引用本文:张宁,张紫禾,张景奇,康磊,张海滨,陈颖,贾睿,等.燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电CO2排放量量化方法比较[J].环境科学研究,2017,30(9):1489-1496.
ZHANG Ning,ZHANG Zihe,ZHANG Jingqi,KANG Lei,ZHANG Haibin,CHEN Ying,JIA Rui,et al.Comparison of Methods for Quantifying CO2 Emissions from Fuel Gas-Steam Combined Cycle Power Plants[J].Reserrch of Environmental Science,2017,30(9):1489-1496.]
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 173次   下载 222 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电CO2排放量量化方法比较
张 宁1,2, 张紫禾1,2, 张景奇3, 康 磊1, 张海滨3, 陈 颖1, 贾 睿1,2
1.天津市环境保护科学研究院, 天津 300191 ;2.天津环科环境咨询有限公司, 天津 300191 ;3.中国海洋石油总公司节能减排监测中心, 天津 300457
摘要:
为探究排放因子法与监测法两类量化方法对燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电CO2排放源排放量量化的差异和影响因素,采用《温室气体排放核算与报告要求第1部分:发电企业》(下称《核算报告要求》)和《2006年IPCC国家温室气体清单指南》(下称《IPCC指南》)两种排放因子法,以及一种基于红外吸收光谱原理的排放源监测法,对某燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电CO2排放源排放量进行4次量化,分别得出监测法、《核算报告要求》以及《IPCC指南》下限值、缺省值和上限值5组量化值. 结果表明:①采用监测法得出的CO2排放源排放量量化值明显小于两种指南排放因子法量化结果;②采用《核算报告要求》得出的CO2排放源排放量量化值介于《IPCC指南》缺省值和下限值的量化值之间;③《核算报告要求》和《IPCC指南》中的天然气排放因子值分别超出此次监测法量化值折算出的天然气排放因子值的22%、19%、23%和28%,证明存在因高估排放因子导致高估CO2排放量的可能;④装置运行负荷率越高,采用排放因子法得出的量化值越趋近于监测法量化值. 研究显示,在监测条件良好的情况下,宜采用监测法对燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电CO2排放源排放量进行量化,可避免燃料燃烧特性值和装置负荷率对排放因子法量化准确性的干扰,能更好地支撑企业和管理部门的统计量化工作.
关键词:  CO2排放  监测法  排放因子法  燃气-蒸汽联合循环发电
DOI:
分类号:
基金项目:中国清洁发展机制基金赠款项目(2012085);天津市环境保护科学研究院自主创新基金暨院长基金项目(YZJJ-2015-011)
Comparison of Methods for Quantifying CO2 Emissions from Fuel Gas-Steam Combined Cycle Power Plants
ZHANG Ning1,2, ZHANG Zihe1,2, ZHANG Jingqi3, KANG Lei1, ZHANG Haibin3, CHEN Ying1, JIA Rui1,2
1.Tianjin Academy of Environmental Sciences, Tianjin 300191, China ;2.Tianjin Environmental Consulting Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300191, China ;3.CNOOC Energy Conservation & Pollution Reduction Monitor Center, Tianjin 300457, China
Abstract:
Abstract: The emissions of CO2 from fuel gas-steam combined cycle power plants can be quantified by two methods, emission factors and detection. To research the quantified difference between the two methods and influencing factors, we applied two emission factor methods-the standard Requirements of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting and Reporting-Part 1:Power Generation Enterprise (GB/T 32151.1-2015) (hereafter referred to as ‘requirements of accounting and reporting’) and 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (hereafter referred to as ‘IPCC Guide’)-and an emission source testbased on the principle about absorption of infrared spectrum to make four quantitative analyses with respect to the emissions of CO2. Through the four quantitatwe analyses, five quantified values were obtained:detection method ‘requirements of accounting and reporting’, the lower boundary, the default value and the upper boundary of ‘IPCC Guide’. The results showed that:(1) The quantified value from detection was smaller than that from the two emission factor methods.(2) The quantified value from ‘requirements of accounting and reporting’ was between the default value of ‘IPCC Guide’ and the quantified value of lower boundary.(3) Compared with the converted natural gas emission factor from quantified value by detection method, the emission factor value of natural gas emission in the ‘requirements of accounting and reporting’ and ‘IPCC Guide’ was higher by 22%,19%,23% and 28%,respectively, which shows that the CO2 emissions maybe overestimated because of the overestimated emission factors.(4) With higher operating loading rate of the equipment, the quantified value from the factor method converged to the quantified value from detection.Therefore, under good detection conditions, detection should be applied to quantify CO2 emissions from fuel gas-steam′s combined cycle generating unit, since it could avoid the accuracy disruption from fuel combustion characteristic value and the loading rate of equipment. At the same time, it could support the statistics, quantification work of companies and the management departments better.
Key words:  CO2 emissions  detection method  factors method  fuel gas-steam combined cycle power plant