher CO2 emissions. It seems clear that from the point of view of CO2 emissions beyond the year 2000 it is urgently needed to consider development of CHP production just now.
NGOs from other CEE countries could provide their governments with viable suggestions based on development of CHP plants. This suggestions could also be incorporated into national plans on reduction of CO2 emissions where CHP production should be one of the most important features. If CEE NGOs would like to take a closer look at the possibilities of using CHP production in their countries they should start at considering:
Estimating potential of electricity and heat production through CHP plants could be the starting point in NGO lobbying activities. This effort can be interested also for some governmental officials or energy companies because CHP plants are just other sources on supply side. This interest can ease our work.
It must be noted that from the pure environmental point of view CHP production based on natural gas or other fossil fuels is not the best solution and could only be seen as a better option than present choice. Energy saving and renewable energy development must have the top priority in CEE energy plans.
GENERAL DATA ON SLOVAKIA - 1993
Population 5,3 mil.
Area 49 000 sq. km
GDP 158 bill. Sk (5,27
bill. USD
Unemployment 14 %
SLOVAK ENERGY DATA
Energy prices - February 1994:
FUEL Sk USD
Natural Gas (m3) 3,1 - 3,55* 0,1-0,12
Electricity (kWh) 0,97 - 4,4* 0,03 - 0,15
Coal (ton) 940 - 1542 31 - 51
District Heat (GJ) 112-560* 3,7 - 18,7
Oil (ton) 18860 627
Gasoline (ton) 25000 833
Light Heating Oil (ton) 6325 211
Heavy Heating Oil (ton 2980 99
* maximal prices for large consumers (industry
Note that heat, electricity and gas prices are higher for large consumers than for small ones. This 'social measure' of protecting the public against high energy prices is in market economy hard to sustain hence prices for small consumers are increasing steadily and they are expected to be as high as for large consumers in near future.
Production and import of fuels in Slovakia (1991)
FUEL Domestic production Import Brown Coal (mil. 4,1 12,0 ton) Crude Oil (1000 7,2 5000 tons) Natural Gas (mil. 313 6800 m3)
Natural gas pipeline called Transgas from Russia through Slovakia provides natural gas for Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and France as well.
Legal Regulations of Environmental Protection in Slovak Republic
Environmental protection is generally supported by Slovak Constitution which provides Slovak government with the power to implement:
The main governmental body is The Slovak Ministry of Environment.
This ministry is responsible for management of State Fund for Environment which consists of payments, fines and charges for emissions of pollutants from industrial activities. From this Fund earmarked finances are provided for measures to improve environmental situation in Slovakia (cleaning of waste waters etc.. These payments are charged according to Law of Legal and Physical Entities and are classified according to the size of the facility.
Typical charges for main atmospheric pollutants are listed in following table.
Pollutant Rate (Sk/tone) Solids 3000 Sulphur Oxides 1000 Nitrous Oxides 800 Carbon Oxides 600 Hydrocarbons 2000
These basic charges can be increased by 50 % if emissions exceed the permitted limits.
The legal documents related to energy management has been set by Czechoslovak Federal government. Law Nr. 309 from 1991 deals with emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere. Special consideration has been given to setting binding limits on air pollution levels. This law lists certain obligations to protect the environment. It declares that all actions on Slovak territory must consider environmental impact assessment. Persons who pollute or endanger the environment through their activities or who utilise natural resources are obliged to ensure monitoring at their own expense and that the possible consequences from these activities are known. This law established the highest allowable quantity of pollutants which can be legally released to the atmosphere.
Emission limits have been set for selected polluting substances and selected technologies. These limits apply to facilities like power or heating plants with the output power greater than 5 MW (see next tables.
Burning of solid fuels
Pollutant Plant size (MW) Emission limit (mg/m3)
Solids more than 50 100
SO2 more than 300 500
50-300 1700
5-50 2500
NOx more than 5 650
CO more than 50 250
Organic mat. more than 5 50
Burning of liquid fuels
Pollutant Plant size (MW Emission limit (mg/m3
Solids more than 50 50
5-50 100
SO2 more than 300 500
5-300 1700
NOx more than 5 450
CO more than 5 175
Burning of gaseous fuels
Pollutant Plant size (MW) Emission limit (mg/m30 Solids more than 5 100 SO2 more than 5 35 NOx more than 5 200 CO more than 5 100
General emission limits related to remaining sources of pollutants.
Pollutant Plant size (MW) Emission limit (mg/m3)
Solids more than 2,5 150
less than 2,5 200
SO2 more than 20 2500
NOx more than 10 500
CO more than 5 800
This study has been supported by Climate Network Europe.
Written by Emil Bedi
Published by Foundation for Alternative Energy - SZOPK
Bratislava, Slovakia
C O N T E N T S