Coal power air pollution in Europe
Turkey, Ukraine and Western Balkan countries compete for top spot in coal power air pollution in Europe
About
Coal power air pollution statistics highlight contributions from a small number of countries in Europe. Ukraine, Turkey and Western Balkan countries ranked highly across all pollutant types, while EU countries like Germany and Poland are also among the worst for NOx pollution. When coal is burned for generating electricity, pollutants are released into the air which pose a threat to human health, and are responsible for high numbers of premature deaths. With pollutants sometimes travelling thousands of kilometres, air pollution from coal power is a problem for the whole of Europe no matter the source.
Executive summary
Key findings
- Coal power air pollution statistics highlight contributions from a small number of countries in Europe [1]. Turkey and Ukraine rank within the top three polluting countries across all types of air pollution. Western Balkan countries follow them despite their relatively small sizes. EU countries like Germany and Poland are also among the worst for NOx pollution.
- SO2 emissions of the plants in the top ten account for 44% of total SO2 emissions from coal power in Europe. The top ten ranking for SO2 consists of three coal plants each from Turkey and Serbia, two from Bosnia & Herzegovina, and one each from Ukraine and North Macedonia.
- The majority of PM10 pollution from coal power generation originates from plants in Ukraine, which has eight plants in the top ten most polluting plants for PM10.
- A breakdown of NOx pollution highlights Poland and Germany from the EU. Polish Bełchatów is on the top of the list, accompanied by four German plants in the top ten.
- Almost all of the dirty coal power plants in the top thirty are older than 30 years. The only exception is Turkey, which has plants less than ten years old amongst the top 30 polluters.
- Most Energy Community countries did not comply with the national pollutant emissions ceilings in 2019. Ukraine, as being on the top of all polluter lists, interestingly met all emission ceilings for all three pollutants by a large margin.
- Turkey, Ukraine and Western Balkan Countries subsidize their dirty coal power plants directly or implicitly by neglecting emission standards; however, this incentive should be channeled into their abundant renewable energy potential which would replace coal power easily.
The energy sector is a large contributor to air pollution
What types of air pollution does the energy sector produce?
The energy sector is among the main contributors to air pollution. According to OECD Air Emissions Data, 44% of total SO2 and 14% of total NOx emissions originated from the energy sector for the year of 2018. Among member countries of the European Environment Agency (EEA), this is even slightly higher: electricity and heat production is responsible for 54% of SO2 and 16% of NOx emissions, according to data from the EEA.
Across Europe, these pollutants have a huge impact on health and wellbeing. Particulate matter alone caused about 417,000 premature deaths in 41 European countries in 2018, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA). In order to alleviate negative impacts, most countries apply emission limits with varying degrees. The limits are mostly based on emission concentrations of the pollutants in the air, or in the flue gas in case of combustion.
Higher coal generation in a country translates into higher air pollutant emission share for its energy sector, according to EEA data. The EEA dataset contains national emissions reported to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) by 33 member countries. When EEA data is aligned with country level coal generation statistics, the correlation is clear. It is therefore necessary to delve deeper into the coal generation side of air pollution matter for each country to better explore this connection.
Who is behind Europe’s coal power air pollution?
Ukraine, Turkey and Western Balkan countries lead on coal power air pollution
In this chapter:
Ukraine has nine plants in the top thirty ranking for NOx. Among the top thirty, Turkey and Germany have six plants from each, three from Poland, and two each Serbia and Kosovo. Turkey is also represented by its young imported hard coal power plants together with its notorious lignite in the top positions. ZETES III (28th) and ZETES III (32nd) were commissioned in 2016 and 2010 respectively.
Eight power plants from Ukraine exist in all of the top thirty rankings: Kurakhivska, Burshtynska, Trypilska, Luhanska, Vuhlehirska, Slovyanska, Ladyzhynska and Zaporizka. Soma B and Çayırhan from Turkey find a place in all top 30 plant-based pollution rankings, likewise Nikola Tesla A and Nikola Tesla B from Serbia.
Country comparisons
How are countries acting on coal power air pollution?
In this chapter:
Ukraine produces 34% of its electricity consumption from 20 coal power plants built before 1976, none of which have desulphurization equipment other than the second unit of Trypilska (300 MW of 1800-MW power plant) which was installed with FGD as a pilot project in the country.
In Serbia, Nikola Tesla A invested in air pollution filters for all major three pollutants recently. But the largest investment is made in desulphurization, 167 million EUR. The system will be completed in 2022 according to the contract. With this rehabilitation, Serbia expects to extend the plant’s lifetime by another 20 years. The 50-year old plant was in 5th place for SO2, 6th in NOx and 18th in PM10 emissions in 2019.
210 million EUR will be invested in Nikola Tesla B to curb SO2 and PM10 emissions. The asset is in 10th place in SO2, 9th in NOx and 27th place in PM10 ranking. But the installment is expected to be finished in early 2024. Similar plans also exist for Kostolac A, the 15th in SO2 emissions, with initiating feasibility studies in October 2020. The plan is to extend its lifetime to 2038.
That being said, the only completed FGD installment on Kostolac B seemed not to have worked well. Despite the massive 130-million USD investment in 2017, the plant found itself in the 9th position for SO2 pollution in 2019.
Bosnian Ugljevik, which is placed at the 8th in 2019 SO2 ranking above, installed a desulphurization system for 83 million EUR and started the test period at the end of 2019, 11 years after the project was initiated. Problems with the dust filter disabled proper desulphurization in its test period.
In Montenegro, Pljevlja signed a contract to make the pollution-related improvements for 54 million EUR at the end of 2019. It is among the “opt-out” plants which already reached its 20,000 hours exemption limit. Therefore it is not allowed to run unless it complies with emission standards. 2023 is the earliest date the FGD installation could be completed, but it has kept running despite that, causing the Energy Community to launch a dispute settlement procedure. The plant holds the 16th place in SO2 pollution.
North Macedonia is the first country in this group to announce a gradual decommissioning of its thermal power plants in its draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), starting with Oslomej in 2021 and Bitola in 2027. For this reason rehabilitation plans are shelved. In other words, the 2nd most SO2 polluter in Europe will continue polluting for at least six more years.
Kosovo has no plans to improve emissions of its coal plants and no certain plans for coal phase out.
Conclusion
Phasing out air pollution
Air pollutants can travel thousands of kilometers. Hence this is not a national, but a Europe-wide issue. However, there are significant roadblocks to addressing the issue: retrofitting old coal power plants requires costly investments. A study by Energy Community in 2013 estimated the required investments for the existing coal power plants in Energy Community countries to be €7.85 billion in order to comply with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). Further to the necessary investments, costs of €473 million for annual operation and maintenance cost and 1-2% electricity consumption of FGD from total power generation should also be taken into account.
Alternatives to polluting coal power are within sight, however. According to IRENA’s study in the region, Western Balkan countries have 13 GW solar and 45 GW wind cost-competitive potential. Ukraine has enormous solar (55 GW) and wind (319 GW) power potential which could allow for coal phase-out by 2030. Turkey could replace coal power generation just by covering its existing reservoir hydro power plants with floating solar plants. And all of these countries could generate their total energy demand from solar by using less than 5% of their land.
Continuing to use dirty coal power is proving costly. Energy Community countries spent €2 billion between 2015-2019 to subsidize coal power, Turkey guarantees power purchase between 50-55 USD/MWh to support domestic coal power. Instead of wasting money in coal subsidies and costly rehabilitation investments required to comply with emission standards; Ukraine, Turkey and Western Balkan Countries should accelerate the transition to their abundant clean energy alternatives.
Supporting Material
Methodology
Footnotes
1. The analysis covers the EU, the UK, Western Balkan Countries, Turkey and Ukraine.
2. Annual SO2, NOx and PM10 emissions are reported under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) and Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) by European countries at plant level. Turkey is not covered by these directives, but a recent study by HEAL (2021) predicted Turkish coal power plants’ air pollution for 2019.
