Air pollution, what are the concrete solutions

The air was disastrous again last night, and according to the forecast, it will be like that for the next couple of days. So that we don’t just pull our hair out and get annoyed, I decided to write a quick and very simplified overview of the solution, but first let’s understand the problem.

The numbers we see on the applications are air pollution indices, the higher the index, the worse the situation. The index is calculated according to the concentration of PM 2.5 particles in the air. PM 2.5 particles are very small pollutants, the number 2.5 is their diameter in micrometers, and this means that their diameter is several times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. That’s why they can penetrate deep into the body and cause damage.

Pollution in Serbia comes from 4 main sources: individual combustion plants, coal-fired thermal power plants, industry (higher importance locally in some affected cities) and traffic (higher impact in remote locations). Here I will focus on the first two.

According to official data from our Environmental Protection Agency, individual combustion plants are responsible for over 75% of PM2.5 particle pollution. However, many experts warn that this is not complete data, since it only looks at primarily broadcast particles and that it unjustifiably places all the blame on poorer households.

Our thermal power plants are huge emitters of sulfur dioxide, which through processes in the atmosphere can turn from gas into PM2.5 particles. The conditions most favorable to that process are exactly as they are these days.

The exact contribution of these two sources to pollution is a topic of discussion among experts, but to simplify we will consider thermal power plants and individual combustion plants as equal.

Solutions

Note: for all solutions that are on an individual level, they imply subsidies from the state, in some cases up to 100%, since a large number of people do not have the means even to be given 50%

1. Increasing the energy efficiency of homes, new insulation, replacement of doors and windows, better insulation of the roof and ceiling

The good side: The same quick and feasible solution, has multiple benefits that are not only related to pollution

Disadvantage: It is not a stand-alone solution, it has to be combined with others to give the full effect

For individual fireplaces:

1. Replacing old and inefficient furnaces and stoves, switching from wood and other solid fuels (such as coal) to pellets

Pros: Quick and workable solution, not a big change for people from what they are used to, can make a noticeable difference

Downside: It doesn’t solve the problem completely, it only alleviates it. As long as something burns there will be pollution

1. Switching to gas heating

Pros: Reduces pollution

Bad side: Expensive installation, there is no infrastructure everywhere, the price of gas is quite variable and we depend on geopolitics and international trends since it is not a domestic source

1. Switching to heat pumps

Good side: It completely eliminates local pollution, air-to-air heat pumps can also cool in summer

Bad side: Expensive installation, increased electricity consumption, which if coal remains dominant is a real problem elsewhere, expected increase in electricity prices

1. Expansion of the central heating network

Good side: Depending on the fuel used, it can significantly reduce pollution, in the future it can be completely clean. Greater efficiency overall

The downside: If there is no infrastructure, the wait is long

Coal-fired thermal power plants

1. Replacement of thermal power plants with renewable sources (solar, wind and hydro)

Good side: Eliminating air pollution, but also water and land pollution. Solar and wind are now cheap to build and projects can be completed quickly, in addition to the problem of pollution, they also solve the problem of CO2, a domestic source of energy

The bad side: At the moment, renewable sources cannot be the whole solution, maybe someday they will be, but even now they can help a lot. There is certainly no justification for us as a country to be so late in their development

1. Replacement of thermal power plants with gas power plants

Good side: Reduces air pollution, conventional energy source does not complicate the functioning of the electrical network

The bad side: Imported energy that depends a lot on infrastructure and geopolitics, prices have been very unstable in recent years. It does not solve the CO2 problem

1. Replacement of thermal power plants with nuclear power plants

Good side: Reduces air pollution, conventional energy source, solves the CO2 problem

Downside: Very expensive and very long to build. In my opinion, there is no chance that the first one in Serbia will be completed in less than 15 years from today, probably even longer. Although unlikely, the chance of accidents is enormous pollution.

1. Desulfurization in existing thermal power plants

Good side: It would reduce pollution as it would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, some plants even exist, but there are suspicions that they do not work as they should and are not used regularly

Disadvantage: Relatively expensive, reduces the efficiency of the thermal power plant, currently does not work very well in practice. Additional investment in the old thermal power plant, which should definitely be closed in the coming years. It does not reduce soil and water pollution

—-

Of course, all this costs a lot, but when we take into account how much money is wasted on various nonsense and how much is stolen, it is certain that there is enough money to at least start the whole process. The state even adopted the Air Protection Program where a lot of things are described and calculated, but of course it is implemented extremely poorly.

Again, keep in mind that this was a very simplified representation of everything. But I wanted to at least try to contribute to talking about solutions, not just whining.