IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p3758-d363032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ammonia Emission Sources Characteristics and Emission Factor Uncertainty at Liquefied Natural Gas Power Plants

Author

Listed:
  • Seongmin Kang

    (Climate Change & Environment Research Center, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea)

  • Seong-Dong Kim

    (Cooperate Course for Climate Change, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea)

  • Eui-Chan Jeon

    (Department of Climate and Environment, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea)

Abstract

This study developed the NH 3 emission factor for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) power facilities in Korea by analyzing the emission characteristics from two LNG power plants using methods such as uncertainty analysis. Also, comparing the differences in NH 3 emission levels between the developed emission factors, which reflect the characteristics in Korea, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) values currently applied in Korea. The estimation showed that the NH 3 emission factor for the LNG power plants was 0.0054 ton NH 3 /10 6 Nm 3 , which is approximately nine times less than the EPA NH 3 emission factor of 0.051 ton NH 3 /10 6 Nm 3 for LNG fuels of the industrial energy combustion sector currently applied in national statistics in Korea. The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) emission factor for LNG power plants was 0.0010 ton NH 3 /10 6 Nm 3 , which is considerably lower than the EPA NH 3 emission factor of 0.146 ton NH 3 /10 6 Nm 3 currently applied in national statistics in Korea for the LNG fuels of the industrial process sector. This indicated the need for developing an emission factor that incorporates the unique characteristics in Korea. The uncertainty range of the LNG stack NH 3 emission factor developed in this study was ±10.91% at a 95% confidence level, while that of the SCR NH 3 emission factor was –10% to +20% at a 95% confidence level, indicating a slightly higher uncertainty range than the LNG stack. At present, quantitative analysis of air pollutants is difficult because numerical values of the uncertainty are not available. However, quantitative analysis might be possible using the methods applied in this study to estimate uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Seongmin Kang & Seong-Dong Kim & Eui-Chan Jeon, 2020. "Ammonia Emission Sources Characteristics and Emission Factor Uncertainty at Liquefied Natural Gas Power Plants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-10, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3758-:d:363032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3758/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3758/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seongmin Kang & Yoon-Jung Hong & Seong-Dong Kim & Eui-Chan Jeon, 2020. "Ammonia Emission Factors and Uncertainties of Coke Oven Gases in Iron and Steel Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-8, April.
    2. Seongmin Kang & Seong-Dong Kim & Eui-Chan Jeon, 2020. "Emission Characteristics of Ammonia at Bituminous Coal Power Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-8, March.
    3. S. Taheri & G. Hesamian, 2013. "A generalization of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and its applications," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 457-470, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seongmin Kang & Jiyun Woo & Eui-Chan Jeon, 2021. "Mixed Use of Bio-Oil in Oil Power Plants: Should It Be Considered When Developing NH 3 Emission Factors?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-7, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ming Shan & Yu-Shan Li & Bon-Gang Hwang & Jia-En Chua, 2021. "Productivity Metrics and Its Implementations in Construction Projects: A Case Study of Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Gholamreza Hesamian & Jalal Chachi, 2015. "Two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov fuzzy test for fuzzy random variables," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 61-82, February.
    3. Emily Tang & Chelsea Jones & Lorraine Smith-MacDonald & Matthew R. G. Brown & Eric H. G. J. M. Vermetten & Suzette Brémault-Phillips, 2021. "Decreased Emotional Dysregulation Following Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation Therapy (3MDR): Identifying Possible Driving Factors in Remediation of Treatment-Resi," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Giacomo Benini & Adam Brandt & Valerio Dotti & Hassan El-Houjeiri, 2023. "The Economic and Environmental Consequences of the Petroleum Industry Extensive Margin," Working Papers 2023:14, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    5. Seongmin Kang & Goeun Kim & Joonyoung Roh & Eui-chan Jeon, 2022. "Ammonia Emissions from NPK Fertilizer Production Plants: Emission Characteristics and Emission Factor Estimation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Abbas Parchami & S. Mahmoud Taheri & Reinhard Viertl & Mashaallah Mashinchi, 2018. "Minimax test for fuzzy hypotheses," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1623-1648, December.
    7. Shima Yosefi & Mohsen Arefi & Mohammad Ghasem Akbari, 2016. "A new approach for testing fuzzy hypotheses based on likelihood ratio statistic," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 665-688, September.
    8. Antonio Faúndez-Ugalde & Patricia Toledo-Zúñiga & Pedro Castro-Rodríguez, 2022. "Tax Sustainability: Tax Transparency in Latin America and the Chilean Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Wei Zhang & Shanshan Yu & Ling Wang & Wei Guo & Man-Fai Leung, 2024. "Constrained Symmetric Non-Negative Matrix Factorization with Deep Autoencoders for Community Detection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Johan Cassirame & Antoine Godin & Maxime Chamoux & Gregory Doucende & Laurent Mourot, 2022. "Physiological Implication of Slope Gradient during Incremental Running Test," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, September.
    11. Seongmin Kang & Jiyun Woo & Eui-Chan Jeon, 2021. "Mixed Use of Bio-Oil in Oil Power Plants: Should It Be Considered When Developing NH 3 Emission Factors?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-7, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3758-:d:363032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.