Environmental and Economic Issues from Changing a Major Fuel Type as Energy Resource in an Industrial City in Korea

Byeong-Kyu Lee and Hung-Suck Park

11.1 Introduction

Ulsan is the largest industrial city of Korea with a population of more than 1.1 million people and national-scale industrial complexes (ICs) including non-ferrous metallic IC, petrochemical IC, automobile and shipbuilding IC. Main sources of air pollutants in major metropolitan cities are traffic emissions (Mamane et al., 2008). However, they are quite different from the main sources from industrial cities. According to the recent study of air pollution source apportionment (Koo and Kim, 2007), 77%, 66%, 87%, and 58% of the total sulfur oxides (SO*), nitrogen oxides (NO*), PM10, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), respectively, are from point sources such as power plants and manufacturing plants in Ulsan. In Seoul, the capital city of Korea, with a population of 12 million people, however, 72% and 63% of the total emissions of SO* and VOCs are from area sources. Mobile sources are responsible for 16%, 83%, 93%, and 35% of the total emissions of SO*, NO*, PM10, and VOCs in Seoul, respectively.

Because of heavy contribution from industrial sources to air pollution in Ulsan, the government of Korea had designated Ulsan as an area particularly requiring countermeasures to air pollution. Also, the local government of Ulsan has adopted many regulations to cut down emissions of air pollutants or improve its air quality. For example, the use of solid fuel such as coal was prohibited except in few big facilities in 1985. In addition, gradual increase in the use of low-sulfur fuel and clean fuel such as liquefied natural gas has been required since 1988. The regulations to limit maximum content of sulfur in fuel have also been reinforced since their adoption in 1981. The sulfur content in fuels such as bunker fuel oil C (B-C) was 4.0% and 2.5% in early and late 1980s, respectively. The current sulfur content in B-C oil applied to new and some existing plants in Ulsan has been 0.3%, an ultra low sulfur fuel, since 2001, with 1.6% in 1991 and 0.5% in 1997.

I. Dincer et al. (eds.), Global Warming, Green Energy and Technology,

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1017-2_11, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Thanks to these regulations and efforts for reduction of air emissions, the air pollution levels in Ulsan have greatly improved. In order to reduce the total air emissions of SOX (Stern, 2005), NOX, and PM from industrial areas in Ulsan, a volunteered agreement between the big sources and the national and local governments has been made. The agreement includes increase in use of clean fuel and ultra low sulfur B-C oil of 0.3% and more investment for air pollution control (APC) equipment. At this moment the plants that use ultra low sulfur fuel are waived operation or attachment of control equipment for removal or reduction of SOX emissions. However, the recent improvement in the air pollution levels in Ulsan would be mainly due to low energy consumption via energy savings or efficiency increase rather than the strict application of the volunteered agreement (Park and Lee, 2007).

The business success of the industries in Ulsan is highly dependent upon energy costs. The recent fuel or energy prices have sharply increased during the last 2 years. Thus already a few companies could not operate their plants any more because of rising fuel or energy costs (Borchers et al., 2008). Many companies, due to the required high energy costs, have considered business shutdown in the near future if the fuel or energy costs have a kind of skyscraper rise (Zhang, 2008). Thus most companies in Ulsan have filed a lot of petitions that they want to use high-sulfur fuel such as B-C oil of 4.0% with conditions of strict operation of APC equipment. Also, they have requested to use solid fuel like coal with conditions of strict operation of APC equipment. However, most of the people who live in Ulsan want to keep the air environment clean. The local government of Ulsan wants to continue their previous polices or strategies, such as increasing the use of clean fuel or ultra low sulfur fuel, for improvement of its air environment. However, the government also needs to boost up active industrial business in Ulsan. Thus the local government is faced with a kind of dilemma on strategies of industrial fuel use in Ulsan. The purpose of this study is to evaluate environmental impacts and economic benefits associated with changing the ultra low sulfur B-C oil of 0.3% with high-sulfur B-C oil of 4.0%, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

11.2 Methods

The local and national regulations or strategies for the air environment improvement in Ulsan have been reviewed. The change of annual average concentrations of SOX in Ulsan was analyzed as a function of introduction of low or ultra low sulfur fuels. In particular, the cause of the recent improvement on SOX levels in Ulsan was investigated. The main methods to reduce SOX levels in Ulsan would include increasing control efficiency of SOX removal equipment, changing to low sulfur containing fuel, tightening of SOX emission standards at sources, and increasing fines on exceeding the standards.

This study analyzed which method was the main cause of the reduction in SOX concentrations. Then this study evaluated the environmental problems and economic benefits expected when ultra low sulfur bunker C oil of 0.3% is replaced by high-sulfur B-C oil of 4.0%, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. The first evaluation was focused on the current environmental issues related to increased use of B-C oil of 0.3% S. The second evaluation was to analyze environmental impacts related to the considered options of fuel change including a comparison of pros and cons of each alternative option. In particular, this study highlighted the environmental issues and economic benefits resulting from increased use of high-sulfur B-C oil of 4.0%, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power to solve current environmental and economical problems associated with current use of B-C oil of 0.3% S and energy crisis. This study also discussed the issues related to administrative consistency such as keeping the environmental policies on increased use of low or ultra sulfur fuel or clean fuel.

11.3 Results and Discussion

11.3.1 Comparison of SOX levels in major cities

Fig. 11.1 shows change of annual average concentrations of SOX in major cities in Korea. SOX levels gradually decreased with time. SOX levels in the largest industrial city, Ulsan, were much higher than those in the Korean capital city, Seoul. This fact indicates that the main sources of SOX are not traffic emissions but industrial emissions. Comparison of the average SOX levels among Busan, Daegu, and Ulsan cities showed that their SOX concentrations were quite similar in 1996. However, SOX levels in Busan (the largest portal city with a population of 3.7 million) and Daegu (an inland basin city with a population of 2.5 million) have become much lower than those in Ulsan since 1999. Korea had economical aids from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in December 1997 because of economical crisis, by a shortage of foreign currency, throughout the country. During 1998, the activity levels of business greatly shrank, resulting in business shutdown of many companies and reduction of SOX emissions. When the economic situations improved in 1999, a lot of companies in Ulsan substantially recovered from the economic crisis. However, many companies in Busan and Daegu that had weak infrastructure of business or industries had much trouble to recover. Thus business activities were still sluggish in Busan and Daegu in l999 and early 2000s. The difference in city business activities or economic situations between Ulsan and Busan (or Daegu) resulted in the difference in their SOX levels.

The control efficiencies of SOX removal equipment, which is one of the main methods to reduce SOX levels, and the emission standards of SOX at sources have not changed greatly over the past 10 years. However, the limit of sulfur content in fuel for industries has gradually decreased in Korea and, in particular, Ulsan. Also, a lot of industries in Ulsan have been required to reduce their SOX emission levels by local and central governments. One of the major the efforts to reduce SOX emission levels at industrial sources was to increase the use of low-sulfur fuel, such as 0.5% S bunker C (B-C) oil, with the operation of SOX removal equipment, or clean fuel (natural gas) or ultra low sulfur fuel (0.3% S B-C oil) in Ulsan. For example, the largest power plants in Ulsan are currently using a high sulfur content B-C, oil with desulfurization facilities (DSFs), 0.3% B-C, and natural gas with no DSFs as their fuel. Thus they reduced a large amount of their SOX emissions. In Ulsan, the SOX emissions from mobile sources, such as road vehicles, ships, and aircrafts, were only a small fraction of the total SOX emissions as compared to those from stationary sources such as power plants and industrial stacks. Thus the main cause of the recent improvement in SOX levels in Ulsan was due to the increased use of ultra low sulfur fuel or clean fuel for industries. Also, the increased operation of DSFs in case of using high-sulfur fuel could contribute to the recent improvement in SOX levels in Ulsan.

Fig. 11.1 Change annual average SOX in major cities in Korea.

11.3.2 SOx levels with change of sulfur content in fuel

Fig. 11.2 shows the change of annual average SOX and the regulation change of sulfur content limit of major fuel, B-C oils, in Ulsan. The highest peak concentration of SOX was observed in 1991; however, the annual averages decreased with decreasing sulfur content in major fuel. When actively changed from B-C oil of 2.5% S to 0.5% S via 1.6% S during the period 1991-1997, in spite of a large increase in terms of total energy use, the annual average SOX levels sharply decreased. This is because of the large change of sulfur content in fuel as well as substantial improvement in removal or collection efficiencies of APC equipment to keep reducing air emissions from companies. After adopting 0.5% S limit in B-C oil, the degree of improvement of annual SOX levels was not that satisfactory as compared to the improvement degree expected before adopting the regulations of the sulfur content limit. Thus the local Ulsan government has adopted 0.3% S limit in B-C oil, a kind of ultra low sulfur fuel, to get further reduction of SOx levels in spite of reducing the costs to purchase more expensive B-C oil of 0.3% S. The annual SOx levels were not significantly improved during the first 3 years after adopting the 0.3% S limit in major fuel. This is because the government waived the responsibility to operate SOx control facilities for companies that use 0.3% S B-C oil. The SOx emission concentrations from the stacks of plants which use high sulfur content fuel such as 4.0%, 2.5%, and 1.6% S B-C oils were much less than 100 ppm.

Sulfur Content

Sulfur Content

Year

Fig. 11.2 Change of annual average SOx and sulfur content of major fuel in Ulsan.

Year

Fig. 11.2 Change of annual average SOx and sulfur content of major fuel in Ulsan.

In fact many big companies that use fuel with high sulfur content are emitting less than 30 ppm. Also, the SOx emission levels from the stacks of plants that use low-sulfur B-C oil of 1.0% S or 0.5% S ranged from 50 to 90 ppm. However, the SOx emission levels from the stacks of plants that use ultra low sulfur B-C oil of 0.3% S, which is not required to operate SOx removal devices of the stacks, ranged from 160 to 150 ppm which is slightly lower than the current emission standard, 180 ppm. The total SOx emissions did not greatly reduce, but they could slightly increase with use of B-C oil of 0.3% S. The volunteered agreement of air pollution reduction between the local government and the big companies that consume a lot of energy use or emit a large amount of air pollution was signed in 2004. Even though the local government has encouraged the increased use of ultra low sulfur fuel instead of high sulfur content fuel, the total consumption of B-C oil of 4.0%, 2.5%, 1.0%, and 0.3% S reduced by 21.4%, 25.7%, 11.3%, and 24.5%, respectively, in 2005 based on those of 2003 (Table 11.1). Therefore, the reduction of 27.3% in the annual SOx levels during the period 2003-2005 would be mainly due to decrease of total energy use rather than

increase of use of low-sulfur B-C oil of 0.3% S (see next section for detailed discussion).

Table 11.1 Annual oil consumption in Ulsan.

unit: 1000 bbl

Bunker fuel oil C

Table 11.1 Annual oil consumption in Ulsan.

unit: 1000 bbl

Bunker fuel oil C

Year

oil*

B-C total

4.0% S

2.5% S

1.0% S

0.5% S

0.3% S

2005

138,525

23,239

10,095

6,707

454

1,140

4,843

2004

140,017

27,034

11,222

9,412

453

1,059

4,879

2003

135,377

29,844

12,846

9,032

512

1,039

6,415

2002

132,703

30,720

12,260

9,024

638

820

7,978

*Total oil means a sum-up of consumption of light oil, bunker fuel oils A, B, and C in Ulsan.

*Total oil means a sum-up of consumption of light oil, bunker fuel oils A, B, and C in Ulsan.

Table 11.2 shows the production and emissions of SOX associated with consumption of major industrial energy resources in Ulsan for 2004. The highest energy resources based on ton of oil equivalent (TOE) was bunker fuel oil C followed by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. The highest SOX production from major industrial energy use in Ulsan was from B-C oil of 4.0% S followed by B-C oil of 2.5% S and coal. The highest SOX emission from major industrial energy use in Ulsan was from B-C oil of 4.0% S followed by B-C oil of 2.5% S and B-C oil of 0.3% S. Utilization of clean fuel, such as LNG, and ultra low sulfur fuel, such as B-C oil of 0.3% S, as fuel resources in Ulsan does not require the operation of SOX control equipment. However, other B-C oils must have proper SOX control equipment, keeping an average control efficiency of 87% in Ulsan. The production of SOX from utilization of B-C oil of 0.3% S was only 2.5% of the total SOX produced from major energy use.

Table 11.2 Production and emissions of SO ^associated with consumption of major industrial energy resources in Ulsan for 2004._

Table 11.2 Production and emissions of SO ^associated with consumption of major industrial energy resources in Ulsan for 2004._

Relative TOE (%) SO* production

(tonne/yr) Relative SO* production (%) Total SO* emission

Bunker fUel oil C

Coal

4.0% S

2.5% S

1.0% S

0.5% S

0.3% S

LNG '

Soft

Hard

25.5

18.6

1.7

4.0

15.3

14.2

10.6

10.0

60,988

27,830

1,030

1,203

2,741

5.5

6,745

8,640

55.8

25.5

0.9

1.1

2.5

0.1

6.2

7.9

7,921

3,618

134

156

2,741

5.6

877

1,123

47.8

21.8

0.8

0.9

16.5

0.0

5.3

6.8

Relative TOE (%) SO* production

(tonne/yr) Relative SO* production (%) Total SO* emission

However, the air emission of SOX from the B-C oil of 0.3% S reached 16.5% of the total SOX emissions, based on the SOX emitted from each energy source after passing SOX control equipment, in Ulsan for 2004. Thus, the SOX emissions from B-C oil of 0.3% S must be controlled by proper SOX control equipment or replaced by clean fuel or other B-C oils. If industries want to utilize other B-C oils, they must operate proper SOX control equipment resulting in total emissions reduction of SOX.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

60 50

10 0

Fig. 11.3 Change annual average TSP or PMi0 concentrations with change of sulfur content in major fuel in Ulsan.

60 50

10 0

Fig. 11.3 Change annual average TSP or PMi0 concentrations with change of sulfur content in major fuel in Ulsan.

Fig. 11.3a and b shows change of annual average concentrations of total suspended particulate [TSP (shown in PM10 values since 1995)] and of PM10, respectively, with change of the regulations to limit maximum sulfur content in major fuel, B-C oil, in Ulsan. The annual levels of particulate matter (TSP or PM10) substantially decreased with decreasing sulfur content of the fuel in Ulsan. When correlation was analyzed between annual SOx and TSP levels associated with decrease of sulfur content in major fuel, a high correlation (r = 0.850) was obtained during 9 years in 1990s (Fig. 11.4). This fact shows that reduction of sulfur content in major fuel or improvement in removal or collection efficiency of particulate and SOx control equipment could greatly contribute to the reduction in annual levels of particulate matter, particularly TSP levels. However, a significant correlation was not identified between annual SOx and PM10 levels when B-C oil of 0.3% S introduced.

1991

1992

1993

1995 1996 Year

1997 1998

1999

Fig. 11.4 Correlation between annual SOx and TSP levels in Ulsan during 1990s.

1991

1992

1993

1995 1996 Year

1997 1998

1999

Fig. 11.4 Correlation between annual SOx and TSP levels in Ulsan during 1990s.

11.3.3 Issues associated with conversion to high-sulfur fuel

Table 11.3 shows SOx production by conversion rate when clean and ultra low sulfur fuels (LNG and B-C oil of 0.3% S) are replaced by high-sulfur fuel (B-C oil of 4.0% S) according to the conversion scenarios. If 50% and 100% of the current consumption of LNG and B-C oil of 0.3% S is replaced by B-C oil of 4.0% S, the total SOx production increased by 31% (33,905 tonne/year) and 62% (67,810 tonne/year), respectively. When control efficiency of SOx control equipment is assumed as 87%, the SOx emissions in these scenarios only increased as much as 4408 tonne/year (4.0%) and 8815 tonne/year (8.0%) after control of produced SOx. If the control efficiency of SOx control equipment goes up to 94%, there would be no additional emissions of SOx. The additional cost required for upgrading control efficiency of existing control equipment from 87% to 94% is necessary. If some plants do not have control equipment of SOx, they need to purchase new control facilities of SOx. In that case their expenditure will be more than that of other plants with existing control equipment.

Table 11.3 SO x production by conversion of clean and ultra low sulfur fuels to B-C oil of 4.0% S.

Conversion

SO* production (tonne/yr)

SO* emission after control [tonne/yr (%)]

Scenario

rate (%) to 4.0% S B-C

LNG + 0.3% S B-C

B, C + LNG + coal)

Increase by conversion

Original

0

2,746

106,437

109,814

-

-

Scenario 1

10

2,472

113,493

115,965

6,781 (6%)

881 (0.8%)

Scenario 2

30

1,922

127,604

129,527

20,343 (19%)

2,645 (2.4%)

Scenario 3

50

1,373

141,716

143,089

33,905 (31%)

4,408 (4.0%)

Scenario 4

80

549

162,883

163,432

54,248 (50%)

7,052 (6.4%)

Scenario 5

100

0

176,994

176,994

67,810 (62%)

8,815 (8.0%)

The unit prices of B-C oil of 0.3% S and LNG were 25% and 38%, respectively, higher than that of B-C oil of 4.0% S based on unit price per TOE of 2004. However, the unit prices of B-C oil of 0.3% S and LNG were 10 and 15%, respectively, higher than that of B-C oil of 4.0% S based on unit price per TOE in January 2008. Also, the January 2008 unit prices of LNG, B-C oil of 0.3% S, and B-C oil of 4.0% S increased as high as 39%, 49%, and 69%, respectively, as compared to those for 2004. The unit price increase of B-C oil of 4.0% S much exceeded those of LNG or B-C oil of 0.3% S. In addition, oil prices have sharply increased since 2005, and thus currently they are increasing almost every day. Also, there is high uncertainty of purchase and operation/maintenance costs of air pollutant or SOX control facilities because of severe fluctuation of energy costs. In addition, current emissions of carbon dioxide additionally increased by 3.7% when 100% of current use of LNG and B-C oil of 0.3% S is converted into B-C oil of 4.0% S. The additional emission increase of carbon dioxide would also be an additional economic expenditure with increased use of B-C oil of 4.0% S. Therefore, it is not easy to exactly evaluate economic benefits associated with conversion of LNG or B-C oil of 0.3% S into B-C oil of 4.0% S.

The other important issue that should be addressed with increasing use of high-sulfur fuel like B-C oil of 4.0% S would be increase of SO3 emissions (increased proportional to SO2 emission increase) resulting in increased corrosion of facilities and more frequent generation of white plume. Even though there are some available technologies for reduction of SO3 emission and white plume problems, it is still difficult to apply those technologies to solve the problems based on current technology situations.

11.3.4 Issues associated with conversion into coal

Currently, the highest emission of carbon dioxide from energy resources in Ulsan industries for year 2004 was from B-C of 4.0% S, followed by coal, B-C of 2.5% S, and B-C of 0.5% S (Table 11.4). Even though the energy consumption as TOE of coal was 18.4% of the total TOE in Ulsan, carbon dioxide produced from coal use reached up to 22.6% of the total emission in Ulsan. This shows that coal has much higher emission factors of carbon dioxide per TOE as compared to other clean fuel or B-C oils (Kaygusuz, 2009).

Table 11.4 Carbon dioxide emissions from energy resources in Ulsan industries for 2004.

Bunker fuel oil C Coal

Fuel type

Light oil

Hard Soft

Fuel consumed (TOE%)

10.2

Emission factor (C ton /TOE)

0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.837 0.637 1.100 1.059

CO2 emission

(1,000 3,387 2,473 229 535 2,029 1,414 1,374 1,528 1,821 TCO2/yr)

CO2 percentage (%)

Table 11.5 shows carbon dioxide emission depending upon conversion rates when clean and ultra low sulfur fuels (LNG and B-C oil of 0.3% S) are replaced by soft coal, according to the conversion scenarios. When 50% and 100% of current consumption of LNG and B-C oil of 0.3% S is replaced by coal, 5% and 10% of carbon dioxide emission would be added. Even though Korea is currently not classified in the Annex I countries, according to the Kyoto Protocol for global warming mitigation (Shackley and Verma, 2008), it would be forced to reduce air emissions of greenhouse gases after 2012. According to a recent report (Han, 2008), the required costs for proper treatment of carbon dioxide additionally emitted by use of coal instead of B-C oils would be added as high as 39% of current energy costs. The current purchase costs of coal are around 40% of those of B-C

oil of 0.3% S. Costs for treatment or trading of carbon dioxide could increase further in future (Bartsch and Muller, 2000). Even though current economic savings by converting into coal are great, they have high vulnerability in future (Moriarty and Honnery 2008).

Table 11.5 Carbon dioxide emissions by conversion of clean and ultra low sulfur fuels to coal.

Conver-

CO2 production (1,000 ton/yr)

Table 11.5 Carbon dioxide emissions by conversion of clean and ultra low sulfur fuels to coal.

Conver-

CO2 production (1,000 ton/yr)

Scenario

rate into soft coal (%)

LNG + 0.3% S B-C

Soft coal

Total (B-A, B, C + LNG + coal)

Increase by conversion

emission increase (%)

Original

0

3,403

1 ,821

13,376

-

-

Scenario 1

10

3,063

2,295

13,510

134

1

Scenario 2

30

2,383

3,243

13,778

402

3

Scenario 3

50

1,703

4,191

14,046

670

5

Scenario 4

80

681

5,613

14,448

1,072

8

Scenario 5

100

0

6,561

176,994

1,340

10

Table 11.6 summarizes emission factors of air pollutants associated with utilization of major energy resources for 2004 in Ulsan. B-C oils represented the highest emissions of NOx and SOx because of their largest amount of energy utilization and their high emission factors. However, soft coal showed the highest emission factors of SOx, TSP, and PM10 and the second highest emission factors of NOx. Based on this information, another big concern associated with coal use increase would be to increase concentrations of air pollutants such as TSP, PM10, NOx, and SOx. In the past Ulsan was called as a pollution city in Korea. Currently, Ulsan also has the highest annual level of SOx in Korea. Thus, the Ulsan government and people would not to take the coal option to overcome current energy crisis without significant reduction in total air emissions or further improvement in its urban air quality.

Table 11.6 Emission factors of air pollutants associated with utilization of major energy resources in Ulsan for 2004, unit: kg/TOE._

2004 TOE

CO

NO,

SO,

TSP

PMm

VOC

Total

B-C

2,696,808

1.359

11.968

9.127

0.570

0.368

0.370

23.761

Light oil

538,565

8.333

22.603

7.594

1.454

1.426

2.223

43.633

LNG

588,609

2.054

6.772

0.015

0.044

0.042

0.311

9.239

Hard coal

465,050

0.067

1.221

0.213

0.080

0.054

0.032

1.667

Soft coal

392,460

0.492

12.840

9.654

21.523

14.419

0.059

58.987

11.3.5 Issues associated with natural gas and nuclear power options

Other options for current energy crisis would be natural gas (NG) which can provide for much lower pollution burden as compared to other energy resources. Supply contracts of NG are usually based on longer terms like 15 or 20 years unlike usually conducted short-term contract of oils. Currently, Korean government has got long-term purchase contracts for NG with middle-east countries and Russia in the periods which had been maintained for relatively low prices of natural gas (Stern, 2008). The consumer price per TOE of NG for industrial use for 2004 was 40% expensive as that of B-C oil of 4.0% S. However, the current consumer price for industrial use for January 2008 is just around 15% higher than that of B-C oil of 4.0% S. Also, the estimated price increase rate of 8.68% for NG is much lower than that of 12.52% for B-C oil of 0.3% S which would be similar to B-C oil of 4.0% S. Therefore, NG should also be considered as another option. However, there are a couple of drawbacks for this option. One of the big concerns would be the problems associated with a supply system of natural gas. It is not that easy to expand the supply system of NG in a short time period.

Nuclear power energy is an almost environmentally free option, except nuclear waste problems. Nuclear power plants almost do not produce greenhouse gases (Sovacool, 2008). Also, nuclear power energy is currently the cheapest energy in Korea. Ulsan has successfully and safely operated many nuclear power plants for more than 30 years since 1977. Thus, the utilization of nuclear power energy can be a good option for current energy and economy crisis. Concerns for nuclear energy are safety problems which could occur in the operation processes of nuclear power plants including proper disposal or storage of nuclear waste. However, accidents in the operation of nuclear power plants are not common and most power plants have very good safety systems to prevent any accidents. Even though the power plants have been safely operated, the general public is still worried about the accidents that could occur in power plants. We still remember the horrible accident that occurred in the nuclear power plants of Chernobyl, Russia, in 1986.

11.4 Conclusions

The annual average concentrations of SOx and particulate matter, especially TSP, decreased with decreasing sulfur content in fuel in the largest industrial city in Korea. The recent improvement in SOx levels was due to the reduced energy consumption of high sulfur content fuel rather than the increased utilization of ultra low sulfur fuel, such as B-C oil of 0.3% S, which does not require control equipment of SOx. Four options were considered to solve the current energy crisis and economic expenditure for industries. Because each option has its own pros and cons, industries should choose the proper option for their situation considering the following. One option is to use B-C oil of 4.0% S but operation of control equipment with high control efficiency of SOx is essential. The other option is to utilize coal with strict operation of air pollution control equipment; however, treatment costs of additionally emitted carbon dioxide should be considered. One of the big drawbacks for the natural gas option is the establishment of transport or supply systems to expand supply of NG. The option of nuclear power energy needs to overcome public resistance of the horrible accidents which may occur in nuclear power plants.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a grant (code 08 RTI B-03) from Regional Technology Innovation Program funded by Ministry of Land Transport & Maritime Affairs of Korean government. The authors appreciate the funding and the generous help provided by the Department of Environmental Policy in the metropolitan city of Ulsan, Korea.

References

Bartsch, U, Muller, B (2000) Fossil fuels in a changing climate. Oxford, NY. Borchers, M, Euston-Brown, M, Mahomed, L (2008) Energy Planning in South African cities. In: Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Power, Peter Droege, Ed., pp. 563-584.

Han, K-H (2008) Utilization of solid fuel and strategies for treatment of air pollutants. Debate on fuel and environmental policies to overcome energy crisis. Presented in the University of Ulsan, March 6, 2008.

Kaygusuz, K (2009) Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions for sustainable development in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 253-270.

Koo, Y-S, Kim, Y-K (2007) Evaluation and prediction of air pollution potential in Ulsan. Ulsan Regional Environmental Technology Development Center Report. Mamane, Y, Perrino, C, Yossef, O, Catrambone, M (2008) Source characterization of fine and coarse particles at the East Mediterranean coast. Atmospheric Environment 42: 6114-6130.

Moriarty, R, Honnery, D (2008) Mitigating greenhouse: Limited time, limited options. Energy Policy 36: 1251-1256.

Park, H-S, Lee, BK (2007). Review of fuel policies and effective use of fuel and facilities in Ulsan. Report of Sharp Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Shackley, S, Verma, P (2008) Tackling CO2 reduction in India through use of CO2 capture and storage (CCS): Prospects and challenges. Energy Policy 36: 3554-3561. Sovacool, BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy 36: 2950-2963.

Stern, DI (2005). Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere 58: 163-175.

Stern, J (2008) Natural gas in Asia: The challenges of growth in China, India, Japan, and Korea, 2nd ed. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Zhang, ZX (2008) Asian energy and environmental policy: Promoting growth while preserving the environment. Energy Policy 36: 3905-3924.

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment