out here, testing the criterion of “disproportionality” in the sense of the EU industrial emissions directive (IED) (cf. section 2.4.6). As was shown for instance by Krewitt et al.
(2001), Bachmann (2006), and more recently by Czarnowska and Frangopoulos (2012), the magnitude of external effects varies due to environmental settings. Accordingly, the focus is put on the first criterion for applying for derogations from BAT, i.e. the geograph-ical location or the local environmental conditions. Without loss of generality, the case is made for a typical coal-fired power plant at different Western European locations. Nev-ertheless, the general approach is applicable also to other kinds of industrial installations as well as to other policy contexts.
5.2 Model: damage cost assessment using EcoSenseWeb
For classical air pollutants, damage costs are estimated on the basis of the impact path-way approach (cf. section 3.4.1), as implemented in the EcoSenseWeb assessment model.
EcoSenseWeb 1.3 (Preiss and Klotz 2008) is used to calculate the environmental benefits resulting from the installation of emission control equipment at an exemplary fossil-fired power plant (cf. section 5.4). The model allows assessing impacts resulting from various emissions into air, comprising classical air pollutants (such as NOx, SO2, and primary par-ticles), trace pollutants (such as heavy metals, arsenic, and dioxins) and greenhouse gases.
Radionuclide releases and impacts on biodiversity due to land use changes can also be assessed but are disregarded here given the scope of the IED (articles 2 (1), 3 (1a) and 3 (2)). Data and methods necessary to quantify impacts according to the impact pathway approach for releases in Europe are provided. Most of the data is based on results from the EU research project NEEDS (cf. section 4.3 for more details on the models and param-eters used). Merely source-specific data need to be entered by the user. Table A.2 (Appendix) gives an overview on all kinds of data that a user can potentially enter. Fewer data may be specified, depending on the scope of the damage costs to be assessed (e.g.
regional and/or local; human health, climate change and/or biodiversity). Below, the approaches implemented in EcoSenseWeb for the quantification of impacts from differ-ent kinds of air pollutant groups are briefly presdiffer-ented, mainly based on the information provided by Preiss and Klotz (2008).
5.2.1 Classical air pollutants
For classical air pollutants, following the impact pathway approach, impacts on different receptors are considered, i.e. human health, crops, building materials, and biodiversity.
Different dispersion models are available in EcoSenseWeb to assess classical air pollutants in a nested way, covering local, regional (European) and Northern hemispheric impacts.
At the local scale, i.e. 100 x 100 km around a point source, a Gaussian plume model cal-culates dispersion of primary PM only. At the European and Northern hemispheric scale, dispersion as well as chemical conversion is assessed with help of source-receptor matri-ces derived from the EMEP Eulerian model, involving non-linear relationships. The Euro-pean modelling domain covers the EU28 plus 11 non EU countries as well as some sea regions. Some larger countries (e.g. France and Germany) are subdivided into sub-regions to allow for a more precise assessment of emissions from these countries.
Different impacts are covered such as mortality and morbidity for human health due to exposure via inhalation, crop yield losses due to airborne pollutants, acidification of soils or fertilising effects, damage to materials due to SO2 exposure or acid rain, and potential disappearance of plant target species due to acidification and eutrophication.
EcoSenseWeb 1.3 (Preiss and Klotz 2008) is used to calculate the environmental benefits resulting from the installation of emission control equipment at an exemplary fossil-fired power plant (cf. section 5.4). The model allows assessing impacts resulting from various emissions into air, comprising classical air pollutants (such as NOx, SO2, and primary par-ticles), trace pollutants (such as heavy metals, arsenic, and dioxins) and greenhouse gases.
Radionuclide releases and impacts on biodiversity due to land use changes can also be assessed but are disregarded here given the scope of the IED (articles 2 (1), 3 (1a) and 3 (2)). Data and methods necessary to quantify impacts according to the impact pathway approach for releases in Europe are provided. Most of the data is based on results from the EU research project NEEDS (cf. section 4.3 for more details on the models and param-eters used). Merely source-specific data need to be entered by the user. Table A.2 (Appendix) gives an overview on all kinds of data that a user can potentially enter. Fewer data may be specified, depending on the scope of the damage costs to be assessed (e.g.
regional and/or local; human health, climate change and/or biodiversity). Below, the approaches implemented in EcoSenseWeb for the quantification of impacts from differ-ent kinds of air pollutant groups are briefly presdiffer-ented, mainly based on the information provided by Preiss and Klotz (2008).
5.2.1 Classical air pollutants
For classical air pollutants, following the impact pathway approach, impacts on different receptors are considered, i.e. human health, crops, building materials, and biodiversity.
Different dispersion models are available in EcoSenseWeb to assess classical air pollutants in a nested way, covering local, regional (European) and Northern hemispheric impacts.
At the local scale, i.e. 100 x 100 km around a point source, a Gaussian plume model cal-culates dispersion of primary PM only. At the European and Northern hemispheric scale, dispersion as well as chemical conversion is assessed with help of source-receptor matri-ces derived from the EMEP Eulerian model, involving non-linear relationships. The Euro-pean modelling domain covers the EU28 plus 11 non EU countries as well as some sea regions. Some larger countries (e.g. France and Germany) are subdivided into sub-regions to allow for a more precise assessment of emissions from these countries.
Different impacts are covered such as mortality and morbidity for human health due to exposure via inhalation, crop yield losses due to airborne pollutants, acidification of soils or fertilising effects, damage to materials due to SO2 exposure or acid rain, and potential disappearance of plant target species due to acidification and eutrophication.
Monetary values have been obtained through contingent valuation studies (eliciting the Value of a Life Year, VOLY, and monetary values of several respiratory diseases) as well as by relying on market data for crops, treatment costs (e.g. bronchodilator uses), wages (work loss days), and restoration costs (impacts on biodiversity and on building materials).
Some impacts occur in the long run. No explicit information on the discount rates used is given in the consulted literature.
In general, receptor data, impact functions and monetary values were determined in dif-ferent years. Damage costs in EcoSenseWeb are expressed in a common base unit (i.e. €2000). Impact functions and monetary values (cf. the NEEDS2009 parameters in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3) stem from different regions, i.e. from Europe and North America.
5.2.2 Trace pollutants
Trace pollutants are assessed to lead to increased human health risks only. Neither dis-persion, nor exposure nor impact models for trace elements are implemented directly in EcoSenseWeb. Rather, external unit costs pre-calculated with different models in previ-ous studies are used for trace pollutants. These rely on population data and monetary values that vary from those used in the assessment of classical air pollutants.
5.2.3 Greenhouse gases
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are valued either by a default value, a user-specified constant value, a marginal abatement cost (MAC) or a marginal damage cost (MDC) approach.
When following the MAC approach, monetary values for GHGs are available for emissions occurring between 2000 and 2050. These were derived from a meta-analysis of different models and scenarios by Kuik (2007). The values are valid for a CO2-eq. concentration target of between 535 and 710 ppm or a CO2 concentration target of between 440 and 570 ppm. The values in €2005/t CO2 are: 19 until 2020, 23 in 2025 and 61 in 2050 with linear interpolation between these reference years.
EcoSenseWeb allows assessing GHGs up to the year 2100 when using the other ap-proaches, i.e. a default value of 19 €2000/t CO2 (derived based on MAC principles, cf.
European Commission (2005a)), a user-specified constant value (of whatever kind), or the
MDC approach. The MDC approach relies on the FUND model13, developed partly in re-search projects funded by the European Commission with several publications in the peer-reviewed literature. The MDC values implemented in EcoSenseWeb strongly depend on whether or not the optional equity weighting is used. Equity weighting accounts for the fact that a damage of 1 € is less severe in a highly developed country than in a devel-oping country. Without equity weighting, the values are below 10 €2000/t CO2 while they are two to five times higher than the default value of 19 €2000/t CO2 when considering equity weighting. As a result, the user’s choice concerning monetisation of GHG emissions has a pronounced impact on the finally obtained results.
5.2.4 Settings for calculations
Beyond the facility-specific input parameters (Table A.2), EcoSenseWeb offers a few as-sessment options (cf. Table 5.1). These concern whether or not air quality is assessed at different scales; for regional (i.e. Europe-wide) air quality, the user can choose between two background emission scenarios and between two meteorological conditions; three variants of human health impact functions are provided; impacts on biodiversity are op-tionally assessed; GHGs and micro pollutants can be included or excluded; for GHG emis-sions, different monetary values can be specified. For the calculations presented in sec-tion 5.4 default settings in EcoSenseWeb were used (Table 5.1). For the sensitivity results, human health impact functions as well as the assumptions regarding air quality modelling have been varied (cf. section 5.4.4).
13 Cf. http://www.fund-model.org/publications, last accessed: 2017-05-18
MDC approach. The MDC approach relies on the FUND model13, developed partly in re-search projects funded by the European Commission with several publications in the peer-reviewed literature. The MDC values implemented in EcoSenseWeb strongly depend on whether or not the optional equity weighting is used. Equity weighting accounts for the fact that a damage of 1 € is less severe in a highly developed country than in a devel-oping country. Without equity weighting, the values are below 10 €2000/t CO2 while they are two to five times higher than the default value of 19 €2000/t CO2 when considering equity weighting. As a result, the user’s choice concerning monetisation of GHG emissions has a pronounced impact on the finally obtained results.
5.2.4 Settings for calculations
Beyond the facility-specific input parameters (Table A.2), EcoSenseWeb offers a few as-sessment options (cf. Table 5.1). These concern whether or not air quality is assessed at different scales; for regional (i.e. Europe-wide) air quality, the user can choose between two background emission scenarios and between two meteorological conditions; three variants of human health impact functions are provided; impacts on biodiversity are op-tionally assessed; GHGs and micro pollutants can be included or excluded; for GHG emis-sions, different monetary values can be specified. For the calculations presented in sec-tion 5.4 default settings in EcoSenseWeb were used (Table 5.1). For the sensitivity results, human health impact functions as well as the assumptions regarding air quality modelling have been varied (cf. section 5.4.4).
13 Cf. http://www.fund-model.org/publications, last accessed: 2017-05-18
Table 5.1: Settings of EcoSenseWeb as used in the analysis of the current chapter;
based on Preiss and Klotz (2008)
Setting concerning Choice Remarks
Classical air pollutants – dispersion modelling
Local air quality model Included -
Regional air quality model Included -
Background emission scenario 2010d/2020s Influencing the chemistry of the non-local atmospheric dispersion modelling (non-linearities), antici-pated emissions
Meteorological data Default yeard/ Future years
Influencing the regional atmos-pheric dispersion modelling. The de-fault setting is an average of the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000;
alternatively, a future setting can be chosen, corresponding to the year 2003
Hemispheric air quality model Not included Given the European scope of the IED, hemispheric results are disre-garded
Classical air pollutants – impact assessment Health risk functions of classical
air pollutants
SIA_E_PPMd/ SIA_D_PPM_Cores
Default risk functions, assuming equal toxicities of different primary and secondary particles; alterna-tively assuming differing toxicities of primary and secondary particles Biodiversity losses due to
acidifi-cation and eutrophiacidifi-cation
Included -
Assessment of other pollutants
Micro pollutants Not included For data availability reasons GHG valuation Default value 19 €2000/tonne CO2-eq. (for all
op-tions, cf. section 5.2.3)
d default assessment; s sensitivity analysis