Patrick Kallas - The Zouk Power Plant-Health Impacts and a Feasibility Study of Solutions-August-2010/Lebanon/Electricity

Patrick El Kallas Page 1 of 30

Patrick El Kallas

MSc in Pure and Applied Physics

MSc in Energy – Heriot Watt university

Title:

The Zouk Power Plant: Health Impacts & A Feasability

Study of Solutions

Author: Patrick El Kallas

Date August, 2010


Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………..3

Introduction……………………………………………………………..5

Methodology…………………………………………………………….10

Results……………………………………………………………………12

Discussion……………………………………………………………….15

1-CarbonCapture and Storage (CCS)……………………………………16

2-Rehabilitation of the Zouk Plant…….…………………………………19

3-Natural Gas………………………………………………………………20

4-Solar Water Heating (SWH)…………………………………..………..22

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….24

References……………………………………………………………....26

Appendix A……………………………………………………………....29


ABSTRACT The Zouk plant is a thermal electricity generation plant in the middle of a populated residential and commercial area in Lebanon. It is purely responsible to the "Electricite Du Liban" (EDL), which is 100% owned by the government, and is realistically the official provider of electricity in Lebanon. Thermoelectric power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. While most new power plants in both developed and less-developed countries have some modern pollution controls, in Lebanon, air pollution controls in plants are poorly applied. Air pollution from thermal power plants is associated with health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases. In this study, a survey covering rates of pulmonary diseases (asthma, emphysema and lung cancer) was collected from 500 households within 3km of the Zouk plant (study area) and 500 households within 15 to 20 km from the plant (control area). Results indicate that incidence of all 3 diseases was higher in the study area. Emissions from the Zouk plant are negatively impacting the health of the neighboring population. Four possible solutions are discussed: carbon separation and capture, rehabilitation, natural gas, and solar water heating technology. All four solutions were found to be feasible. They would all result in reduced emissions, and thus a reduced impact on the environment, without negatively affecting plant efficiency. The economic feasibility of the solutions increases if used together. For example, the economic feasibility of carbon capture technology is greatly enhanced if plant rehabilitation results in reduced technical losses. In addition, alternative sources of energy (natural gas, solar) help to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Greater awareness of health impacts from thermoelectric power plants is needed to assure that energy policy decisions take these external costs into account and prioritize human health. According to the European EIA (Environmental Impact Assesment) legislation, thermal power plants are one of the projects that are subject to a mandatory EIA. It is noteworthy that cleaner energy policy in Lebanon will likely result in increased foreign grants to the country. More thorough energy generation would be likely to support clean technologies and make other alternative sources of energy more cost-effective in the long run. The paper shows that implementing solutions at the Zouk plant is a necessity not only for environmental and health reasons, but also to meet the increasing energy demands of the country that the current energy status quo is unable to fulfill.


The Zouk Power Plant


INTRODUCTION Zouk, Lebanon’s largest thermoelectric power plant, has become problematic as it is located in the heart of a populated residential area. Environmental pollution from the power plant is of serious concern. Lebanon, a small country in the Middle East with no natural fuel resources, must import almost all its fuel requirements. These include fuel oil, diesel oil and natural gas (to be used in the future). The Zouk plant runs on fuel oil. The electric power supply in Lebanon is a State monopoly by law. The Zouk plant is directed by "Electricite Du Liban" (EDL), which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Hydraulic and Electric Resources. In addition, "Electricite Du Liban" (EDL) is the sole official provider of electricity in Lebanon and is 100% government-owned. The electricity supply in Lebanon is highly unreliable, with frequent and lengthy power cuts being the daily norm. In fact, EDL is only able to provide around 60% [1] of the total electricity required; with the remaining 40% coming from backup generation. Following 17 years of civil war, the power sector in Lebanon is in need of a major rehabilitation program, with the aim of improving the quality of the power supply, increasing the efficiency of current power plants and reducing harmful gas emissions. The energy sector in Lebanon was found to contribute 85% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 96% of all sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the country [2]. The Zouk power plant is a major cause of environmental impacts, as it is known that thermoelectric power plants pose a serious problem for the environment, which is the dispersal of ashes from their dumps. In addition, the main emissions at thermal power plants are (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NO), sulfur oxides (SO), and so on… These emissions are known to be the culprit in heating up the atmosphere and resulting in the current environmental crisis known as global warming. The consumption of electricity is not harmful to the environment per se, but the production of this electric energy is a big problem for almost every country in the world due to harmful gases emitted by the power plants and their environmental impact on people. For example, a study done on the environmental and health impact of the “Sostanj”, which is one of the biggest thermal power plants in Slovenia, located in the bottom of “Saleska” valley, has shown that this power plant has very negative influences on the environment and human health such as damaging forests and contaminated


water, in addition to huge emissions in the air leading to harmful and serious diseases in the neighboring population [3]. Ash and slag dumps of thermoelectric power plants should be regularly addressed by biological recultivation. Thus, experts everywhere are investigating new methods for use in the process of recultivation. In Serbia, for example, the use of “Bermuda Grass” (cynodon dactylon) on ash and slug dumps of thermoelectric power plants has become a necessity. Selecting plant species that can develop a cover to prevent erosion on ash and slag dumps is a necessity imposed by ash itself, as it is a substance that is sterile, high in content of phytotoxic elements (toxic to vegetation) and deficient in nitrogen [4]. However, both extreme temperature and humidity conditions that prevail on ash and slag dumps make the formation of good biological cover limited. Ashes arising from combustions have specific weight lower than that of natural soil, and are subjects to various erosive influences [5]. The shape of ash particles is spherical, and these particles have also very pronounced angles that might damage the root system of plants. Ashes fluctuate in the range of 10.5-10.6 m/sec [5], which puts them in the category of substances with very high water permeability. Many chemical substances contribute to the formation of ash relegated to dumps such as aluminum and silicon oxides in addition to oxides of iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and titanium. Also, although at relatively lower concentrations, there are certain radioactive elements in coal, underground water, ash, and plant cultures. Only unburned pieces of coal present some organic substances. However, there are enormous ecological problems caused by ash dumping, making the need to find new methods to reduce these negative environmental influences more pressing, as existing methods are not sufficiently effective at providing protection from ash dispersal. Moreover, current methods of biological recultivation are limited to the summer season. It is, therefore, impossible to recommend a method with fast results, which makes the issue of ash dumped from thermoelectric power plants more serious. Fine particles in the atmosphere such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) are formed through chemical reactions in thermal power plants, where the energy production is taking place. Also, these plants directly emit particle matter (PM) as well as gases that undergo chemical reactions forming the fine particles stated above. SO2, NOX and PM emitted in the sky affect the concentration of PM by increasing its ambient concentration less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). An increased mortality from cardiopulmonary diseases, lung cancer [6] and numerous other respiratory illnesses and associated morbidity [7] has been consistently linked with the exposure to


PM2.5. Some modern pollution controls, such as electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have been used in both developed and less-developed countries. The use of flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) can also be used, which can reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 89% when it is applied on plants and can lead to substantial human health risk reductions. However, FGD currently takes place only in developed countries. A study done on the health impacts of internationally-financed coal-fired power plants has estimated deaths due to heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer attributable to these plants to reach 6000 to 10,700 annually [8]. However, the deaths estimated in this study represent only a portion of a larger overall health burden related to air pollution from these power plants. In addition, air pollution from these types of power plants is associated with infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases [8]. More specifically 300 to 700 deaths were caused from lung cancer and a range of 5700 to 10000 deaths from cardiopulmonary causes [8]. These estimates include health effects occurring inside of a 1000 km radius of these plants [9]. The use of FGD lead to reductions in disease burdens and lead to a mortality differential of around 4600 deaths annually [8] which shows the effectiveness of FGD for reductions in disease burdens. In addition, the cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths associated with these power plants were in the thousands where FGD technologies were in fact absent from plants. Therefore, the use of air pollution controls in power plants is important in order to drop the mortality caused by the pollutants emitted from these plants, otherwise these power plants contribute significantly to the burden of death and disease in the areas in which they are located. Thermal power plants in India are also facing problems concerning gaseous emissions, particle matter, fly ash and other trace atmospheric gases due to the use of poor quality of coal, which adds to environmental impacts and many hazardous diseases like Asthma, Tuberculosis, and so on… Thus, the air quality is affected since many pollutants are in the sky such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO2) and Ozone (O3), also known phytotoxic elements or phytotoxicants. In addition, India’s population, second in the world, has grown progressively from 300 million in 1947 to more than a billion today [10], which affects the lifestyle, and accelerates the energy demand and the energy consumption as well. As expected, per capita usage of energy in India will increase to almost 40 million BTU (British thermal unit) by the year 2010 [10]. The unhealthy increase of the population, in addition to the use of fossil fuels and the limited use of


natural gas in most energy activities are increasing emissions, thus leading India to negative environmental and health impacts. India’s thermal power plants, such as “Chandrapur” thermal power plant run on coal. A comparison has been done between Chandrapur and “Ohio” a thermal power plant located in the US and the results have shown that the calorific value of Chandrapur coal is only half of that of Ohio coal due to the poor quality of Indian coal [10] and its high ash content (35-50%). Thermal power plants in India generate almost 80% of total generated power for the nation [10]. These plants use diesel oil, as does the Zouk plant in Lebanon. They also use furnace oil, which results in lower emissions. The use of diesel oil has increased by 7.54% in India [10]. However, in addition to the main emissions (CO, NO, SO, etc…) from thermal power plants, there are some inorganic particles such as fly ash, soot (black carbon) and other trace gas species, which are responsible for atmospheric acidity, heating up the atmosphere and producing harmful health impacts. The most important gas emitted by the thermal plants is Nitric Oxide (NO), since the formation of photochemical smog is a result of this gas. In addition, this gas contributes to the acidity in the atmosphere as well as to the formation of tropospheric ozone, which is one of the main causes for global warming. However, population exposure to these polluting gases over the entire Indian region needs to be studied. Furthermore, analyses of energy activities in India, such as emissions and pollutants will help in decreasing the impact of these emissions on human and plant health, and on the environment. In Mexico, emissions from power plants and air pollution are major causes of environmental impacts. High Sulfur fuel oil is burned to generate electricity in one of the largest power plants in Mexico, “Tuxpan” [11]. An estimation of the health impacts due to air pollution from Tuxpan has found that emissions from this power plant reach annual average concentrations of 0.12 µg m−3 for Sulfates PM2.5, 0.64 µg m−3 for Nitrates PM2.5 and 3.09 µg m−3 for SO2 within a 120 km radius of the plant [11]. These concentrations are dangerous and could result in environmental and health impacts for the local population. Therefore, such issues have to be considered while analyzing different electricity generation methods, and air pollution control technologies must be used in such areas. In addition to Nitric Oxide, Mercury is found to result from various human activities, such as thermoelectric power plants, and electronic industries. Being discharged into rivers and oceans, it enters the food chain since it is


turned into an organic compound (methylmercury), and is then submitted to biomagnification where concentrations are observed at the top of the food chain, which comprises fish, which are eaten by humans [12]. Furthermore, methylmercury is toxic to the developing brain. Studies with children exposed to organic mercury showed multiple effects on intelligence and poor performance in attention, speech and memory [13]. Moreover, the occurrence of some diseases has increased in the last decades, specifically in industrial regions and big cities (e.g.: Beirut, and Zouk in Lebanon). In the external environment of these cities, the major triggers of acute Asthma attacks are produced by ozone (O3) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which are mainly produced by thermoelectric power plants and industries, etc… These chemical agents add up to external biological factors (allergens), affecting mainly populations living under poor housing conditions [14]. Furthermore, in the United States, Asthma incidence among children aged less than 18 years increased more than twice in areas close to industries and power plants where O3 and SO2 are produced [15]. However, in studying and analyzing the future energy supply, possible health hazards are mainly discussed in nuclear power plants, whereas less attention is paid to the health impacts of thermoelectric power plants. Realistically, the risk of cancer among workers in thermoelectric power plants has increased in the last decades [16], which calls for additional studies of power plant workers, and takes into consideration that electromagnetic fields, could have some environmental and health impacts [17]. In addition to electromagnetic fields, some chemical pollutants such as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), are generated from thermoelectric plants. They also have health impacts on the population since they enter through the food chain, specifically in aquatic species [18]. They also affect people through ongoing environmental exposure by inhaling polluted air. The two main thermoelectric power plants in Lebanon, Zouk and Jieh, release good quantities of PCBs (PCB-oil) into the environment. This will affect the neighboring population exposed to some of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and may result in serious health impacts (e.g.: skin irritation, respiratory effects, fatigue, blurred vision, headaches, and dizziness) [18]. Furthermore, ominous brown smog can be seen over the capital and around the Zouk plant. This is uncontrolled and is on the rise due to the limited permanent measurements of pollutants’ concentrations in the air and because of the lack of statistics. In Lebanon, near these two power plants, the quality of the air is extremely polluted due to the use of poor quality fuel that is


extremely rich in sulfur. The Lebanese government has enacted a law regarding the use of better quality fuel with less sulfur [19]. However, importing this fuel and making it available to power plants has not come about due to political red tape as well as poor coordination between the public and private fuel sectors. Thus, Electricite Du Liban (EDL) is unable to implement this decision, and continues to use fuel that does not comply with the standards set by the government [19] in order to avoid plunging Lebanon into darkness. This study aims to provide data on the health impacts of the Zouk plant and to provide a detailed study of possible solutions to the problem. These solutions will be discussed in terms of their environmental benefits, technical knowhow, economic feasibility and legislative issues involved. It is hoped that empirical and scientific data on the connection between Lebanon’s Zouk plant and the negative impact on its populations health and wellbeing might put added pressure on concerned private and public entities to create appropriate legislation regarding environmental safeguards, as well as to put these into effect on the ground.


METHODOLOGY A questionnaire, consisting of 12 yes/no items was created to cover the main pulmonary diseases associated with air pollution, namely lung cancer, asthma, and emphysema (see Appendix A for sample questionnaire). A question was included addressing the presence of anyone in the household who smokes. The study area was deemed to include households within a 3 km radius of the Zouk power plant, while the control area fell between a 15-20 km radius of the plant. It is important to note that initially, control data was to be collected from national illness incidence rates from the Ministry of Health (MoH). This was not possible, as there is no database covering specific rates of disease. Thus, it was decided that the control data would have to be collected from an area sufficiently removed from direct pollution by the plant. 500 questionnaires were collected from each of the study and control areas. Selection of households was random, with about 25% of households refusing to participate in the study. Once completed, numbers of respondents who had answered yes to items were tallied and the results were demonstrated in graphs including both numbers and percentages. A full statistical analysis of the results was not done, as the main objective of the study was to show that disease incidence is higher in areas proximal to the Zouk plant, and to focus on practical and technical solutions for this problem. It is also noteworthy that the attempt to control for smoking was not feasible as nearly all households/individuals in households were exposed to smoking on a regular basis.

RESULTS Results indicate that respondents from the study area suffer from all three diseases (asthma, lung cancer and emphysema) to a significantly greater degree than respondents from the control area. In addition, residents of the Zouk area also suffer to a greater degree from other pulmonary diseases (26.60% versus 12.40% from the control area), and other medical problems such as cancers, skin infections, headache, dry cough, allergies, and so on. Table.1 shows the percentage of yes responses to the questionnaire items in the Zouk and control areas.


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

Zouk Area Control Area Yes 148.00 59.00 No 352.00 441.00

Households

Item % In Zouk area % In Control area Respondent with asthma history 40.60 15.40 Asthma attack in last 12 months 27.40 9.40 On asthma medication 36.40 12.60 Respondent with allergies 40.80 21.40 Other medical problems 34.60 14.80 Someone in household with asthma 29.60 11.80 Someone in household with history of lung cancer

35.40 17.40

Someone in household passed away from lung cancer

33.00 12.80

Someone in household with emphysema

26.20 15.40

Someone in household with other pulmonary disease

26.60 12.40

Table.1

Figure.1 shows the rate of asthma incidence in both the study and control areas.

Figure.1 Asthma Incidence

When asked whether anyone in the household has been diagnosed with asthma (item 7 in the questionnaire), 29.60% of respondents residing in the Zouk area responded yes, compared with only 11.80% in the control area. Residents of the Zouk area are also more likely to be on medications for asthma, to have had an asthma attack in the last 12 months, and to suffer from allergies.


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00


Households

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00


Households

Figure.2 shows the rate of lung cancer incidence in both study and control areas.

Figure.2 Lung Cancer Incidence

When asked whether anyone in the household had ever been diagnosed with lung cancer (item 9 on the questionnaire), 35% residing in the Zouk area responded positively, compared with only 17.40% from the control area. In addition, residents of the Zouk area were almost 3 times as likely to have passed away as a result of lung cancer. Figure.3 shows the rate of emphysema incidence in both the Zouk and control areas.

Figure.3 Emphysema Incidence


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00


Households

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00


Households

When asked whether anyone in the household suffers from emphysema (item 11 on the questionnaire), 34% of respondents from the Zouk area answered yes, compared with only 11.80% from the control area. Figure.4 shows the rate of other medical problems.

Figure.4 Other Medical Problems

In response to item 6 on the questionnaire, 34.60% of respondents in the Zouk area reported that at least one person in the household had suffered from other medical problems, including cancers, skin infections, dry cough, allergies, and headaches. 14.80% of households in the control area reported similar problems. Figure 5 shows the rate of other pulmonary diseases in both the study and control areas.

Figure.5 Other Pulmonary Diseases


In response to item 12 on the questionnaire, 26.60% of respondents in the Zouk area reported that someone in the household had suffered from other pulmonary problems, while only 12.40% of respondents from the control area reported similar problems. Overall, residents from the Zouk area were 2-3 times more likely to report both pulmonary and other medical problems than residents outside the Zouk area.


DISCUSSION As the results show, the Zouk plant is affecting the health of the neighboring population by polluting the environment. Harmful gases emitted in the atmosphere from this plant are likely to increase annually due to the growing energy demand. There are a lot of possible methods that could minimize the impact of the Zouk power plant on both the environment and the population. Taking into consideration the financial situation of the Lebanese government (public dept is about US$40 billion), many such solutions are likely to become limited. For example, relocating the Zouk plant is not a viable option due to unavailability of alternative areas and to cost. Thus, the government needs to use new and cost-effective techniques while also enhancing the capacity of the electricity generated to meet the ever-increasing demand. At the beginning of 2007, a power supply capacity of 2,100 MW was installed by EDL, of which 1,900 MW consisted of thermal power plant capacity [1]. However, the peak demand for electricity in 2006 had already reached approximately 2600 MW [20]. Due to several events, the available supply has been reduced in the past two years. The capacity of the Zouk plant is currently around 650 MW of which 465 MW are available [1]. The plant consists of four units that operate all the time with low fuel efficiency covering at best 60% of peak demand for electricity in the area. In addition, both technical and non-technical losses are high causing significant increases in cost since the plant is already operating at peak load without meeting the demand required. Therefore, in order to meet electricity demands and to reduce harmful emissions, several actions must be taken, such as reduction in technical losses and rehabilitation of the plant, in addition to substitution of fuel through the use of natural gas. Furthermore, the fuel oil used in the plant known as “RFO 6”, is one of the most polluting petroleum by-products since it is highly concentrated in sulfur in order to enhance its combustion. Therefore, since filtration techniques are still missing, a revision of the fuel specifications must be conducted. Since the energy sector in Lebanon contributes 85% of all CO2 emissions in the country [2], and yet no resources can substitute fossil fuels while increasing efficiency of power plants, then there must be a reduction in CO2 emissions without decreasing the efficiency of the system. There are currently a lot of methods leading to reductions in CO2 emissions, such as renewable energy technologies e.g. wind-power, solar energy, biomass, and so on. Although these are not yet fully viable alternatives to fossil fuels, they offer significant socio-economic benefits. In the mean time, the process of CO2 separation is a must for thermal power plants in order to reduce


emissions from the dumps without loosing the efficiency. In addition to reductions in emissions, this technique leads to the capture of the CO2 emitted as well as its storage underground or under the sea floor. 1) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 1.a) Carbon capture and storage consists of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel fired power plants, at a certain temperature, and storing it underground or in the sea in order to avoid its entry into the atmosphere, almost without efficiency loss. There are many processes for separating the carbon dioxide e.g. chemical, physical, both chemical and physical and cryogenic separation [21]. The mixed absorption method (physical and chemical) is likely to suit large power plants along with the choice of the best solvent. For example “Carbonate Looping” is one method that requires a temperature of 600 Celsius, and in which a reactive lime (CaO) could be used as a solvent in the flue gas. The CaO reacts with the CO2 forming calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and releasing heat [22]:

Reaction A: CaO(s) + CO2 (g) → CaCO3 (s) δrH(po,TO) = −170.5[kJ mol]

After the exothermic reaction A, at a temperature of 900 Celsius, conversely the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) will be separated from the flue gas and decomposed into carbon dioxide (CO2) and lime (CaO), using a high temperature heat exchanger [22]. Reaction B: CaCO3 (s) → CaO(s)+ CO2 (g)

δrH(po,To) = 170.5[kJ mol] After the endothermic reaction B, new separation takes place between the regenerated lime and the carbon dioxide, and then (CaO) will be recycled to the carbonator and reused [23] in the carbonate looping cycle. After heat transfer to the air flow and steam and water, the flue gas nearly free of (CO2) will be discharged into the atmosphere and the flue gas rich in (CO2) will be stored [23]. The major components of the power plants would be combustion chamber and heat exchangers if we consider the method of Carbonate Looping for an existing plant with minimal changes.


1.b) Carbon capture at the power plant The Zouk is a fuel power plant with a capacity of 650 MW. Taking into consideration the technical and non-technical losses, the net power of the plant would be about 465 MW. Therefore, we can assume that the plant will produce 2.5 million tons of CO2 annually [21]. Thus, the total quantity of CO2 to be stored underground would be 75 million tons in 30 years. Following ISO standards, the fuel oil burned at the plant should be an international coal with 16% ash, 2% moisture and 1% sulfur. Some equipment is required for carbon dioxide separation:

• Pressure reduction tanks • Heat exchangers • Absorption and desorption columns • Pumps • Shift conversion, a catalytic device for converting carbon

monoxide into CO2, which may enhance the efficiency of the capture

• In order to reduce the water content in the CO2 produced, a dehydration unit should be included

• To limit losses of the absorbent, a refrigeration system should be included, especially for methanol processes (if the solvent chosen is methanol)

The choice of the solvent to be used in the separation process is of utmost importance and must occur with the greatest care. In addition, through the CO2 compression station, pressure values have to be monitored (100-150 bar) in order to limit efficiency losses or increase it if possible, which will affect the cost of electricity generated per kWh [24]. Taking into consideration the construction cost of the equipment stated above, including all the expenses related to supply and the cost of the CO2 separation system (if methanol is the solvent of choice), in addition to the CO2 compressor and shift converser, the investment cost of this plant will be increased by approximately 23% for electricity generation. The distance between the power plant and the CO2 storage site must be as short as possible in order to decrease cost of transport and to limit environmental risks as well. For the Zouk plant, both transporting and storing CO2, are likely to be cost efficient with low environmental risks since the plant is located exactly on the sea. Therefore, the storage site would be an offshore storage under the Mediterranean Sea, which means that the storage


reservoirs would be under the sea floor. The CO2 produced by this power plant will be transported through pipelines. In addition to the cost of the equipment (e.g. wells, reservoirs, and pipes etc.) and the construction expenses, many factors should be taken into consideration with carbon dioxide transport and storage such as the cost of the land through which the pipelines pass (especially in case of onshore sites), the safety of the installations, and the payments associated with geological knowledge of the storage sites. The investment costs, consisting of construction costs, interest during construction, operating and maintenance costs, divided by the annual output of CO2, is equal to the cost price per ton of CO2 transported and stored. In order to find the cost of the electricity generated with CO2 capture, costs of transport and storage should be taken into consideration. Thus, 2.5 million ton/year (t/y) of CO2 are stored under the Mediterranean Sea. The power plant has an expected output of 465 MW. Assuming that the net efficiency of the plant is around 33%, then the power plant net output would be 186 MW. Thus 136 (t/h) of CO2 are emitted from the plant. The cost of CO2 avoided is about US$70/ton. The cost of MWh from the Zouk plant with carbon capture systems would be around US$98/MWh (equivalent to 9.8 US¢/KWh). These costs are slightly lower than those of renewable energy technologies (solar or wind energy), which also reduce CO2 emissions. It might also be possible to reduce this figure as several factors may be variable such as: distance from the power plant to storage site, characteristics of reservoir used for storage, location of the storage site, and so on. Thermal power plants in Lebanon, without carbon capture, give a power supply with a cost to the consumer around (9.8 US¢/KWh), which is in fact too low to cover EDL’s costs [1]. In relation with service quality and regional standards, Lebanon’s electricity tariff is high. Although, the average tariff for industry consumers is 10 US¢/KWh, its actual cost is 21 US¢/KWh at peak hours, which increases the losses of EDL to about US$20 million per year [1]. These economical losses are mainly a result of the high technical and non-technical losses at this plant. Comparing the price per kWh between the power plant with and without carbon separation, we find that the efficiency of the plant did not change. The price with carbon capture is greater than the Levelized cost (6.58 US¢/KWh) from plants without carbon capture. Therefore, with carbon capture, the same amount of electricity is generated and has the same cost per kWh as the current tariff, with limited emissions in carbon dioxide.


In addition, the health and environmental impacts of the plant are reduced since the CO2 emissions are limited. Health and environmental issues are more problematic than the economical ones. Although adding carbon capture technology to the plant is costly, it is far more economical than relocating the power plant for example. The location of the Zouk in a heavily populated area means that things cannot remain as they are and thus, CO2 separation could help the Zouk plant in reducing CO2 emissions and limiting health impacts (hospital, diseases, employee absenteeism, and mortality). Grants are also likely to be extended to the country if emissions are reduced. Furthermore, as stated in the Kyoto Protocol, the price per ton of CO2 avoided is approximately $70, meaning that the emissions reduced as a result of carbon capture technology can be “sold”, thereby reducing the price of energy generated with this technology by about 40%. Carbon capture is a must and should be implemented in order to reduce emissions, thus limiting the health impacts on the neighboring population specifically in the neighboring area and the country in general. Adding this pollution control technique to the power plant will reduce particle air pollution and deaths. The cost of the carbon capture technique would be significantly offset by reduced cost to the government related to medical expenses from the increased rates of illness and death due to the impact of the plant on the air quality. This would behoove the Ministry of Health (MoH) to work in conjunction with EDL and other government and nongovernmental institutions towards the common goal of emission reduction. In order for carbon capture to be a financially viable option, the efficiency of the Zouk plant must be addressed. In order to increase the electricity supply, some technical losses must be reduced by rehabilitation and repair (good maintenance and operation) of the network, which leads to an increase of the electricity supply by 100 MW [1]. 2) Rehabilitation of the Zouk Plant Unfortunately, much of the efficiency problem at the Zouk plant is due to nontechnical losses that are not under the control of EDL. Such losses include individuals ‘stealing’ from the grid and political issues resulting in unpaid electricity bills for certain areas of the country, with EDL unable to disconnect the power supply. However, much can be done regarding technical losses from the plant.


If maintained properly, the lifetime of the Zouk plant could be extended by 10 years. The rehabilitation can be implemented within 2 to 3 years, with a cost of US$100 million, including investment required for environmental control systems [20]. The rehabilitation consists of transporting different fuel that is closer to the current design values for fuel use in gram/kWh terms. Due to the difference in the unit size (difference in size between the 4 units), the fuel consumption design value varies from 215 grams/kWh to 225 grams/kWh [1]. Moreover, the current fuel consumption is above the design by 20% for unit #1, which reflects an increase in fuel cost. This is due to the lack of maintenance practices and spare parts. Once rehabilitated, the fuel consumption and the design value will be equal. Thus, there is no more deviation from the design value, hence, no more influence on the fuel bill. In addition, the Zouk plant is operating at reduced capacity, with efficiency lesser by 20-25% than the design level. This project is feasible for the Lebanese Government, since US$ 117.5 million were estimated by the Government’s Public Investment Program to rehabilitate the plant [1], and the cost of the entire project is estimated to be US$ 100 million only [20]. In addition, in order to maintain a good maintenance of the plant, a further US$ 100 million would be needed annually. The amount of electricity generated would be 1830 GWh/year with fuel savings of 67,293 tons/year. Therefore, an additional capacity of 87 MW could be provided from this plant once rehabilitated while achieving savings of 14.3% on fuel consumption per kWh. Furthermore, in addition to the increase in efficiency and to the enhancement of the capacity of the system, this project is highly economical, since it has a payback period of 3 years (12%) and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 27%. Due to the improved capacity, a lot of demand can be met which could bring annual savings of around US$ 60 million. 3) Natural Gas Lebanon has no natural gas resources. The gas currently available is liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imported from Syria through a single licensed private importer [25]. Since the price of fuel oil is rising, in addition to its environmental impacts, the Lebanese government has been recently giving significant attention to natural gas, in order to convert dependency of existing thermal power plants from fuel oil to natural gas. In the near future, the natural gas imported could be also used for industrial, residential and


commercial activities. Some old and recent assessments have shown positive results for both storage and transportation potential. In March 2005, a natural gas pipeline between Syria and Lebanon was completed [25]. This pipeline links the Beddawi power plant in northern Lebanon to the Baniyas plant in Syria. Since the pipeline is near completion, it is feasible for the Zouk plant to transport its natural gas from the Beddawi plant instead of transporting it from outside. Therefore a domestic pipeline should be constructed to link the Zouk plant to the Beddawi plant, with low cost, since the distance between these two plants is relatively short (<70 Km). This pipeline could be extended in the future in order to link the Baddawi plant from the north to the Zahrani plant in the south. The Syrian natural gas will flow into Lebanon providing 53 million cubic feet per day [25], with the possibility to increase eventually. Furthermore, in order to meet the demands, an additional natural gas pipeline should be implemented. This pipeline would be initially from Egypt, since “The Arab Pipeline”, a pipeline that starts from Egypt and passes through Jordan, Syria and Lebanon is under construction after a multilateral agreement between these four Arab countries. Approximately 100-150 MW of electricity supply are expected from this pipeline. Combined Cycles Gas Turbines (CCGTs) will be installed and designed to operate on natural gas. In general, (CCGTs) can also operate on gas-oil, but with the same energy input the price of gas-oil is almost double of that of natural gas [1]. Since the cost of a natural gas pipeline is $US 1 million per Km [26], and the distance from the Baddawi plant to the Zahrani plant is approximately 200 Km, therefore, the pipeline investment cost is approximately $US 200 million. Assuming that the natural gas pipeline is completed to the Baddawi plant, therefore, with a capital investment of $US200 million, the completion of the pipeline for both the Zouk and the Zahrani plants can be ensured. The mean prices for oil and natural gas are US$ 80/barrel and US$ 7 million/MBTU respectively (1BTU=1500J) [27]. Assuming that the average of electricity supply tariff from oil is (9.4 US¢/kWh), after switching to natural gas the savings expected are substantially greater than the capital investment and annual maintenance costs. The average of electricity supply tariff from natural gas would be within a range from US$ 4 to US10$ per MBTU [28], around (7.22 US¢/kWh) [1]. The oil power plants are one of the most expensive options for generating electricity. Plants with natural gas are less costly than oil plants. This alternative source of energy would satisfy the electricity demand by increasing the efficiency of the system while reducing CO2 emissions, thus leading to savings of US$92 – US$500 per ton of CO2


[27]. The concept of a natural gas pipeline should be considered, if sufficient Egyptian gas can be secured through the Arab Gas Pipeline, and no commercial or political obstacles are seen. This strategy could provide the Zouk plant with economical, energetic and environmental benefits. Moreover, EDL should have the ability to properly maintain these plants and overcome the lack of spare parts to keep the plants at reliable operating conditions. The use of natural gas instead of fossil fuel will reduce the concentrations of air pollutants, and help in easing a number of environmental concerns e.g. smog, green house gas emissions (GHG), solid waste, etc. Natural gas, with no solid waste, has no impact on water quality, which will also improve the economical situation in the country since a lot of health and environmental expenses can be saved. The availability of natural gas in power plants will intensify the efficiency of the site, improve the quality of production of energy and reduce total energy consumption and pollutant emissions. 4) Solar Water Heating (SWH) Lebanon, with no natural resources and a US$ 40 billion debt, has to overcome the energy demand of its population. Therefore, new efficient technologies are to be considered as serious potential for the Lebanese energy sector, in order to decrease the dependency on fossil fuels and to minimize both environmental and health impacts. Thus, Renewable Energy could be an alternative energy source for the country. Renewable energy technologies are plenty (e.g. wind and solar energy, tides and waves energy, biomass, biogas, geothermal energy etc.). But due to the current energy status of the country and the economical situation, solar energy would be the best alternative resource, which may help EDL to offset the electricity demand and reduce the load on existing power plants. Therefore, the reliance on oil imports would be smaller, and thousands of tons of fuel/diesel oil would be reduced, which leads to some savings in the annual cost of fuel imports. Lebanon is located in a relatively sunny area (2200 kWh/m2.yr) [29]. In addition, taking into consideration capital investment, availability in the market, payback period and suitability with the demand studied, Solar Water Heating (SWH) technology would best suit the situation, due to its feasibility and simplicity of use [29]. Moreover, utilization of solar water heater systems was successful and the annual installations of these systems are increasing, especially for industrial applications [30]. In general, at residential houses, electric water heaters are used for domestic water heating. According to EDL, for an average 3 kW electric water heater the consumption is 6480 kWh/yr, therefore, the cost of electrically heated water is (US$ 0.27/L) [31].


Open cycle and closed cycle are the only available (SWH) systems in the market. Lebanese water, rich in salts and calcium carbonate, would improve the lifetime of the systems by forming solid crystals inside them. A typical installed system (4 m2, 200L) could cost anywhere between ($US 700 - US$ 1500) including installation [29], with an average payback period of 3-4 years. Moreover, one system can meet the water heater needs for a household of five with a payback period of six months [29]. Therefore, the electric bills would be decreased, thus the load on the thermal plants and the amount of fuel used at power plants would also be reduced, and millions of dollars would be saved. The cost of solar heated water is (US$ 0.24/L), which is less than that of electrically heated water. In addition, any type of (SWH) system used will reduce CO2 emissions between 1 to 2 tons per year. (SWH) systems could save 80% of energy consumed for water heating and contribute to 25% reductions in annual electricity bills [31]. These reductions in the electricity bills will motivate people to install (SWH) systems. The Lebanese government should encourage the use of these systems, and also control and monitor the market by fixing their prices, thus, leaving no space for business competitions. Furthermore, incentives must be provided by the government and local NGO’s, for residents and educational institutions willing to install these systems [29]. Implementation of (SWH) systems can greatly impact the Zouk power plant both economically and environmentally. The choice of the system must be suitable with the area, and has to be good in terms of price and quality (not the cheapest system nor the best one). A 4-m2 system, the Kypros by Siemens, would be convenient for the area, with a 200 L hot water tank and two panels installed. The cost of the system including installation is US$900 [32]. This solar heater produces (3230 kWh/yr.) [31]. Therefore, taking into consideration that electric heaters produce (6480 kWh/yr.), and that (SWH) saves 80% of the water heating, then 20% of the electricity needed for each household can be saved. Therefore each household can save (1296 kWh/yr.) equivalent to (US$ 172/yr.). In 10 years, the use of 200,000 solar water heaters will avoid the option of increasing the capacity of the plant (80 MW - 150MW), therefore avoiding cost of investment around US$120 million. And otherwise, the installation of solar heaters will achieve savings in the total electricity generated, with a payback period of 5.2 years. Since (SWH) systems are easy to install, use a renewable energy source, reduce electricity bill, work quickly and quietly, reduce fuel, and GHG emissions, it is visible that implementing solar water heater systems can offset


the obstacles facing the Zouk plant evolution. But, despite the success of the (SWH) project, the government has to adopt laws to ensure product quality standards for the consumer and the supplier, decrease in the Value Added Tax (VAT) or remove taxes especially for installations at old houses, and promote (SWH) systems such as in the media and at universities. These systems provide job opportunities, and reduce harmful gases that would have been emitted by the Zouk plant, thus reducing the health bill.

CONCLUSION As is evident from this study, solutions to the environmental and health problems posed by the Zouk plant are available. In addition, some of these solutions can ease, if not solve altogether, Lebanon’s energy crisis, with supplies currently far from being able to meet demands. The solutions posited involve implementing changes to the Zouk plant itself, rather than the drastic options of closing down or relocation. Although the cost for example of carbon capture technology is high, it would behoove the Lebanese government to think in terms of long-term goals, taking into consideration that the pay back period is around 4.8 years These solutions will not and cannot come into effect without strong government backing and support, including financial backing, legislative changes, enactment of legislation, and continuous monitoring. For example, if carbon separation and capture technologies are implemented, there must also be continuous monitoring of air pollution levels by a governmental entity outside of EDL, as well as a database of information accessible to other outside entities such as local and international environmental NGO’s. Such a system makes sure that technologies are working properly and ensures accountability. On another level, the government must bear the burden of resolving any political and regional issues that hinder the evolution of Lebanon’s energy sector. For example, cooperation with neighboring countries is essential if there is to be a reliable source of natural gas. It is essential that the Lebanese government, and EDL, develop a long-term vision regarding energy policy. A short-term gains approach, such as importing low quality fuel high in hazardous sulfur, is resulting in a heavy price with regards to both the environment and human health. In the long run, these will have a financial price for the country, such as in medical expenses


for an ailing population for example. In addition, a solution like plant rehabilitation, although initially costly, can improve the current financial deficits faced by EDL as a result of technical and nontechnical losses and poor efficiency. Furthermore, and especially if carbon capture technologies cannot be implemented immediately due to high costs, rehabilitation will provide a minimum of filtration techniques, resulting in at least somewhat reduced levels of emissions. The population of Lebanon can also bear some responsibility for the energy situation and the high levels of pollution. Adopting renewable energy technologies at the household level (such as Solar Water Heating systems) is a first step towards reducing the energy load on thermal power plants and the electricity grid, reducing the environmental and health impacts of current energy generation techniques, and reducing utility bills for the Lebanese household. Again the government has an essential role to play here as far as guaranteeing the quality of products on the market, educating the public about these technologies and the environment, and providing financial aid/ incentives. Showing the world that Lebanon is serious about moving towards cleaner energy and about reducing harmful emissions will likely lead to international funding towards these goals, and Lebanon can join the world community in battling global warming and climate change, while also ensuring it’s people the kind of reliable electricity supply expected in the 21st century.


REFERENCES [1] Republic of Lebanon, Electricity Sector - Public Expenditure Review, 2008, Sustainable

Development Department, Middle East and North Africa Region, Report No. 41421-LB, The

World Bank Group, pp.20- 21

[2] The first Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sink, Final

Report, Beirut, Lebanon, 1998

[3]TEŠ, 2009. Termoelektrarna Šoštanj. http://www.te-sostanj.si/default.asp?id=7 (citirano:

15. 10. 2009)

[4] Knežević, D. (2005). Practice and problems of transport and deposition of ash and slag in

Serbia and Montenegro, In: Collection of Papers Presented at the First Conference on

Problems of Ash and Slag Dumps, 19-27. Nikola Tesla Thermoelectric Power Plant,

Obrenovac [in Serbian].

[5] Ivetic, M., and N. Jaćimović (2005). The TENT B ash dump from the standpoint of

environmental quality C estimate of its condition and possibilities for improvement, In:

Collection of Papers Presented at the First Conference on Problems of Ash and Slag Dumps

of Thermoelectric Power Plants, 129-137. Nikola Tesla Thermoelectric Power Plant,

Obrenovac [in Serbian].

[6] Pope, C.A. et al. 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to

fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287 (9), 1132-

1141.

[7] Pope, C.A. 2000. Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: Biologic

mechanisms and who’s at risk? Environmental Health Perspectives, 108 (suppl 4): 713-723

[8] John Balbus, Sarah Penney and Jacob Bell. Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired

Power Plants Receiving International Financing. Environmental Defense Fund, 1875

Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009

[9] Greco, S.L., Wilson, A.M., Spengler, J.D., Levy, J.I., 2007. Spatial patterns of mobile

source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States.

Atmospheric Environment, 41 (5), 1011-1025.

[10] Environmental Impact of Emissions from Thermal Power Generation in India.

http://www.enzenglobal.com/pdf_downloads/environmental_impact.pdf

[11] M.T. López, , M. Zuk, V. Garibay, G. Tzintzun, R. Iniestra and A. Fernández. Health

impacts form power plant emissions in Mexico. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Periférico Sur

No. 5000, Col. Insurgentes Cuicuilco, Delegación Coyoacán, 04530 D.F. Mexico

[12] Gitterman BA, Bearer CF. A developmental approach to pediatric environmental health.

Pediatr Clin North Am 2001;48:1071-83.

[13] Grigg J. Environmental toxins; their impact on children’s health. Arch Dis Child

2004;89:244-50.

[14] Etzel RA, Balk SJ, American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Environmental

Health. Pediatric environmental health. 2nd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: Ameri- can Academy


of Pediatrics 2003.

[15] Landrigan PJ, Garg A. Chronic effects of toxic environmental exposures on children’s

health. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2002;40:449-56.

[16] Cammarrano G, Crosignani P, Berrino F, Berra G. Can- cer mortality among workers in

a thermoelectric power plant. Scand J Work Environ Health 1984;10:259-61.

[17] Coleman M, Beral V. A review of epidemiological studies of the health effects of living

near or working with electricity generation and transmission equipment. Int J EpidemioI19

88;17:1-13.

[18] George Abu Jawdeh, Lebanese Environmental Forum (LEF). Lebanon country situation

report. International POPs elimination project. Lebanon, March 2006.

[19] Suzanne Baaklini, The dark air Peril: Air pollutin in Beirut and other cities. December 16,

2007. http://www.iloubnan.info/environment/reportage/id/051/liban/The-Dark-Air-of-Peril:-Air-

pollution-in-Beirut-and-other-cities

[20] World Bank, 2008. Republic of Lebanon Electricity Sector Public Expenditure Review,

41421-LB, World Bank, Washington.

[21] Kanniche, M., C. Descamps, and C. Bouallou. 2004. Technico-economic feasibility study

of CO2 capture, transport and geo-sequestration: a case study for France – Poster 1:

Comparison of the CO2 capture options in IGCC system, In: Proceedings of the 7th

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume 2, Poster,

Vancouver, BC, September 5-9, 2004.

[22] R. Leithner, S. Magda, B. Apascaritei, Carbon Capture From Fossil Fuel Fired Power

Plants without Efficiency Loss. Institute for Heat and Fuel Technology, Technical University

of Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.

http://www.combustion.org.uk/ECM_2009/P811385.pdf

[23] N. H. Florin, A.T. Harris, The maximum capture efficiency of CO2

using a carbonation/calcination cycle of CaO/CaCO3, Eng. Sci. 63 (2008) 287-316.

[24] Descamps, C. 2004. Etude de la capture du CO2 par absorption physique dans les

systèmes de production d’électricité basés sur la gazéification du charbon intégrée à un

cycle combiné. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Centre d’Energétique, 60 Bd Saint-

Michel, 75272, Paris, France.

[25] Abi Said, C. 2005. Consultant and Former Director Planning and Studies at EDL. Electric

Energy & Energy Policy in Lebanon.

http://webfea.fea.aub.edu.lb/fea/research/erg/web/Policy%20Paper%20lebanon.pdf

[26] Yalibnan, 2008. Lebanon minister in Syria to discuss the Arab Gas Pipeline. Yalibnan,

published 23-02-2008, accessed 10-06-2009.

[27] R.H. El Fadel, The Lebanese electricity system in the context of sustainable

development. Published 30-October-2009. http://www.lowcarbonpathways.org.uk/.../El-

Fadeh_et_al_Lebanese_electricity_ system_Energy_Policy_2010_38_x2x_751-761.pdf

[28] International Energy Agency (IEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and


Development (OECD), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2005. Projected Costs of Generating

Electricity, 2005 Update, OECD/IEA, Massachusetts.

[29] Ahmad Houri. Renewable Energy Resources in Lebanon: Practical Applications. May,

2005. Natural Science Division, Lebanese American University, 1102-2801, Lebanon.

http://www.isesco.org.ma/ISESCO_Technology.../Ahmad%20Houri.pdf

[30] Kablan, M. M. (2003) Forecasting the demand on solar water heating systems and

their energy savings potential during the period 2001-2005 in Jor- dan. Energy Conversion

and Management 44, pp 2027-2036.

[31] Green Line Association, February 2007. Status and Potentials of Renewable Energy

Technologies in Lebanon and the Region (Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria)

http://www.greenline.org.lb/new/pdf.../document_1_final_re_study.pdf

[32] Kyprossolar (2002). Product offered [On Line]. Kyprossolar: Cyprus.

http://www.kyprossolar.com/products.htm


APPENDIX A Health Survey Questionnaire - Zouk/Control Area Name: ________________

Q.1 Have you ever had asthma?

• YES

• NO

Q.2 In the last 12 months, have you had an attack of asthma?

• YES

• NO

Q.3 Are you currently taking any medication for breathing problems or asthma?

• YES

• NO

Q.4 Does any body smoke inside your house?

• YES

• NO

Q.5 Do you have allergies?

• YES

• NO

Q.6 Do you have or have you had any other medical problems (e.g. cancer, dry cough, skin

infection, headache, respiration allergy to dust and pollen…)?

• YES

• NO

Q.7 Has anyone in your household been diagnosed with asthma?

• YES

• NO

Q.8 Have you lived in al Zouk for 10 or more years?

• YES

• NO

Q.9 Has anyone in your household suffered from lung cancer?

• YES

· NO Q.10 Has anyone in your household died from lung cancer?

• YES

• NO

Q.11 Does anyone in your household suffer from emphysema?

• YES

• NO

Q.12 Has anyone in your household suffered from any other pulmonary/respiratory diseases?

• YES

· NO

Documents

Patrick Kallas - The Zouk Power Plant-Health Impacts and a Feasibility Study of Solutions-August-2010/Lebanon/Electricity