Economy &Energy
Year III - No 17 November-December 1999

ollaoro.gif (978 bytes)Main Page
ollaoro.gif (978 bytes)Emission of  Thermo-electric
Power Plants

ollaoro.gif (978 bytes)
Is The Consumer Earning Market Power in Electric Sector?
ollaoro.gif (978 bytes)Petroleum  And Natural Gas In Espirito Santo
ollaoro.gif (978 bytes)e&e links


Download
Brazilian Energy Balance 1999

  
Graphical Edition:
MAK
Editoração Eletrônic
a
marcos@rio-point.com
Revised:
Sunday, 28 August 2005.

http://ecen.com

Emission of Greenhouse
Effect Gases by Thermoelectric
Power Plants

(December 1999 Version)

e&e team

This work is part of the study on emission of greenhouse effect gases resulting from the operation of the Brazilian thermoelectric power plants in the period between 1990 and 1997 made for the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology and PNUD.

SUPPORT:

mct_p1.gif (2370 bytes) image22.gif (2562 bytes)

Original Proposition (practically maintained)

The study was concentrated on three lines:

  • survey of the thermoelectric power plants installed in the country by technology type and evaluation of the fuel used in each one of them (the survey made is not available in electronic media)
  • evaluation of the contribution of each type of fuel to the emission of the different greenhouse effect gases (CO2. CO, NOX, N2O, CH4 and NMVOC), according to the respective technology (geographic distribution by state allows for considering the main power plants);(Present report)
  • projection of power plants emissions foreseen in ELETROBRÁS' Decennial Expansion Plan. These values are compared to preliminary evaluations of economical reference scenario carried out by e&e using information available from producing companies (under study).

1. Introduction

1.1 Participation of Thermoelectric Generation in Electricity Production

The generation of electrical energy by thermal power plants is very limited and geographically localized. In Brazil there is a noticeable predominance of hydraulic energy as primary source of electrical energy. Thermoelectric and mineral coal power plants are located close to the mines in the south region.

Figure 1.1 Generation of the public utilities is basically hydraulic, thermal participation is modest and the use of the existing capacity has been subordinated to conjunctures - Data from BEM/MME 1998 (1.1).

As a strategic option, mainly after the 1973 and 1979 petroleum shocks, all priority has been given to hydraulic generation which, albeit renewable, is capital intensive.

Furthermore, fuel is consumed for this purpose with strong regional predominance, noticeable diesel oil in the north and coal in the south. Fuel oil is concentrated in the north and southeast regions and in the latter it is used to supply eventual or seasonal needs of the interconnected net.

Table 1.1: Use of Fuel for Generating Electricity in the Period 1990-1997 TJ/year

Fuel

N

NE

SE

CO

S

Diesel Oil

39390

337

5428

5025

980

Fuel Oil

13331

0

8237

304

8355

Coal

0

0

0

38479

43737

Natural Gas

0

69

491

0

0

TOTAL

52721

405

14155

43808

53072

On the other hand, plant distribution by state for public use is so specialized that it permits, as it will be noticed, to practically individualize the consumption of the most important plants (coal and fuel oil) by the consumption at the state level.


Figure 1.2 Generation in the public electric power plants by fuel presents a notable concentration by state, fuel oil in AM, RJ and SP states and coal in SC and RG states.

By fuel type, we have the distribution in the period shown the following figure. Coal (4 plants) and fuel oil (3? Plants) represent 71% of fuel consumed and they should be handled in a special way. The diesel oil plants can be handled as a set or as main types.

Figure 1.3 Coal and fuel oil represent 71% of the thermal energy in GJ used in thermal generation in the public power stations (nuclear not included)

Figure 1.4 Participation of fuel oil in CO2 generation sources has been replaced by vapor coal and diesel - Data from BEN/MME 1998.

1.2 Auto-producers

Auto-producers have had an important role in thermoelectric generation and this role has been growing with time as shown in the following figure.

 

 

Figure 1.5. Thermoelectric self-producer contributions are almost equivalent to that of public power plants - Data from BEN/MME 1998.

wpe2.gif (8145 bytes)
Figure 1.6 In self-producers a much larger variety of fuel is found, mainly fuel locally available or used in cogeneration processes - Data from BEN/MME 1998.

Auto-producers deserve a separate study, due to their importance, the diversity of fuel used and the sectors involved.

2. Public Electrical Power Plants

In December 1997 the installed capacity of the public thermoelectric power plants was the following

Table 2.1 Installed Capacity by System

SYSTEMS

INSTALLED CAPACITY (MW)

  % OF THE CAPACITY TOTAL

South/Southeast/Center-West

3431

8

North/Northeast

299

3

Isolated systems(*)

1367

71

(*) They correspond to more than 300 localities electrically isolated one from the other.

About 85% of the isolated systems are in the North Region that includes the states of Amazonas, Roraima, Rondônia, Amapá and Acre. The remaining 15% are distributed in the states of Pará, Maranhão, Tocantins, Pernambuco, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul.

The thermoelectricity generation percentage by region and by fuel type in December 1997 are the following one:

Table 2.2 Thermoelectricity Generation Percentage by Region and by Fuel Type

REGION

FUEL OIL

DIESEL OIL

COAL

North 20 80 0
Northeast 0 100 0
Southeast (*) 97 3 0
South 0.67 0.56 98.76
Center-West 0 100 0

(*) Nuclear generation is not included

3 Coal Thermoelectric Plants

3. General Aspects

Generation using vapor coal is located in 4 power plants associated with mines near to the plants. They are:

PLANT LOCALIZATION AND OPERATOR UNITS AND POWER START OF OPERATION
Jorge Lacerda Tubarão - SC / ELETROSUL 2 X 50 MW 1961 e 1963
2 X 66 MW 1972
2 X 125 MW 1977
1 x 350 MW 1997?
Charqueadas/ Jacuí RS - ELETROSUL 4 X 18 MW 1956-1968
350 MW 1999?
Candiota RS - CEEE 2 X 63 MW 1974
2 X 160 MW 1986
350 MW 2003?
 Cambuí PR

The fact that these plants use different types of specific coal differentiated by their calorific power permits using the available data at the state level in order to evaluate with good approximation the emission of each plant. For the first three plants there is a specific study relative to the emissions and that was carried out by JICA/ELETROSUL/CEEE (2.1).

3.2 Emission Parameters

           3.2.1 - Efficiency

The study surveyed for different operation conditions the SO2. NOx and particulate emissions for these plants using fuel with different calorific power and different sulfur content. The study calculated as well the dispersion of the pollutants. Furthermore, operational data such as gas temperature and velocity in the chimney, generated power and quantity of consumed fuel are given. The operational data and the fuel characteristic, namely ash and sulfur content, were supplied by the power plants.

The operational efficiency was inferred for different operation conditions and they are shown in Table 3.2 for the three plants.

fig3_2e.gif (5343 bytes)
Figure 3.1 Efficiency does not depend on the operation range studied relative to the nominal power. The large units show a larger efficiency

Table 3.1

Power Plant and size of production units

Efficiency

Coal Calorific Power

Power relative to the nominal one

Jorge Lacerda

50 Mw Production Units

26.8%

4550-4850

56-90%

66 Mw Production Units

34.1%

4500-4600

68-88%

125 Mw Production Units

30.8%

4460-4580

64-100%

Charqueadas

18 Mw Production Units

19.3%

3050-3180

82%

Candiota

50 Mw Production Units

24.3%

3050-3250

50%

160 Mw Production Units

22.8%

3140-3240

51%

Efficiencies were not sensitive to operational range 50% above the nominal power. Variations of the coal calorific power were not significant in each unit so that the influence of this factor might be verified. Since they belonged to different batches (different days and different ash and sulfur content) this might be an indication of stability of these characteristics. In different units of the same plant the variation is significant which makes it preferable whenever possible to use directly coal consumption and checking efficiencies through electric generation data.

3.2.2 SO2 and NOx Emissions

SO2 , NOx and particulate emissions were specifically studied by JICA. Some contradictory facts could be observed such as values of sulfur emission having mass values superior than those indicated for the fuel. The following graphic illustrates this fact.

fig3_2e.gif (5237 bytes)

Figure 3.2 A systematic difference was detected between the emitted sulfur that was systematically superior to that indicated for coal.

Apparently these are systematic errors in determining the coal sulfur content or emissions (or in our interpretation). It is noticeable, on the other hand, a good relative correlation. The calculated sulfur emission in the referred study are coherently much lower than those measured. It could have been an interpretation error in the sulfur content values that might be, for this plant, related to the carbon mass and not to the fuel. Considering this hypothesis, the correction yields a much more coherent value. Furthermore, the content supplied - 1.9% - is in contrast to that supplied in INFORMATIVO ANUAL DA INDÚSTRIA CARBONÍFERA 1994. Ministério de Minas e Energia for the referred mine. Adopting the hypothesis that the contents refer to the coal without ash one finds emission value (sulfur retention about 23%) and content value - 3.4% that seem more coherent. For the present work we preliminarily adopted values corrected in this way.

Values obtained for the three plants in different measurements in some units in each plant

fig3_3e.gif (4459 bytes)

Figure 3.3 - Declared sulfur contents and sulfur emissions show some apparent incoherence

The parameter mass of S emitted by TJ of burnt fuel permits to directly infer emissions from consumed fuel and when available the sulfur content. In the case of the Candiota plant there is an apparent incoherence between the variation in emissions and the relative stability of sulfur content indicated for the coal. As the methodology used for detecting emissions was adequate for other cases, the reliability of the ore analysis should be verified.

In the table below we indicate the values of the coefficients obtained for sulfur emission. For the Jorge Lacerda Plant we have considered the content values corrected as mentioned above.

 Plant

S tons by TJ of fuel

% of S in the fuel

Retention of sulfur contained in the fuel

Jorge Lacerda:

1.34 ± 0.21

3.35 ± 0.7 %

0.4 %

Charqueadas

0.65 ± 0.20

0.85 ± 0.13 %

23.1 %

Candiota

0.95 ± 0.43

1.66 ± 0.07 %

23.3 %

In case the sulfur content for the several years should be available, the retention mentioned in the previous item should be used excepting plant's indication about process variations.

NOx emissions were measured by JICA and the following parameters were found for the three plants. These values are given in the table below.

Plant

Jorge Lacerda:

Charqueadas

Candiota

NOx t/TW

233

102

144

The authors of JICA's work observe that NOx emissions are low due to low temperatures in the boiler. Measurements were carried out in external environmental sampling points relative to the NO2/NOx ratio but as no values for O3 are available it was not possible to model the dispersion. The NO2 indexes observed were lower than the usual ones as well as those for NOx. In the present evaluation we have considered that the indicated default values for the parameters' ratio are maintained.

Note: The relative emission of particulate may indicate incomplete combustion. The material collected in the precipitators (of relatively low efficiency) is re-injected in the boilers. This is an indication that the material was not burnt. An analysis of combustion data may eventually supply data about non- burnt carbon and CO emission. Temporally, a parametric evaluation of these emissions was made.

3.3 Emission comparisons using global and specific parameters

Data of JICAS' study were collected in 1996. For this same year global data by state specifying coal type are available. This practically allows for identifying the quantity of coal consumed by plant as shown in the following tables.

Fuel or Plant

State Mcal/kg

Con-
sumption E03t

Con- version factor (TJ/E03 t)

N2O con-
version factor (kg/TJ)

NOx con-
version factor (kg/TJ)

Sulfur content in fuel (%)

Sulfur retention in ash (%)

Reduction efficiency (%)

CV 3100

RS

470

12.98

1.4

300

1

0.05

0

CV 3300

RS

1387

13.82

1.4

300

1.5

0.05

0

CV 4500

SC

1621

18.84

1.4

300

3.5

0.05

0

CV 6000

PR

26

25.12

1.4

300

6.5

0.05

0

Charqueadas

3128

442

13.09

0.5

102

0.85

0.4

Candiota

3205

1426

13.41

0.7

145

1.66

23.1

Jorge Lacerda

4582

2228

19.17

1.1

233

3.35

23.3

Cambuí

6000

26

25.12

0.5

100

6.5

0.05

0

From these parameters one can obtain the emission due to the plant and/or the fuel type by state that, as can be observes, is bi-univocal. In this case the available data permit to estimate performance of the plants.

SO2 Emissions

Fuel or Plant

Fuel consumption (TJ)

Sulfur content (%)

Retention of sulfur in ash (%)

Abating efficiency (%)

Net Calorific Value (TJ/kt)

SO2 emission factor (kg/TJ)

SO2 emissions (t)

CV 3100

6101

1

0.05

0

13.0

1540

9395

CV 3300

19168

1.5

0.05

0

13.8

2170

41589

CV 4500

30540

3.5

0.05

0

18.8

3714

113413

CV 6000

653

6.5

0.05

0

25.1

5173

3378

TOTAL

167776

Charqueadas

5785

0.85

0

0.4

13.1

1300

7521

Candiota

19124

1.66

0

23.1

13.4

1908

36488

Jorge Lacerda

42719

3.35

0

23.3

19.2

2676

114326

Cambuí

653

6.50

0

0.0

25.1

5175

3380

TOTAL

161714

NOx and N2O Emissions

Fuel

Consumption (TJ)

N2O emission factor (kg/TJ)

N2O emissions (Gg)

NOx emission factor (kg/TJ)

NOx emissions (Gg)

CV 3100

6101

1.4

0.0085

300

1.83

Cv 3300

19168

1.4

0.0268

300

5.75

Cv 4500

30540

1.4

0.0428

300

9.16

CV 6000

653

1.4

0.00091

300

0.19

TOTAL

0.0790

16.94

Charqueadas

5785

0.5

0.0027

102

0.59

Candiota

19124

0.7

0.0129

145

2.76

Jorge Lacerda

42719

1.1

0.0464

233

9.94

Cambuí

653

0.5

0.0003

100

0.07

TOTAL

0.0623

13.36

3. Fuel Oil Plants

3.1 General Aspects

Electricity generation by public plants is limited to the states of Amazonas, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul and Minas Gerais.

The table below summarizes the characteristics of these plants:

Table 3.1 Fuel Oil Thermal Plants

PLANT

LOCALIZATION

POWER (MW)

New Plant UT Porto Alegre Porto Alegre, RS

24

Oswaldo Aranhas Alegrete, RS

66

Camaçari Camaçari, BA

290

Santa Cruz Rio de Janeiro, RJ

600

Roberto da Silveira Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ

30

Igarapé Igarapé, MG

131

Carioba Americana, SP

36

Piratininga São Paulo, SP

470

Mauá Manaus, AM

137

3.2 Fuel Oil Consumption by State

Table 3.2 Fuel Oil Consumption for Electricity Generation in the States in 1000t/year

AM

MG

RJ

SP

RS

1990

139

0

70

45

35

1991

209

0

42

50

56

1992

271

29

52

52

46

1993

177

34

67

36

49

1994

225

30

83

68

43

1995

250

34

74

25

35

1996

219

31

286

263

39

1997

227

83

301

107

40

 

fig3_xe.gif (9886 bytes)

The results are parametric for the moment. When data concerning the fuel oil used are available the results will have a better precision. It can be noticed that data by state are satisfactory

  • Minimal Data Necessary about the Fuel

Calorific Power

Sulfur Content

Composition (C/H ratio is useful)

  • Data concerning the plants

Operation scheme with characteristics of main components associated with combustion

Specific emission data for the plants or for similar ones

4. Emission by State

4.1 General Aspects

Parametric tables were elaborated by state and by year and the consumption by fuel type and by year. Multiplying these parameters (as shown for coal) permits to evaluate the emission of each state.

Presently there are some differences concerning fuel type (with subdivisions for coal) and some characteristics already obtained for the main plants (coal). The Excel tables allow for automatic updating the global results.

4.2 Preliminary Results

Some preliminary results are already available. Those for 1997 and 1991 are shown below. The unit is Gg (gigagram).

EMISSIONS BY STATE AND REGION- YEAR 1997

CO2

CH4

N2O

NOx

CO

S

NORTH

3726.350

0.151

0.030

10.078

0.756

129.043

Rondônia

456.396

0.019

0.004

1.245

0.093

16.223

Acre

199.937

0.008

0.002

0.545

0.041

7.107

Amazonas

2180.649

0.088

0.018

5.862

0.440

74.099

Roraima

330.416

0.014

0.003

0.901

0.068

11.745

Pará

257.865

0.011

0.002

0.703

0.053

9.166

Amapá

296.109

0.012

0.002

0.808

0.061

10.526

Tocantins

4.977

0.000

0.000

0.014

0.001

0.177

NORTHEAST

6.279

0.000

0.000

0.017

0.001

0.223

Maranhão

1.145

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.041

Pernambuco

2.655

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.001

0.094

Bahia

2.480

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.001

0.088

CENTER-WEST

197.265

0.008

0.002

0.538

0.040

7.016

Mato Grosso do Sul

7.311

0.000

0.000

0.020

0.001

0.260

Mato Grosso

189.954

0.008

0.002

0.518

0.039

6.752

Goiás

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Distrito Federal

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.004

SOUTHEAST

9003.754

1.427

0.148

209.737

27.763

41.063

Minas Gerais

0.287

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.010

Espirito Santo

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Rio de Janeiro

8657.249

1.414

0.145

208.832

27.695

30.356

São Paulo

346.218

0.014

0.003

0.904

0.068

10.697

SOUTH

696.691

0.076

0.097

20.998

1.404

218.244

Paraná

10.317

0.001

0.001

0.283

0.019

4.863

Santa Catarina

403.094

0.043

0.059

12.660

0.845

156.694

Rio Grande do Sul

283.281

0.032

0.037

8.055

0.541

56.687

TOTAL

13630.340

1.662

0.277

241.368

29.964

395.589

EMISSIONS BY STATE AND REGION - YEAR 1991

CO2

CH4

N2O

NOx

CO

S

NORTH

1903.917

0.077

0.015

5.114

0.384

64.533

Rondônia

312.138

0.013

0.003

0.851

0.064

11.095

Acre

190.657

0.008

0.002

0.520

0.039

6.777

Amazonas

1030.494

0.041

0.008

2.732

0.205

33.486

Roraima

182.783

0.007

0.001

0.499

0.037

6.497

Pará

163.099

0.007

0.001

0.445

0.033

5.798

Amapá

14.341

0.001

0.000

0.039

0.003

0.510

Tocantins

10.405

0.000

0.000

0.028

0.002

0.370

NORDEAST

1949.304

0.080

0.016

5.324

0.400

69.279

Maranhão

7.311

0.000

0.000

0.020

0.001

0.260

Pernambuco

1940.316

0.079

0.016

5.292

0.397

68.971

Bahia

1.677

0.000

0.000

0.012

0.001

0.048

CENTER-WEST

286.680

0.012

0.002

0.782

0.059

10.190

Mato Grosso do Sul

11.192

0.000

0.000

0.031

0.002

0.398

Mato Grosso

172.379

0.007

0.001

0.470

0.035

6.127

Goiás

1.876

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.067

Distrito Federal

101.234

0.004

0.001

0.276

0.021

3.598

SOUTH-WEST

302.009

0.012

0.002

0.790

0.059

9.350

Minas Gerais

0.073

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

Espirito Santo

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Rio de Janeiro

140.143

0.006

0.001

0.367

0.028

4.348

São Paulo

161.793

0.006

0.001

0.422

0.032

4.999

SOUTH

534.307

0.059

0.071

15.458

1.036

80.182

Paraná

6.880

0.001

0.001

0.198

0.013

2.561

Santa Catarina

192.599

0.021

0.028

6.096

0.407

43.214

Rio Grande do Sul

334.828

0.038

0.042

9.164

0.616

34.407

TOTAL

4976.217

0.239

0.107

27.469

1.937

233.535

Graphics

 

 

 

Tables by type of emission are also available for the studied years as shown in the two examples below.

CO2

EMISSIONS BY STATE

YEAR

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

NORTH

1211

1904

2574

1964

2183

3250

2734

Rondônia

349

312

292

298

304

392

326

Acre

177

191

202

214

236

166

179

Amazonas

399

1030

1653

980

1077

1976

1475

Roraima

138

183

200

205

228

269

288

Pará

138

163

174

186

200

217

227

Amapá

8

14

43

70

127

223

235

Tocantins

3

10

10

11

12

7

5

NORTHEAST

26

1949

11

4

3

6

4

Maranhão

9

7

8

3

3

3

2

Pernambuco

2

1940

3

0

0

0

0

Bahia

15

2

1

0

1

3

2

CENTER-WEST

186

287

193

215

241

265

220

Mato Grosso do Sul

11

11

9

10

12

14

11

Mato Grosso

172

172

183

203

229

251

209

Goiás

2

2

0

2

1

0

0

Distrito Federal

0

101

0

0

0

0

0

SOUTHEAST

374

302

345

338

495

327

1784

Minas Gerais

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

Espirito Santo

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Rio de Janeiro

229

140

176

221

275

245

932

São Paulo

146

162

168

117

220

81

851

SOUTH

454

534

519

481

519

582

589

Paraná

9

7

8

9

5

1

7

Santa Catarina

148

193

213

193

177

225

293

Rio Grande do Sul

297

335

298

279

337

355

288

TOTAL

2250

4976

3643

3002

3441

4429

5331

EMISSIONS BY REGION

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

NORTH

1211

1904

2574

1964

2183

3250

2734

NORTHEAST

26

1949

11

4

3

6

4

CENTER-WEST

186

287

193

215

241

265

220

SOUTHEAST

374

302

345

338

495

327

1784

SOUTH

454

534

519

481

519

582

589

TOTAL

2250

4976

3643

3002

3441

4429

5331

N2O

EMISSIONS BY STATE

YEAR

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

NORTH

0.010

0.015

0.021

0.016

0.018

0.026

0.022

0.030

Rondônia

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.004

Acre

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.002

Amazonas

0.003

0.008

0.013

0.008

0.009

0.016

0.012

0.018

Roraima

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.003

Pará

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

Amapá

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

Tocantins

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

NORTHEAST

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Maranhão

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Pernambuco

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Bahia

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

CENTER-WEST

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

Mato Grosso do Sul

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Mato Grosso

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

Goiás

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Distrito Federal

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

SOUTHEAST

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.014

0.011

Minas Gerais

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Espirito Santo

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Rio de Janeiro

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.007

0.008

São Paulo

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.007

0.003

SOUTH

0.061

0.071

0.069

0.063

0.067

0.079

0.081

0.097

Paraná

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

Santa Catarina

0.022

0.028

0.031

0.028

0.026

0.033

0.043

0.059

Rio Grande do Sul

0.038

0.042

0.037

0.034

0.040

0.046

0.037

0.037

TOTAL

0.075

0.107

0.095

0.083

0.090

0.111

0.118

0.140

BY REGION

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

NORTH

0.010

0.015

0.021

0.016

0.018

0.026

0.022

0.030

NORTHEAST

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

CENTER-WEST

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

SOUTHEAST

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.014

0.011

SOUTH

0.061

0.071

0.069

0.063

0.067

0.079

0.081

0.097

TOTAL

0.075

0.107

0.095

0.083

0.090

0.111

0.118

0.140

Summary Table available for "download"

Bibliography

JICA..............................

Informativo Anual da indústria Carbonífera, 1994, ano base 1993, editado pelo Ministério de Minas e Energia, Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral

Evaluation of the contribution of each fuel type to the emission of the different greenhouse effect gases (CO2, CO, NOX, N2O, CH4 and NMVOC) according to the power station's technology is made. It is shown that the geographical distribution by state allows for considering their respective main station.
Support e&e Edition: FAPEMIG