Advertisement

Low-carbon electricity generation–based dynamic equilibrium strategy for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in the coal-fired power enterprise

  • Jiuping XuEmail author
  • Qing Feng
  • Chengwei Lv
  • Qian Huang
Research Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Climate change is already resulting in extreme devastation in the earth, with carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants being the largest contributor. Therefore, integrated coal purchasing, blending, and distribution strategies are playing a more important role in large-scale coal-fired power enterprises due to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and operational costs. In this study, a dynamic equilibrium strategy for integrated coal purchasing, blending, and distribution under an uncertain environment is proposed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in large-scale coal-fired powered enterprises; the practicality and efficiency of which are verified using a real-world case. Sensitivity analyses under different carbon dioxide emissions levels and satisfactory degrees were also conducted to give insights into the conflict between economic development and environmental protection for large-scale coal-fired power enterprises, and balance short-term and long-term production plans. The results indicated that the proposed method was able to achieve economic-environmental coordination and sustainable development. Compared to previous studies, the developed model was found to be able to reduce carbon emissions by about 30% compared with the maximum carbon emissions and improve carbon emissions reduction performance to assist in mitigating climate change.

Keywords

Climate change mitigation Dynamic equilibrium strategy Coal blending method Integrated optimization 

Notes

Funding information

This work is financially supported by the State Key Development Program of (for) Basic Research of China (973 Program, Grant N0.2011CB201200) and the Funds for Creative Research Groups of China (Grant No. 50221402).

References

  1. Aliabadi L, Yazdanparast R, Nasiri MM (2019) An inventory model for non-instantaneous deteriorating items with credit period and carbon emission sensitive demand: a signomial geometric programming approach. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 14(2):124–136Google Scholar
  2. Abello MB, Bui LT, Michalewicz Z (2011) An adaptive approach for solving dynamic scheduling with time-varying number of tasks?part II. In: 2011 IEEE congress of evolutionary computation (CEC). IEEE, pp 1711?-1718Google Scholar
  3. Beér JM (2000) Combustion technology developments in power generation in response to environmental challenges. Prog Energy Combust Sci 26(4-6):301–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beér J M (2007) High efficiency electric power generation: the environmental role. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(2):107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BP (2019) Bp statistical review of world energyGoogle Scholar
  6. CEC (2019) National electric power industry statistical bulletin (2018)Google Scholar
  7. Dai C, Cai XH, et al. (2014) A simulation-based fuzzy possibilistic programming model for coal blending management with consideration of human health risk under uncertainty. Appl Energy 133(10):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis SJ, Caldeira K, Matthews HD (2010) Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329(5997):1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Du W, Chen X, Wang H (2018) Pll performance evaluation considering power system dynamics for grid connection of renewable power generation. J Environ Inform 32(1):55–62Google Scholar
  10. Ferrero A, Salicone S (2004) The random-fuzzy variables: a new approach to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 53(5):1370–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher M, Raman A (1996) Reducing the cost of demand uncertainty through accurate response to early sales. Oper Res 44(1):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedlingstein P, Andrew RM, et al. (2014) Persistent growth of co2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat Geosci 7(10):709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuss S, Canadell JG, et al. (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4(10):850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ganguly S, Sahoo N, Das D (2013) Multi-objective planning of electrical distribution systems using dynamic programming. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 46:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giri BC, Chakraborty A (2016) Coordinating a vendora-buyer supply chain with stochastic demand and uncertain yield. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 12(2):96–103Google Scholar
  16. Goto K, Yogo K, Higashii T (2013) A review of efficiency penalty in a coal-fired power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture. Appl Energy 111(11):710–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo Y, Wang Q, Zhang D, Yu J (2018) A stochastic-process-based method for assessing frequency regulation ability of power systems with wind power fluctuations. J Environ Inform 32(1):45–54Google Scholar
  18. Heinberg R, Fridley D (2010) The end of cheap coal. Nature 468(7322):367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoya R, Fushimi C (2017) Thermal efficiency of advanced integrated coal gasification combined cycle power generation systems with low-temperature gasifier, gas cleaning and CO2 capturing units. Fuel Process Technol 164:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu Y, Li H, Yan J (2014) Numerical investigation of heat transfer characteristics in utility boilers of oxy-coal combustion. Appl Energy 130(5):543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang L, Suh IH, Abraham A (2011) Dynamic multi-objective optimization based on membrane computing for control of time-varying unstable plants. Inf Sci 181(11):2370–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IEAGHG (2011) Effects of impurities on geological storage of CO2. Tech. rep. IEAGHGGoogle Scholar
  23. IEA (2019) Global energy & CO2 status reportGoogle Scholar
  24. Katarzyna S, Henryk ł, Sławomir D (2013) Calculation of an advanced ultra-supercritical power unit with CO2, capture installation. Energy Convers Manag 74(5):201–208Google Scholar
  25. KPPAR (2017) Kanshan power plant annual report. Kanshan Power Plant Information Office (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. Lee HL, Padmanabhan V, Whang S (1997) Information distortion in a supply chain: the bullwhip effect. Manag Sci 43(4):546–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Y (2012) Dynamics of clean coal-fired power generation development in China. Energy Policy 51(6):138–142Google Scholar
  28. Li W, Bao Z, Huang G, Xie Y (2018) An inexact credibility chance-constrained integer programming for greenhouse gas mitigation management in regional electric power system under uncertainty. J Environ Inform 31 (2):111–122Google Scholar
  29. Li Q, Zou J, Yang S, Zheng J, Ruan G (2019) A predictive strategy based on special points for evolutionary dynamic multi-objective optimization. Soft Comput 23(11):3723–3739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu B, Liu YK (2002) Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected value models. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(4):445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lomax G, Lenton TM, et al. (2015) Investing in negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 5(6):498–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lonsdale CR, Stevens RG, et al. (2012) The effect of coal-fired power-plant so 2 and no x control technologies on aerosol nucleation in the source plumes. Atmospheric Chem Phys 12(23):11519–11531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lv C, Xu J, et al. (2016) Equilibrium strategy based coal blending method for combined carbon and pm 10 emissions reductions. Appl Energy 183:1035–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma X, Wang C, Dong B, Gu G, Chen R, Li Y, Zou H, Zhang W, Li Q (2019) Carbon emissions from energy consumption in China: Its measurement and driving factors. Sci Total Environ 648:1411–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahmoudimehr J, Sebghati P (2019) A novel multi-objective dynamic programming optimization method: Performance management of a solar thermal power plant as a case study. Energy 168:796–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mao XQ, Zeng A, et al. (2014) Co-control of local air pollutants and co 2 from the chinese coal-fired power industry. J Clean Prod 67(67):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porter RTJ, Fairweather M, et al. (2015) The range and level of impurities in co 2 streams from different carbon capture sources. Int J Greenh Gas Con 36:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Puri ML (1986) Fuzzy random variables. J Math Anal Appl 114(2):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Samimi A, Zarinabadi S (2012) Reduction of greenhouse gases emission and effect on environment. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 8(12):1011–1015Google Scholar
  40. Scott V, Gilfillan S, et al. (2013) Last chance for carbon capture and storage. Nat Clim Chang 3(2):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Service RF (2017a) Cleaning up coal-cost-effectively. Science 356Google Scholar
  42. Service RF (2017b) Fossil power, guilt free. Science 356(6340):796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shih JS, Frey H (1995) Coal blending optimization under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 83(3):452–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smoot L, Smith P (2013) Coal combustion and gasification. Springer science & Bussiness Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Solomon S, Plattner GK, et al. (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(6):1704–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tola V, Pettinau A (2014) Power generation plants with carbon capture and storage: a techno-economic comparison between coal combustion and gasification technologies. Appl Energy 113(1):1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van der Meer JWM, Huppert H, Holmes J (2014) Carbon: no silver bullet. Science 345(6201):1130–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang Q, Chen X (2015) Energy policies for managing China’s carbon emission. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. WPPAR (2017) Wangting power plant annual report. Wangting Power Plant Information Office (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  50. XPPAR (2017) Xiexin power plant annual report. Xiexin Power Plant Information Office (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  51. Xu J, Zhou X (2011) Fuzzy-like multiple objective decision making. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu J, Yang X, Tao Z (2015) A tripartite equilibrium for carbon emission allowance allocation in the power-supply industry. Energy Policy 82:62–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xu J, Qiu R, Lv C (2016) Carbon emission allowance allocation with cap and trade mechanism in air passenger transport. J Clean Prod 131:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xu J, Huang Q, Lv C, Feng Q, Wang F (2018) Carbon emissions reductions oriented dynamic equilibrium strategy using biomass-coal co-firing. Energy policy 123:184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang CJ, Xuan X, Jackson RB (2012) China’s coal price disturbances: observations, explanations, and implications for global energy economies. Energy Policy 51:720–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeng Z, Xu J, et al. (2014) Antithetic method-based particle swarm optimization for a queuing network problem with fuzzy data in concrete transportation systems. Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 29(10):771–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiuping Xu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Qing Feng
    • 1
  • Chengwei Lv
    • 1
  • Qian Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of New Energy and Low-Carbon TechnologySichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations