See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322600249

Recent Dynamics of Air Pollution from Thermal Power Plants – Evidence from
Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

Article  in  Journal of environmental protection and ecology · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 80

2 authors, including:

Alexandru Banica
Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza
33 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Peripheralization. The Making of Spatial Dependencies and Social Injustice View project

Air quality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandru Banica on 19 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 17, No 3, 831–839 (2016)

Atmospheric pollution

RECENT DYNAMICS OF AIR POLLUTION FROM

THERMAL POWER PLANTS – EVIDENCE FROM
ROMANIA, BULGARIA AND GREECE

M. ISTRATE*, A. BANICA
Faculty of Geography and Geology ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University of Iasi,
20A ‘Carol I’ Blvd., 700 505 Iasi, Romania
E-mail: marinelaistrate75@yahoo.com

Abstract. Thermal power plants (TPPs) using fossil fuel are the most important industrial sources of
air pollution in European Union. The present study takes into consideration three Balkan countries
that are part of the European Union (Romania, Bulgaria and Greece), highlighting the dynamics
of the energy sector in order to evaluate its contribution to diminishing air quality mainly by SO2,
NOx and dust emissions. The statistical and cartographic analysis from local to county level and
from regional to national scale is an opportunity to consider some important hotspots of industrial
air pollution and their impact in the last decade, as well as the effectiveness of the modernisation
process (transposed in cleaner more efficiently produced energy). The final outcomes are intended
to support an evaluation of the effectiveness of national policies in restructuring the national power
generation sector in each of the three Balkan countries.
Keywords: thermal power plants, air pollution, eco-efficiency, Eastern Balkan countries, energy
policies.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Thermal power plants (TPPs) using fossil fuels are the most important industrial
sources of air pollution in the European Union. It is assessed that large combustion
plants (LCPs) that also use classic fossil fuel have annual emissions of thousands
of tons of air pollutants during an average life time of 40 years1. Especially coal
power plants have a higher impact as they contribute with 20% of total emissions
of greenhouse gases and emit significant amounts of particulate matter, sulphur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides, but also mercury and persistent organic pollutants
(dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) in quantities much higher than
those operating on gas or, more so, than wind or solar energy installations. There-
fore, numerous recent studies (reports and academic papers) emphasize the role
played by the TPPs on the air pollution in almost all EU countries2–4. From 1990
to present days the amount of electric power generated from fossil fuel increased
by about 16%, while renewable sources (including hydropower and biomass) had
a higher growth of approximately 20% (Ref. 5).
*
For correspondence.

831
 A recent Greenpeace report6 suggests that Europe needs urgent action in order
to limit the rapid increase of emissions from TPPs that run on fossil fuels, thus
contributing to reducing the global warming. There is a strong interdependence
between economy, the energy sector, ecology and efficiency in environmental
and air quality (so called 3E + E) (Ref. 7). Electricity production in TPPs has a
significant influence in disrupting the ecological balance, both in close and distant
environment, on short and long run, so it takes a series of measures to reduce the
impact of the energy sector on the environment: re-engineering or replacing of the
power plant units by implementing highly efficient technologies, promoting co-
generation and investments in using renewable energy sources, increasing thermal
performance of buildings, modernisation of transport and distribution of thermal
energy, use of bio-fuels, etc.8
The present paper takes as case studies Romania (RO), Bulgaria (BG) and
Greece (GR), trying to highlight the dynamics of the energy sector based on the
use of fossil fuels, in order to draw an overview of future developments of the re-
lationship between the operation of power plants and air quality. The three Eastern
Balkans countries are important regional electricity suppliers, but, at present, they
are confronted with both higher demands and energy deficiency. Many thermal
capacities in the region were installed between 1960 and 1980, exceeding their
normal lifetime, and, in addition, they were not initially equipped with pollution
control equipment (except for solid particles filtration)9. As full members of the
European Union, the analysed countries have committed to fulfil by 2020 all
the European Commission provisions and to reduce by 20% the amount of CO2
emitted into the atmosphere10, but also other emissions such as SO2 and NOx as
it is required by target values for each EU country stated by National Emissions
Ceilings (NEC Directive 2001/81/EC) (Ref. 11).
Starting from these aspects, the main objectives of current work were: (1)
making a comprehensive analysis of the air pollution from TPPs that are also LCPs
(have an installed capacity of at least 50 MW) by using a multi-scale approach;
(2) studying air pollution related aspects of the eco-efficiency of the energy sector
in the three countries, i.e. delivering competitively-priced sufficient energy while
reducing emissions; (3) debating the effectiveness of the energy sector policies in
the studied area during the last decade.

EXPERIMENTAL
The statistical and cartographic analyses were the main research tools to high-
light some important hotspots of industrial air pollution and their impact in the
last decade. To this end, a database was created, the most important data sources
being provided by European Environment Agency (EEA) (reported data on large
combustion plants covered by Directive 2001/80/EC) and Eurostat. On this basis

832
a series of indicators was calculated and mapped (by using ArcGis 10 software):
average capacity and dynamics of LCP (2007–2012), average emissions of nitrogen
oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust, but also the dynamics of the eco-efficiency in
energy production, i.e. the report between produced energy and emissions which
was studied using linear regression. Indicators were aggregated at county level by
using plant-by-plant emissions data from EEA. The final outcomes are intended to
support an evaluation of the effectiveness of national policies in restructuring the
national power generation sector for each of the three Balkan countries.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Regarding especially the two former communist countries, RO and BG, they have
a shared history, meaning that, before 1989, there was an energy sector that had
to ensure the needs of the population and to support an oversized manufacturing
industry, based on classic fuels (it is also, to a certain extent, the case GR). Even
nowadays, it is the main responsible for air pollution12, despite the general de-
industrialisation and negative dynamics for LCP. This is reflected by the weight
of emissions from energy sector in total air pollution (Fig. 1). At EU level, the
energy industry contributes by 60% to the total SO2 emissions, by around 30% to
greenhouse gases and 20% to the total of NOx. In the case of SO2 all three countries
have higher values than the EU average, the difference being by approximately 20%
during this period. Regarding the NOx emissions and greenhouse gases, the high
value for RO can be observed before 2004, but lately the situation has improved as
some polluting units were closed for modernisation. BG and GR have oscillatory
yet increasing values of emissions as they preserved more this strategic industry.
If analysing, by comparison, the level of greenhouse gases in the energy industry
(mainly CH4 and CO2), one can notice that BG and GR are exceeding by far the
European average. The rest of the emissions (up to 100%) are generated by other
activities (especially by transports)13.
The household consumption is greatly reduced (the thermal-electrical utilities
administered by the local councils have a precarious situation), hence the stagna-
tion in certain areas (NE part of RO, NW of BG). GR, in its turn, has important
coal resources whose use in the energy sector has a positive dynamics, especially
in the West Macedonia and around the capital, Athens lignite use being encour-
aged by governments and labour unions, because it is cheap and produces a high
number of jobs. However, GR (as well as BG) has an important potential of green
energies, namely wind and solar, that remains to be exploited.

833
 60 100 b
a 90
50 80
40 70
60
30 50

%
%

40
20 30
10 20
10
0 0
1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012
EU (28 countries) Bulgaria Greece Romania EU (28 countries) Bulgaria Greece Romania

60
c
50

40
%

30

20

10

0
1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012
EU (28 countries) Bulgaria Greece Romania

Fig. 1. Percentage of pollutants emitted by the energy production from total emissions of: SO2 (a);
NOx (b), and greenhouse gases (c) (data source: Eurostat, 2016)

If calculating nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust average emissions and
their dynamics between 2007 and 2012, one can notice that LCP air quality impact
has different spatial patterns in each of the three countries (Fig. 2).
In Romania, the units in South-West, South and West regions are large produc-
ers of energy, but also major polluters even at European level (Turceni, Rovinari),
with high emissions of SO2 (Gorj, Dolj), NO2 (Gorj, DrobetaTurnuSeverin) and dust
(Cluj, Salaj, Timis). In Bulgaria, there are three regional hubs with high production
capacity: one in the West (centered on the capital city, Sofia), one in the centre
(with Stara Zagora and Maritsa Iztok, the largest energy complex in South-Eastern
Europe) and one in the east (centred on Varna). In Greece, the situation is similar,
with three regional hubs, in this case oriented North-South: in the North – West
Macedonia (Kozani is the most important polluter), many of the plants are old,
as the lignite business already started in the 1950s, and do not comply with the
EU emission standards14, in the centre, around Athens, and in the south, in Crete.
According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), among the 20 most
polluting coal-fired plants, nine can be found in our study area. Maritza Iztok 2,
Galabovo and Bobovdol (BG), Turceni and Rovinari (RO) and Megalopolis and
Kozani (GR) are at the top of this hierarchy15.

834
Fig. 2. Average annual emissions (2007–2012) (t) of: NOx – a, dust – b, and SO2 – c (data source:
EEA, 2016)

At this point, assessing the efficiency of LCPs in relation to air pollution by

using linear regression is an opportunity to discover both current achievements
and recent dynamics of the modernising process of energy industry in the three
countries. The scatter plots (Fig. 3) show, on the one hand, a rather positive evolu-
tion between 2007 and 2012, as the corresponding quantities of SO2 per terajoule
(TJ) of energy produced by coal is generally lower. On the other hand, dust emis-
sions are increasing. The diminishing r2 shows a contrasting, sometimes chaotic,
behaviour of the three national energy systems meaning that while some units
were being modernised by improved technologies, others, sometimes located in
the proximity, lack the restructuring process and are still functioning by emitting
sometimes higher quantities of pollutants.

835
Fig. 3. Linear regressions indicating correlations between coal use and SO2 emissions (a, b) and
between total energy produced and dust emissions (c, d) in 2007 and 2012 (data source: EEA, 2016)

By observing and interpreting the residual values of the correlations, one can
highlight some particular cases of highly excessive quantities of dust and SO2
emissions when reported to the resulted energy at Kozani (GR),Timisoara, Zalau
and Doicesti (RO), Pernik, Bobovdol and Beloslav (BG). On the contrary, low
quantities of pollutants per TJ, therefore a good eco-effectiveness, can be noticed
in case of other thermo-plants from Lavreotiki, Megalopolis and Florina (GR),
those from the capitals of Romania and Bulgaria, but also some very LCPs such
as Galabovo and Radnevo. Between 2007–2012, positive dynamics have been
achieved by after modernising large combustion plants such as Megalopolis (GR),
Galabovo (BG), Oradea and Deva (RO), but also Kozani (GR), while the emissions
rate are increasing at Bobovdol (BG), Cluj-Napoca and Zalau (RO).
In this context, strategies for developing the energy sector in these countries
include preventive measures to cut emissions: increasing the proportion of natural
gas used in the production of electricity and thermal energy, replacing fuels with a
high sulphur content (especially lignite) with other energy resources, construction
of desulphurisation installations in the case of large power plants, introduction of
primary and secondary measures related to nitrogen oxides and rehabilitation of
electrostatic precipitators, etc.1

836
 One should also add economic profitability to the issues related to environmen-
tal compliance, which should be taken into account when outlining the directions
for policies in the energy sector. TPPs can not compete on the market with other
cheaper energy sources such as hydropower. Often, governments decide to grant
priority access to the grid to fossil fuels power plants in front of other manufactur-
ers which are more profitable and less polluting. Meanwhile, in RO, implementing
Directive 2010/75/EU offered two choices to energy groups benefitting from the
exemption that allowed their operation to be decommissioned for up to 20 000 h
if not complying with the emission limits of pollutants or to be retrofitted in order
to match the applicable emission limits for newly built power units.
Theoretically, in BG, the liberalisation of electricity is carried out in accord-
ance with the requirements of the EU legislation. In reality, this process is quite
slow and aims, on one hand, at creating the conditions for fair competition between
economic actors in the energy market and, on the other hand, enabling consumers
to choose their supplier16. The thermal energy sector is traditionally considered as
being of strategic importance for the economic development of the country, which
explains the interest of the BG government to invest in new capacities, to reha-
bilitate TPPs that have been operating for over 35 years and to expand the power
supply network of the country. Major investments are still required for modernising
the decrepit power plants substations and distribution grid17.
In GR, lignite, from its own production, is still competitive if compared to
imports of other sources of energy (natural gas, for example), but it is expected that
its depletion time is rather short and shall vary from 20 to 45 years18. Nevertheless,
new coal-based controversial TPPs were still recently built (see ‘Ptolemaida V’
project). Meanwhile, strategic priorities now include reorganising old and inef-
ficient plants by optimising their performance factor and promoting investment
in renewable energies19. The high recession has also had a negative impact on the
energy sector development in GR, the energy production dropping in 2012, by
8.5% compared to the previous year, while the price for consumers increased.
Romania, Bulgaria and Greece make efforts to keep the European Standard
of Quality. The new plans for TPPs include using modern technologies, such as
Capture and Storage of Coal. There are projects in progress which will provide
increased capacities by another 4150 MW installed thermal power capacity in RO,
1350 MW in BG and 1650 MW in GR (Ref. 6). In this context, it is important to
highlight that the emissions from one country contribute to the background pollution
of the whole region (and even beyond it) by transboundary exchange of pollutants
that include oxidised and reduced sulphur and nitrogen load16. Therefore, the above
mentioned propositions should be related to implementing technologies permitting
the achievement of reduced dust, SO2 and NOx emissions.

837
CONCLUSIONS
The thermal energy sector is traditionally considered to have a strategic importance
in the economic development of Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. Therefore, this
explains the governments interest to improve the TPPs which have been in use for
over 35 years, to invest in new plants and to extend the energy networks. Energy
still remains the main industrial air pollution source, so measures must be taken
for more eco-efficiency.
There is growing evidence that all three countries, where the energy sector
contributes more to the total air pollution than the EU28 average, are already expe-
riencing health and environmental effects of air pollution and climate change, and
scientific models predict alarmingly increasing rates for morbidity and mortality
in the coming decades. In the past 10 years, efforts have been made to modernise
large power plants by equipping them with facilities to reduce emissions. A further
reduction of the use of classic fuels (and especially lignite) for the electricity and
heat production in the Eastern Balkans is a prerequisite for a further decoupling
of energy production from the generation of high quantities of pollutants.

Acknowledgements. This work was financially supported by the Department of Geography from the
‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University of Iasi, and the infrastructure was provided through the POSCCE-
O 2.2.1, SMIS-CSNR 13984-901, No 257/28.09.2010 Project, CERNESIM (L4).

REFERENCES
1. Euracoal: The Voice of Coal in Europe. http://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/, accessed
05.2016.
2. D. A. GEORGAKELLOS: External Cost of Air Pollution from Thermal Power Plants: Case of
Greece. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 1, 257 (2007).
3. M. ANDREEVSKA, Z. KARAMANOLEVSKI, L. TALEVSKA-TODOROVA: Air Quality
Monitoring in the Region of the Power Plant Bitola. J Environ Prot Ecol, 3 (2), 292 (2002).
4. V. POPOVICI: 2010 Power Generation Sector Restructuring in Romania. A Critical Assessment.
Energ Policy, 39, 1845 (2011).
5. European Commission: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. 2006.
6. Greenpeace: Silent Killers, 2013, http://www.greenpeace.org/romania/, accessed 05.2016.
7. N. R. GRUJIC, M. TRIFUNOVIC, Z. PESIC: Electrical Energy Production from Coal and Its
Impacts on Environment. J Environ Prot Ecol, 15 (1), 16 (2014).
8. O. FALUP, I. MIRCEA, R. IVAN, I. IONEL: Novel Approach for the Current State of Greenhouse
Gases Emissions. Romanian Case Study. J Environ Prot Ecol, 15 (3), 807 (2014).
9. S. L. PARASCHIV, S. PARASCHIV, I. V. ION, N. VATACHI: Techno-economic Analysis of
the Emissions Reduction Technologies in the Thermal Power Plants in Romania. J Environ Prot
Ecol, 14 (2), 770 (2013).
10. M.CRUCERU, M. VORONCA, B. DIACONU: Implementation of the EU Legislation on Ro-
manian Power Industry. Energy 30, 1365 (2005).
11. European Environment Agency: NEC Directive Status Report 2014. Reporting by Member States
under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament, 2015, p. 36.

838
12. M. CARDU, I. IONEL, C. UNGUREANU: Ecological Aspects Concerning the Combustion of
Lignite in Romanian Thermopower Plants. Energ Convers Manage, 46, 1645 (2005).
13. M. DIMITROVSKI, Z. SAPURIC, D. DIMITROVSKI, M. KOCHUBOVSKI: European Union
Regulations of Road Transport Air Pollution and Its Implementation in FYR Macedonia. J En-
viron Prot Ecol, 14 (3), 813 (2013).
14. South-East European Industrial Market, Issue 2, 2010, 7–13.
15. Heinrich Böll Foundation: Coal Atlas. Berlin, Germany and Friends of the Earth International,
London, UK, 12015, 8–19.
16. K. GANEV, M. PRODANOVA, D. SYRAKOV, N. MILOSHEV: Air Pollution Transport in the
Balkan Region and Country-to-Country Pollution Exchange between Romania, Bulgaria and
Greece. Ecol Model, 217, 255 (2008).
17. F. STIER: Bulgaria's Energy Industry Heads for Europe. Euroheat and Power (English Edition),
3 (3), 18 (2006).
18. J. K. KALDELLIS, D. ZAFIRAKIS, E. KONDILI: Contribution of Lignite in the Greek Elec-
tricity Generation: Review and Future Prospects, Fuel, 88 (3), 475 (2009).
19. European Coal Map: www.coalmap.eu, accessed 05.2016.
Received 8 June 2016
Revised 25 July 2016

839

View publication stats