Carbon dioxide emission tallies for 210 U.S. coal-fired power plants: A comparison of two accounting methods

Abstract

Annual CO₂ emission tallies for 210 coal-fired power plants during 2009 were more accurately calculated from fuel consumption records reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) than measurements from Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results from these accounting methods for individual plants vary by ± 10.8%. Although the differences systematically vary with the method used to certify flue-gas flow instruments in CEMS, additional sources of CEMS measurement error remain to be identified. Limitations of the EIA fuel consumption data are also discussed. Consideration of weighing, sample collection, laboratory analysis, emission factor, and stock adjustment errors showed that the minimum error for CO₂ emissions calculated from the fuel consumption data ranged from ± 1.3% to ± 7.2% with a plant average of ± 1.6%. This error might be reduced by 50% if the carbon content of coal delivered to U.S. power plants were reported.

Implications:

Potentially, this study might inform efforts to regulate CO₂ emissions (such as CO₂ performance standards or taxes) and more immediately, the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule where large coal-fired power plants currently use CEMS to measure CO₂ emissions. Moreover, if, as suggested here, the flue-gas flow measurement limits the accuracy of CO₂ emission tallies from CEMS, then the accuracy of other emission tallies from CEMS (such as SO₂, NO_x, and Hg) would be similarly affected. Consequently, improved flue gas flow measurements are needed to increase the reliability of emission measurements from CEMS.

Acknowledgment

Art Diem (EPA) reviewed an early draft of the paper and generously provided some of the data used in this study. Correspondence with Kevin Gurney (Arizona State University) and Richard Winschel (CONSOL Energy, Inc.) as well as Channele Wirman and Rebecca Peterson (EIA) informed this work. Reviews by David Tabet (Utah Geological Survey) improved the paper. Finally, the thoughtful comments and suggestions from my anonymous reviewers are acknowledged and appreciated.