Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

EPD

Power Plant Emission Figures

Nov 27th, 2007
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

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

LNG Receiving Terminal by Castle Peak Power Company

Jan 22nd, 2007
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

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

Gradual Reduction Approach For Emission Caps

Aug 18th, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Good caps & a good penalty to get the blue sky back

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is going to renew the process license for the Lamma Island power plants of Hongkong Electric Company (HEC) very soon. It will also be the first time for the EPD to include emissions caps for the 3 air pollutants in the license. Greenpeace and Clear The Air urge the EPD to make good use of this renewal process to hold HEC accountable for their major role in Hong Kong’s air pollution, by setting yearly emission caps from now till 2010, and raise the penalty of excess emissions to a level that can deter non-compliance.

HEC is the second largest air polluter in Hong Kong. HEC supplies electricity to only 20% of Hong Kong’s population, but it emits 40% of SO2 in the power sector. (Note: appendix 1) Gloria Chang, Greenpeace campaigner, emphasized that, “It is high time for our government to set more stringent emission caps and raise penalty so as to push HEC to clean up our sky.”

Greenpeace and Clear The Air propose a gradual reduction approach for emission caps. The license for power companies should include a set of yearly emission caps that can ensure a decrease in emissions from now up to 2010. This approach can enable Hong Kong people’s ‘right to know’ the progress of planned reductions, whether the power companies are successfully approaching the overall 2010 reduction target and make sure that power companies cannot delay their actions to reduce emissions at the expense of society.

Furthermore, Greenpeace and Clear The Air demand that the EPD raise the penalty of excessive emissions to a level that is high enough to impact shareholder profits, not only to pressure the power companies to reduce air pollutants at a faster pace, but also to cover the social and health costs brought by air pollution.

Greenpeace and Clear The Air support the financial penalty as proposed in the “Future Development of the Electricity Market in Hong Kong: Stage II Consultation”, in which the permitted rate of return of power companies would be reduced if they fail to meet the statutory emission caps. This measure will be much more effective than the existing penalty as stated in “Air Pollution Control Ordinance” which is [a fixed fine of] HKD 100,000. (Chapter 311, Section 10, Claust 7b)

Also, Greenpeace and Clear The Air suggest that the EPD consider the penalty imposed on power companies under the US government’s “Clean Air Act”, where HEC would be fined US $2,000 per tonne of SO2 emission that exceeds the cap. If we use this level of penalty together with our gradual reduction approach, the penalty of HEC last year is estimated to be HKD 70 million. (Note: Appendix 2). Even this penalty would only amount to less than 2% of the total profit of HEC last year.

From 1997 to 2004, SO2 emissions in Hong Kong did not show the slightest decrease, but actually increased hugely – by 50%. (Note: Appendix 3) Only if the government is taking real action to tighten up the emission caps and penalty of power companies, can we have a chance to get the blue sky back.

Appendix 1: HK air pollutants emissions (1997- 2005) – HEC and CLP
Appendix 2: Gradual reduction approach and penalty
Appendix 3: HK air pollutants reduction progress, impacts of air pollution to health

Cancer Fear in CLP Ash Emissions

Oct 4th, 2005
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Chester Yung – Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Greenpeace charged Monday that CLP Power’s coal-fired power plant in Castle Peak is releasing cancer-causing heavy metals found in fly ash into the atmosphere.
“Two toxic heavy metals-arsenic and mercury – are not on the air pollutants monitoring list under existing Environmental Protection Department’s air quality objectives, which have not been updated in 18 years,” said Greenpeace campaigner Chow Sze-chung, adding that “these elements cannot be eliminated by nature but accumulate in the environment.”

The environmental protest group conceded, however, that CLP’s emissions of heavy metals are lower than those reported for coal fly ash from several other places, including Spain, Greece, Britain and the mainland.

A CLP spokeswoman defended what she called the company’s “comprehensive environmental management and monitoring program” in the production and storage of CLP ash, saying it removes all but a trace of the residues.

Chow urged that CLP stop burning coal altogether and replace it with renewable energy sources.

“Heavy metal causes serious environmental pollution and puts human health at risk,” he said.

Prolonged exposure to arsenic can cause skin and liver cancer, destroy the human vascular system and nervous system. Mercury may accumulate in the body and long-term exposure will destroy the nervous system and kidneys, as well as hurt the development of fetuses.

Chow argued that the Castle Peak plant’s existing control devices are unable to capture the two heavy metals.

“Up to 30 percent of arsenic and 95 percent of mercury can be released to the atmosphere,” Chow claimed.

However, the CLP spokeswoman said “we remove 99.4 percent of the fly ash particles produced in our plant before they get into the air through our electrostatic precipitators.

“We process fly ash in a specially built classification plant to make sure it complies with all the requirements of British Standards, which specifies the chemical and technical properties for the use of fly ash in concrete. We supply fully certified analyses of all our fly ash, meeting the quality requirements of the end users, to verify that it meets this standard.”

On its Web site, CLP said the ash is used in the construction of infrastructure projects, including the Eastern and Western harbor tunnels and the Tsing Ma Bridge. Last year, CLP reported collecting 364 kilotonnes of ash.

The CLP spokeswoman acknowledged that the company sells the ash “at a very low price,” but gave no figures.

“The revenue made from the sale of ash is used to offset operating costs, of which the benefits will be passed on to our customers,” she said.

Greenpeace said it collected six samples of CLP fly ash in the company’s lagoon in Lung Kwu Tan and a cement factory in June and July this year and sent them to the Greenpeace Research Laboratory at the University of Exeter in Britain.

All six samples of coal fly ash, the protest group said, were found to contain heavy metals, while the concentration of these elements – ranging from four to 38 milligrams/kilogram of arsenic and less than 0.1 mg/kg of mercury – were lower than that reported for coal fly ash from the other countries, including European ones, where standards are quite high.

“However, the existence of these toxic elements … to whatever lower level still poses a health hazard to human beings as well as damages the environment,” Chow said.

Based on the amount of ash collected by CLP last year, Greenpeace estimated the plant’s emissions included roughly 36.4kg of mercury and 14,000kg of arsenic.

Chow said Hong Kong does not have a comprehensive monitoring system on air pollutants

“It is outdated and loose compared with international standards,” he said, adding that the European Union and California in the United States have included arsenic in their standards.

An EPD spokeswoman said that major heavy metal pollutants and the relevant operation are regulated by air quality control ordinances and the license requirement.

“The department’s air quality monitoring mechanism managed to control the emission of various heavy metals in a very low level,” she said.

“The limit of arsenic and mercury concentration is 7.11mg/kg and 0.23 mg/kg respectively-which is far below the standard of California in the United States.”

However, Chow said that the EPD still needs to review the existing air quality objectives.

Don’t Let Big Oil Bully You, Hong Kong

Nov 18th, 2004
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Annelise Connell, SCMP – Thursday November 18 2004

As we choke on filthy air, behind the scenes, our government and one of Hong Kong’s oldest families are facing off against the largest oil company in the world, ExxonMobil, and certain large wasteful energy users who do not think that the ‘polluter pays’ principle should apply to them.

The financial plans of the two local power companies, China Light and Power (CLP) and Hong Kong Electric are on the desk of Stephen Ip Shu-kwan, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour. The Environmental Protection Department has been silenced by the simple bureaucratic expediency of not being asked its opinion about the proposals.

Meanwhile, on the board of CLP, representatives of the Kadoorie family who are trying hard to achieve some sustainable development in the market, stare into the face of ExxonMobil executives across the table. The oil company owns the majority 60 per cent stake in the Castle Peak power plant – one of the two largest coal power plants in China. As the rest of the world looks to renewable energy, ExxonMobil’s stated corporate policy is opposed to this. Instead, it favours the same key revenue generator as every oil company in the world – getting consumers to pay for the infrastructure and investment needed to extract, ship, store, burn and transmit electricity from fossil fuels.

In Hong Kong, we have put one of our key engines of the economy into the hands of a multinational corporation. If the corporation is, indeed, the best in the world, then that is a wise decision.

But we have lost our leverage to make it perform in a way that does not destroy the health of the people. ExxonMobil made us believe that it would make steady progress towards the use of cleaner-burning gas, and the company began by getting gas from a pipeline which runs to Hainan Island. But they gambled – and lost – regarding the amount of gas that was available. We have been told that instead of a 20-year supply, there is ‘only’ 10 years’ worth of gas. However, rather than absorbing the shortfall because of the high 15 per cent rate of return they receive from us, they have reduced the amount of gas they use in order to make it last 20 years, and have returned to burning more coal – and creating a lot more pollution.

Meanwhile, the Kadoorie family is trying to establish investment in sustainable development, such as through massive outlays in wind farms in the mainland. ExxonMobil’s global policy is preventing us from breaking free of the chains of coal, oil and gas.

ExxonMobil has been playing this game for too long. With the ‘scheme of control’ under which it operates due for renegotiation in three years, we will not sit by without challenging the company. It should make public its financial plans and justify its suspect position that investment is more important than conservation, especially since investment has failed to deliver, as in the case of the Hainan gas pipeline.

The people have had enough of the pollution. We will no longer allow our health and the health of our children to be held hostage by the world’s largest oil company.

Annelise Connell is vice-chairwoman of Clear the Air

Earth Day 2004

Apr 23rd, 2004
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

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/

Newer Posts →