Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

CLP

Green Groups Push For CO2 Caps in Scheme of Control

Nishika Patel

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Six green groups have accused the government of not doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions, saying the new scheme of control will not force power companies into line.

Staging a protest at the Environment Bureau yesterday, members of the alliance urged authorities to cap carbon dioxide emissions for power plants and deduct their profits if the targets are not met.

Greenpeace said CLP Power and Hong Kong Electric are responsible for emitting 70 percent of carbon dioxide in the SAR and are the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions

The groups are angry that the government only regulates emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and respirable suspended particulates, but not the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide .

“While countries around the world are actively fighting global warming, the SAR government simply allows carbon dioxide emissions to damage the climate without regulation. The government should not shirk its responsibility,” Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Frances Yeung Hoi-shan said.

The alliance also wants a new scheme of control to set targets to reduce energy consumption and sanctions imposed if the power firms fail to meet the targets.

“Energy saving is the most cost- effective means to control greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. However, the government has suggested offering incentives to power plants to improve energy saving and demand-side management which, however, are not compulsory and only serve as foil,” Yeung said.

The groups included Friends of the Earth, Greeners Action, Green Sense, WWF Hong Kong and Clear the Air, along with Carbon Dioxide Foundlings.

Power Plant Emission Figures

The following statistics were gatherered from both China Light and Power and HK Electric Holdings in reference to the total electricity sent out and the resulting emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrous Oxides (NOx) and Particulates emitted.

Year 2006

CLP

HK Electric Holdings

Total/Year

Daily Amount

Total Electricity Sent Out 2006 (Gwh)

25,024

12,199

37,223,000 Mwh

101,980.82 MwH

C02 emitted – Kilo Tonnes (Kt)

17,990

9,850

27,840,000 tonnes

76,273.97 tonnes

S02 emitted (Sulphur Dioxide) Kt

36

30

66,000 tonnes

180.82 tonnes

N0x emitted (Nitrous Oxides) Kt

24.5

17.3

41,800 tonnes

114.52 tonnes

Particulates emitted Kt

1.5

1.3

2,800 tonnes

7.67 tonnes

2006 emissions by HK Power plants Source:

https://www.clpgroup.com/SocNEnv/SER/Performance/KeyPerofrmance/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.clpgroup.com/Abt/Res/Pub/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.heh.com/NR/rdonlyres/031CA156-3A44-447D-B598-7866268825F7/0/13InPursuitofExcellence.pdf

The following letter was sent by James Middleton on behalf of Clear The Air Hong Kong, to the Director for Environmental Protection:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a letter in another local English language daily last week ‘Naive view of HK pollution’ by Angela Jackson which refers to the administration chief’s intention to match Hong Kong with London’s and New York’s pollution levels by 2005. For this we must now read ‘2010’.

The Hong Kong Government has frequently stated that most of Hong Kong’s pollution emanates from the Pearl River Delta. I think they have been watching too many ‘Yes Prime Minister’ shows and tried to copy the antics. Strange then that on major chinese public holidays when the factories over the border were shut that Hong Kong was still in pea soup air.

If one follows the weblinks on the two local power company websites to audited emission figures provided by the coal burning local polluters it shows that the two between them emitted 76,576 tonnes of pollutants and greenhouse C02 gas into Hong Kong’s air on average every day of the year in 2006 (yes that is three thousand one hundred and ninety tonnes per hour) – then we have the old diesel buses, trucks and PLB roadside pollution and ship emissions in the harbour on top of this number and that’s before anyone smokes tobacco.

Having raised this with the EPD we received the following reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your messages addressed to this department on 15 and 16 November 2007.

Curbing emissions from power plants is one of the top environmental agenda of the HKSAR Government. Under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, power plants are classified as specified processes requiring licensing control and the use of the most advanced control technology to prevent the emissions and ensure the meeting of the relevant air quality objectives.

Also, from 1997, we have established the policy that all new generating units have to be natural gas-fired plants which emit virtually no sulphur dioxide and particulates, 80% less of nitrogen oxides and about half of the carbon dioxide emissions.

To improve air quality, the Hong Kong SAR Government reached a consensus with the Guangdong Provincial Government in April 2002 to reduce the emission of SO2, NOx, RSP and volatile organic compounds by 40%, 20%, 55% and 55%, respectively by 2010 compared to 1997 levels. Both power companies are required to cap their emissions progressively during their licence renewals to achieve the 2010 emission reduction targets.

Please be assured that the HKSAR will continue its best efforts to ensure the maximum reduction of power companies’ emission for protecting the public from any adverse health effects. On carbon emissions disclosure, you may have noted that the two power companies have provided CO2 emissions data of their power plants in Hong Kong at their corporate websites.

Yours faithfully,

Louis Chan for Director of Environmental Protection

CLP Exxon Mobil Emission Stats

Posted by David Wheeler & Kevin Ummel on the CARMA (Carbon Monitoring For Action) Blog on the 16th of November 2007:

Transparency is central to CARMA’s objective of reducing carbon emissions through public disclosure. So when the CLP Group in China approached us about our figures for their Castle Peak power plant in Hong Kong, we took notice and responded promptly. Indeed, it is CARMA’s policy to replace our data if high-quality, plant-specific, independently verified emission reports are available.

Although not all of CLP’s verified emission reports were plant specific, the company came forward with some previously unavailable data that allowed us to revise our original information for a handful of the company’s plants. In the case of Castle Peak, our original figure was revised downward. In the case of the Yallourn plant, our original estimate was revised upward. The net effect of these changes and others was to adjust CLP Group’s total present emissions from 75.3 million to 67 58.9 million tons. They also pointed out that we had incorrectly included a very small plant in the database that was no longer operational — we have removed it.

We also made adjustments after receiving verified emissions data from two small, related Polish companies (Dalkia Lodz and Dalkia Poznan). The net effect of those changes was to revise their aggregate CO2 emissions from 6 million to 4.5 million tons. We applaud both companies for bringing their independently verified emission reports to our attention, and, in the case of CLP Group, making available information that had not previously been public. We believe they set an excellent example for the rest of the power sector, and we hope more companies open up their plants to independent audits and subsequent posting on CARMA.

Clear The Air also have the figures from CLP Exxon Mobil – 13.3 million tonnes of CO2 are pumped into the air per year in Hong Kong. This is 36,438.36 tonnes of C02 per day / 1,518.26 tonnes per hour / 25.3 tonnes per minute/ or 422 kgs of C02 per second into the HK and adjoining atmosphere.

That’s only tossing 1,401 loaded 40′ x 26 tonne containers of carbon into the air per day or 58.3 per hour, far faster than they can manage in the biggest port in the world.

From their website they also managed in 2006 from Castle Peak alone :

  • 98.63 tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide a day
  • 61.64 tonnes of Nitrous Oxides a day
  • 3.83 tonnes of particulate soot a a day (they do not specify the extremely harmful PM2.5 that our noses cannot filter)

CLP Power Plants in China

Cover-up of pollution in Guizhou [China]

Author: Minnie Chan, South China Morning Post

Dated: 15 Oct 2006

A report issued by the State Environmental Protection Administration (Sepa) following investigations into water pollution in Guizhou, Jilin and Heilongjiang said it found extensive illegal operations in the provinces’ power plants…In Guizhou…, 287 of 8,274 enterprises investigated had been penalised by mid-September…In Liupanshui, one senior official publicly denied the city had a coal-chemical industry or drinking-water problems…Facilities that look complete on the outside are often just facades to fool environmental inspectors, the report said…The report also said three power plants near Liupanshui had not been approved by the National Development and Reform Commission. “The production facility of Anshun Power Plant [in Guizhou] [owned by Guizhou CLP Power, part of CLP Holdings] is critically backwards…Two generators in Qing Township Power Plant [or Qingzhen Power Plant, part of China Huadian] should be shut down according to our country’s policy, but they are still in production…In Jilin province, the Sepa team found local governments below the city level had turned a blind eye to many polluting factories being built on the upper reaches of rivers or drinking-water sources…In Jilin, steel factories refused to upgrade water-treatment facilities and continued to discharge effluent on farmland. The report said waste water discharged from leather, paper and milk industries in Heilongjiang did not meet environmental protection standards.

Folly of the Soko gas plant

Published in the SCMP on the 24th of February 2007:

AIR QUALITY Christian Masset

Folly of the Soko gas plant

Much has been said about the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal proposed for South Soko Island by ExxonMobil and CLP Power. So it is necessary to clarify whether the options being considered will achieve the original purpose – namely, improving our air quality.

CLP Power has said that it was not possible to commit to a clear objective in reducing the burning of coal at the CLP Castle Peak station, even assuming the LNG terminal was in operation. In plain English, this means that ExxonMobil- CLP will offer no guarantee that it will pollute less if the terminal is built.

To reduce coal pollution in our air significantly, we have three options: a very cost-effective one; a bold and highly effective option; and one filled with high risks and uncertainties.

The first involves no additional costs for the Hong Kong electricity user. It has three steps: first, complete as soon as possible the installation of flue gas desulfurisation systems on all coal-fired turbines in Hong Kong operated by our electricity suppliers. This will reduce sulfur dioxide pollution, a major cause of poor visibility, by over 95 per cent.

Both CLP Power and Hongkong Electric say these are highly expensive investments, but they can afford them thanks to their massive earnings under the scheme of control.

The second step is to limit CLP Power’s electricity sales to Guangdong. They have increased from 600 units in 1997 to 4,500 units in 2005. Those exports account for about 18 per cent of total sales yet produce over 40 per cent of coal related pollution from power generation, since that electricity is produced in the highly coal-reliant Castle Peak plant.

The third step is to finalise and implement as soon as possible the emissions tabletrading framework on thermal plants reached last month by the Hong Kong government and authorities from the Pearl River Delta.

The second option – the bold and highly effective one – would be to accompany the above measures with a comprehensive energy-saving policy. Then, to have energy savings translate into less air pollution and stable prices, we need to revise or adapt radically the scheme of control. Bear in mind that, in its present form, the scheme defeats all effective and standard demand-side energy saving policies.

Prolonging the scheme of control in its present form encourages two major flaws. One, individual users who reduce their power consumption are likely to be charged at a higher rate, since utilities are unlikely to seek more revenue from corporate clients. Two, it leads to everhigher and unnecessary investments paid for by Hong Kong citizens, the overconsumption of electricity and projects that are impossible to justify – such as the Soko LNG terminal.

The third option is the proposed LNG terminal. We won’t even consider, here, the environmental degradation that the plant would cause, on land and in the sea. But the project offers no guarantee of better air quality, or stability in electricity costs to the users, corporate or individuals.

LNG shipments in Asia are currently about 50 per cent more expensive than the gas piped into Hong Kong from the Yacheng field on Hainan Island. And surging global demand for LNG will inevitably cause a price increase on the world market. So, we can expect the cost of electricity to go up.

For these reasons, the Soko LNG project doesn’t meet any of the promises offered: it doesn’t guarantee clean air or stable energy costs, and it encourages an unhealthy dependence on a single, vertically integrated foreign corporation able to influence the supply of raw material, and the production, transmission and distribution of electricity.

A sustainable energy policy for Hong Kong has to break the duopoly of Exxon-Mobil-CLP and Hongkong Electric. Deregulation in energy, similar to that in the telecommunications sector, has to happen as soon as possible. That would encourage the offering of cleaner energy, cost-effective energy distribution and price competition – from a range of reliable and innovative sources.

In this way, Hong Kong can achieve the goal of a return to the blue skies that all its residents yearn for – and which the administration has repeatedly promised.

Christian Masset is the immediate past chairman of Clear The Air

LNG Receiving Terminal by Castle Peak Power Company

Date: 22 January 2007

To : Environmental Protection Department

Re: Environmental Impact Assessment under Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005 for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal by Castle Peak Power Company

Clear The Air Response to EIA based on objectives of the study brief

1. Proposed capacity

“The objectives of the EIA study are as follows:

(ii) to provide information on the intended uses of the LNG and justify the proposed capacity of the facilities;”

Clear The Air

Clear The Air submit that there is no justification for the proposed capacity. Below is a graph of the “fuel mix” as used by CLP in 2004 and a proposed “fuel mix” by Clear The Air for 2013. The need for proposed LNG capacity can be eliminated because the existing gas supply can be extended by the fuel mix below which will also significantly reduce air pollution.

CLP Power can:

a. Eliminate electricity sales to China
b. Eliminate the 50% discount for large users to encourage less energy use
c. Start practicing proper demand management to reduce energy use by 30% using techniques that have been successful in Thailand, South Korea and the US.
c. Invest in renewable energy through
– large scale renewable energy projects
– small scale electricity generation reducing the total annual need for natural gas

Fuel Mix Used by CLP in 2004 and proposed fuel mix by Clear The Air for 2013

2. LNG carrier route

(iv) “to identify and describe the elements of the community and environment to be affected by the Project, including any loss of natural coastline, rocky or sandy shore, the population close to the LNG carrier route, and/or to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;”

Clear The Air:

CLP Power provided an incorrect carrier route. LNG ships going to and from the Black Point site can use existing shipping lanes and the Tong Gu Channel (under construction) If this Channel is extended into Hong Kong waters, as was originally proposed, the route would not be close to any population centres.

3. Alternatives

(v) “to consider alternatives including, but not limited to, location, size of reclamation, scale of development, design layout, with a view to avoiding and minimizing the potential environmental impacts on marine waters and the ecological sensitivity areas and other sensitive uses; to compare the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each of the different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part of environmental factors played in the selection;

Clear The Air

Clear The Air submit the following alternatives that are not included in the EIA:

  • Extend the existing contract with the Chinese company CNOOC so they can drill new gas wells to provide methane beyond the current contract period. CNOOC has indicated in the press that they are willing to do so.
  • Pursue the energy demand reduction plan shown above.
  • On-board Re-Gasification of LNG instead of terminals – a more flexible and significantly less destructive technology than building terminals.
  • Invest in proven “clean coal” technology
  • Use the Chinese company SINOPEC as a methane supplier as they have shown interest in supplying Hong Kong from an LNG facility they are planning to build on Huangmao Island.

4. Options
(xiv) to compare the environmental merits and demerits of the Soko and/or Black Point Option with other options;

Clear The Air

The merits and demerits of the Black Point Option should have included extending the dredging of the Tong Gu channel in Hong Kong waters so that LNG ships can get to and from Black Point

Clear The Air note that In May 2003, the EPD issued a study brief for the Shenzhen Port Tonggu Channel Developing Office so that they could write an EIA. In March 2005, The Director of the EPD ruled that the EIA submitted for the Tong Gu Channel section in Hong Kong waters did not meet the study brief requirements. In June 2005, just three months later, the study brief for the LNG terminal was released.

With the full knowledge, therefore, of the issues regarding dredging near Black Point, we believe that the EPD is aware that extending the dredging of the Tong Gu channel is an alternative and therefore, we are surprised that this EIA has not been rejected by the EPD as also not meeting its study brief requirements.

5. Methane (LNG) global environmental damage

(vi) to identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
(xi) to identify the risk due to the transportation and storage of LNG and to propose measures to mitigate the impact;
(xii) to identify the risk to environmental sensitive receivers, including the marine and terrestrial habitats, due to LNG leakage and the consequential fire hazard and to propose measures to minimize the potential risk;

Clear The Air

As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, China (and therefore Hong Kong) is responsible for measuring the entire global impact of shipping and using methane (LNG) one of the six greenhouse gases addressed by the treaty. Methane that is lost through the original liquefaction process, evaporation during transhipment from the host country and transfer to the LNG facility, and loss during re-gasification should be included in the EIA. Since the origin of the LNG is unknown, a range of figures need to be supplied given the best and worst scenarios available today.

Furthermore, since many countries shipping methane are in or near areas of civil unrest, the impact to the environment if the LNG supplies should not arrive because of political reasons – compared to sourcing methane from China, should be included.

End of submission

Hongkong Electric – twice as polluting as CLP

Press Release

1 June, 2006

Hongkong Electric – twice as polluting as CLP (per kWh) making 4 times the profit

We need a level playing field instead of special treatment for Cheung Kong

Hongkong Electric is the dirtiest, most polluting, most inefficient, most expensive, most profit gouging power company in Hong Kong. The process license for the Lamma Island plant is due for renewal in 2006 – and it needs to be looked at in comparison to

Hongkong Electric compared to CLP/CAPCO (ExxonMobil) coal power installation:

  1. Charges the public 30% more per kWh ($1.15 vs $0.88)
  2. Generates over twice the pollution per kWh as CLP (see graph) *Note 1
  3. Makes Four times the profit per kWh ($0.57 vs $0.14) **Note 2

2003 Pollution from Power Plants

Data sources:

www.clpgroup.com/clp/Abt/Res/Pub/FinancialReport2005.htm?lang=en

http://www.hec.com.hk/hehWeb/InvestorRelations/FinancialReports/AnnualReports/AnnualReport2005_en.htm

Sources:

CLP Scheme of Control Statement 2005
CLP Ten-year Summary: CLP Group Financial & Operating Statistics
CLP Ten-year Summary: Scheme of Control Financial & Operating Statistics
HEC Ten-Year Scheme of Control Statement
HEC Ten-Year Balance Sheet
HEC Ten-Year Operating Statistics

*Note 1:

Year 2003 CLP/CAPCO HKE
SO2 51059 32765
NOx 28202 17018
RSP 16970 16860

**Note 2:
Year Net return (HK$ m) Electricity sent out (kWh)
CAPCO HEC CAPCO HEC
2005 3,542 6,134 24,877 10,755

Demand management

The proposed measures in the renewal of the HEC process license, due in September 2006, are not enough. We need to know – real time – when the dirtiest turbines are going to be turned on so that we, the public, can take action to reduce our peak demand and the pollution.

Organizations like the Hospital Authority should be given the financial incentives needed to reduce energy at the time it will cause the most pollution. Then they save money and reduce pollution. e.g. High peak – three times the price, Normal peak – current price, Low – half price.

Turbine graph

Turbines turned on based on demand Hong Electric allowed pollution by turbine - 2004

Summary:

1. HEC is so much worse than CLP that its emissions caps should be much tighter than CLP/CAPCO to renewal their process license.

2. HEC must show us the daily usage demand figures so we can “shave the peak” and use less power – and save the most money – when HEC uses its most polluting turbines.

3. We should profit from reducing our demand based on the pollution we prevent – we demand that HEC offer “demand pricing”.

International Convention On Toxin Control

Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Toxin controls pose fresh challenge to power firms

CHEUNG CHI-FAI

The environment watchdog is poised for another head-on clash with power suppliers as it proposes phasing out old coal-fired generation units to meet an international convention on toxin control.

The plan aims to fulfil the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants that bans or limits the production and release of 12 toxins, including pesticides and dioxin.

Hong Kong has to submit its implementation plan on the curbs this year via Beijing, a signatory to the convention.

The proposed move comes at a sensitive time as CLP Power is locking horns with the government over plans to reform the electricity market and associated environmental requirements.

At the core of the potential new row is the release and production of cancer-causing dioxins and furans – two by-products emitted into the air and left in the ashes from burning coal.

It is estimated that the power companies could have contributed 26 per cent of the dioxin and furans produced in 2003, following metal production (39 per cent) and land-filling (28 per cent).

In the draft plan, the government says it may propose phasing out old coal-fired generation units and replacing them with gas-fired units within 10 years of the policy being implemented.

Although the plan said switching to gas could reduce dioxin emissions by up to 95 per cent, it also acknowledged that a full-scale switch had to take into account energy policy, economic considerations and the city’s electricity needs.

The proposal is understood to be a “committed direction” of the government, although there is no clear timetable.

It also proposes as a “priority task” an investigation of the dioxin and furans content in coal-burning residues and recycled products containing the residues. Ash products – mixed with concrete or bricks – are widely used in construction projects.

Ash is being stored in ash lagoons in Tuen Mun and on Lamma Island operated by the two power suppliers. But the one in Tuen Mun might need to be moved because the government wants to use the site for landfill expansion.

Friends of the Earth environmental affairs manager Hahn Chu Hon-keung supported a review of the heavy reliance on coal.

“The dioxin emission from coal burning is one of the neglected areas in the electricity market reform and now it is time to deal with it. There is no excuse for the power companies to evade it,” he said.

Mr Chu said he was worried that few studies had been done on ash products, and feared that dioxin residues could be released back into the environment when structures or roads were demolished.

CLP Power said it was studying the implications of the convention.

Hongkong Electric said: “Dioxin emission in coal-fired generation process is negligible due to its high boiler combustion temperature.”

Earth Day 2004

Earth Day 2004

South China Morning Post Editorial
Friday April 23 2004

Facts on pollution must get public airing

Earth Day brought distressing news about the quality of the air we breathe…

Then there was the revelation by our largest power producer, CLP Power, that emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide particles have increased dramatically over the past year – thanks in large part to soaring demand from Guangdong and increasingly heavy reliance on coal.

The CLP report raises different issues, some of which are best addressed on a region-wide basis. Demand from factories on the mainland soared last year. Coupled with restricted supplies of gas, this meant a heavy reliance on coal and increased pollution. CLP hints at continued reliance on coal in the immediate future and plans to install equipment for filtering the rising level of pollution.

See the full post on our Clear The Air News Blog here: http://news.cleartheair.org.hk/2004/04/23/earth-day-2004/

Order for Coal-Fired Power Plant

Order for Coal-Fired Power Plant from BLCP Power of Thailand

Tokyo, September 19, 2003 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), jointly with Mitsubishi Corporation, has been formally awarded a contract by BLCP Power Limited of Thailand for construction of a 1,434 MW (megawatt) coal-fired power plant. All conditions for implementing this contract, including project finance closure, have been totally completed.

BLCP Power is an independent power producer (IPP) jointly owned by Banpu Power Limited and CLP Power Asia Limited. Banpu Power is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banpu Public Company Limited, Thailand’s largest coal supplier. CLP Power Asia is a wholly owned subsidiary of CLP Holdings Limited, one of the largest investor-owned power businesses in Asia.

The newly ordered plant will consist of two subcritical pressure boilers and two 717 MW steam turbines, all to be manufactured by MHI. Subcritical pressure boilers are engineered to operate at or below the critical pressure level. With a total generation capacity of 1,434 MW, the plant will be constructed in the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate in Rayong Province, approximately 200 kilometers south of Bangkok. The No.1 unit is planned to start operation in October 2006, and the No.2 unit in February 2007.

In Thailand, leading ASEAN economic development, demand for electric power has been increasing rapidly in line with its economic growth, and the plant is planned to respond the base demand. All electric power to be generated at the new plant of BLCP Power will be sold to EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand) and supplied to Bangkok.

Thailand, natural gas producing country, is heavily depending on it as fuel. About 80% of the electricity is produced by firing natural gas. Construction of the new big coal-fired power plant particularly corresponds with Thai government’s initiative to diversify fuel sources for power generation, and will be one of the largest modern coal-fired power generation facilities in Thailand when completed.

MHI, with Mitsubishi Corporation, has previously delivered a number of large-scale power plants to EGAT, including Rachaburi gas/oil fired power plant, Nong Chok and Sai Noi gas turbine power plants and Wang Noi gas turbine combined-cycle power plant. With those plenty experience and high appreciation of the customers in the country, MHI now has established another new record in Thailand’s IPP sector, which will be a major driver of the power generation industry in the country.