User:Tuša89/sandbox: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Expansion == |
== Expansion == |
||
TEP - II is designed to use best available techniques (BAT), which include all the measure for reducing waste gas emissions, including the emissions of SO2, NOx and dust. Because of the higher energy efficiency, CO2 emissions will be lower than in the existing state. There is also the thermal station with maximum power of 75 MWth which will provide thermal energy for district heating center, which will reduce air pollution from individual furnaces. |
|||
The investment is estimated to be 366 million Euros.<ref name="plant" /> There is an ongoing procedure for the selection of a company which will construct it. Of nine companies which submitted preliminary offers, there are now three shortlisted – China's CMEC, Powerchina Hubei Electric Power Survey & Design Institute and Skoda Praha, a CEZ subsidiary from the Czech Republic. |
The investment is estimated to be 366 million Euros.<ref name="plant" /> There is an ongoing procedure for the selection of a company which will construct it. Of nine companies which submitted preliminary offers, there are now three shortlisted – China's CMEC, Powerchina Hubei Electric Power Survey & Design Institute and Skoda Praha, a CEZ subsidiary from the Czech Republic. <ref name="bankwatch">[http://bankwatch.org/bwmail/58/three-companies-shortlisted-montenegro-lignite-plant-pljevlja-needs-clean-not-more-poll Bankwatch. Three companies shortlisted for Montenegro lignite plant - but Pljevlja needs a clean-up, not more pollution (20. 03. 2014).]</ref> |
||
== Controversial aspects == |
== Controversial aspects == |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The production process in a power plant has a negative impact on the [[Natural environment|environment]] in particular on [[air]], [[water]] and [[soil]]. The most worrisome is the impact that the [[power plant]] has on [[air]]. Levels of [[Greenhouse gas|emissions]] of major pollutants, such as [[sulfur dioxide]] (SO2) and [[nitrogen]] (NOx) are above the permitted limit value, while emissions of dust, after replacing electrostatic systems are below the limit allowed. Characteristics of [[waste water]] also do not meet requirements of current water regulation.<ref name="plant" /> |
The production process in a power plant has a negative impact on the [[Natural environment|environment]] in particular on [[air]], [[water]] and [[soil]]. The most worrisome is the impact that the [[power plant]] has on [[air]]. Levels of [[Greenhouse gas|emissions]] of major pollutants, such as [[sulfur dioxide]] (SO2) and [[nitrogen]] (NOx) are above the permitted limit value, while emissions of dust, after replacing electrostatic systems are below the limit allowed. Characteristics of [[waste water]] also do not meet requirements of current water regulation.<ref name="plant" /> |
||
All though new unit would operate with reduced values of major pollutants, The [[University of Stuttgart]], commissioned by [[Greenpeace]], found out that according to the technical parameters given by the [[Government of Montenegro]] and the projected emissions for Pljevlja II, 14.9 premature deaths would be caused annually. That means that 160 years of life would be lost, and 3,371 working days.<ref name="Stuttgart">[ |
All though new unit would operate with reduced values of major pollutants, The [[University of Stuttgart]], commissioned by [[Greenpeace]], found out that according to the technical parameters given by the [[Government of Montenegro]] and the projected emissions for Pljevlja II, 14.9 premature deaths would be caused annually. That means that 160 years of life would be lost, and 3,371 working days.<ref name="Stuttgart">[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2013/coal/StuttgartUni-Coal-Health-Risks-Study.pdf Preiss, Philipp, Joachim Roos and Fridrich Rainer. Estimating Health Risks caused by Emissions of Air Pollutants from Coal Fired Power Plants in Europe - Documentation of Methods and Results. University of Stuttgart, Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, 2013, p. 49.]</ref> |
||
=== Politics === |
=== Politics === |
||
The main critique focuses on the lack of transparency in preparation for the new project. After the completion of the selection process, the Montenegro government plans to make an intergovernmental agreement with the home government of the chosen company, to avoid public tender. Since there are also no clear answers from the officials about the targeted consumer of the produced electricity, financial viability of the project, possible alternatives and about the impact on human health and environment, public is to a large extent left out of consideration.<ref name="bankwatch" /> |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 09:55, 5 June 2014
Pljevlja Power Station situated in Pljevlja at 43°20′2.3″N 19°19′37″E / 43.333972°N 19.32694°E, is the only coal-fired power station in Montenegro. It went into service in 1982 and has a generation capacity of 210 MW. It produces about a third of the state's electricity. The chimney of Pljevlja Power Station is the tallest man-made object in Montenegro and 250 m (820 ft 2+1⁄2 in).
Water for cooling of the power plant is supplied from accumulation Otilovići which is situated on river Ćehotini 8 km from the power plant with which is connected by asphalt road.[1]
Ownership
The power plant is owned by Elektroprivreda Crne Gore. The company is owned by the state of Montenegro (55 %) and Italian company A2A S.P.A. (43,7073 %). The rest of the shares represent private shareholders. [2]
Economic feasibility of the existing unit
Questions have been raised about the economic feasibility of the power station. There is a relatively small remaining service life (it can operate in the existing state for another 10 years) of the existing plant in comparison to high investment costs which vary between 100 and 150 million Euro. If the existing unit should remain to operate, construction of new ash and slag landfills, since the old ones are outdated. There is also a need to reconstruct transport system and the resolution of security problems which includes the stabilization of earth dams. Environmental problems must also be addressed which will entail further costs.[3]
Expansion
TEP - II is designed to use best available techniques (BAT), which include all the measure for reducing waste gas emissions, including the emissions of SO2, NOx and dust. Because of the higher energy efficiency, CO2 emissions will be lower than in the existing state. There is also the thermal station with maximum power of 75 MWth which will provide thermal energy for district heating center, which will reduce air pollution from individual furnaces.
The investment is estimated to be 366 million Euros.[3] There is an ongoing procedure for the selection of a company which will construct it. Of nine companies which submitted preliminary offers, there are now three shortlisted – China's CMEC, Powerchina Hubei Electric Power Survey & Design Institute and Skoda Praha, a CEZ subsidiary from the Czech Republic. [4]
Controversial aspects
Environment
The production process in a power plant has a negative impact on the environment in particular on air, water and soil. The most worrisome is the impact that the power plant has on air. Levels of emissions of major pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen (NOx) are above the permitted limit value, while emissions of dust, after replacing electrostatic systems are below the limit allowed. Characteristics of waste water also do not meet requirements of current water regulation.[3]
All though new unit would operate with reduced values of major pollutants, The University of Stuttgart, commissioned by Greenpeace, found out that according to the technical parameters given by the Government of Montenegro and the projected emissions for Pljevlja II, 14.9 premature deaths would be caused annually. That means that 160 years of life would be lost, and 3,371 working days.[5]
Politics
The main critique focuses on the lack of transparency in preparation for the new project. After the completion of the selection process, the Montenegro government plans to make an intergovernmental agreement with the home government of the chosen company, to avoid public tender. Since there are also no clear answers from the officials about the targeted consumer of the produced electricity, financial viability of the project, possible alternatives and about the impact on human health and environment, public is to a large extent left out of consideration.[4]
References
- ^ Information on Pjevlja power plant on the website of Elektroprivreda Crne Gore.
- ^ Montenegro Stock Exchange webpage.
- ^ a b c Material about Pljevlja II for Government of Montenegro meeting 04.07.2013
- ^ a b Bankwatch. Three companies shortlisted for Montenegro lignite plant - but Pljevlja needs a clean-up, not more pollution (20. 03. 2014).
- ^ Preiss, Philipp, Joachim Roos and Fridrich Rainer. Estimating Health Risks caused by Emissions of Air Pollutants from Coal Fired Power Plants in Europe - Documentation of Methods and Results. University of Stuttgart, Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, 2013, p. 49.