1. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND
International Journal of Production Technology and (IJPTM) (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
MANAGEMENT Management
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
ISSN 0976- 6383 (Print)
ISSN 0976 - 6391 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), pp. 01-13
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijptm.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 4.3285 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJPTM
©IAEME
ENDPOINT DAMAGE OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT IN
THAILAND
Chantima Rewlay-ngoen1 and Sate Sampattagul2
1
Energy Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai
50200, Thailand
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University,
Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is therefore to adjust the life cycle impact assessment method
so that it becomes suitable for Thailand, within the context of characterization, damage, and
weighting factors. The results show that the coefficient of those factors. Additionally, this
study was conducted to analyze the acidification damage factors—the damage arises from
coal-fired power plant—using the coefficients of those factors. Finally, the results of this
study will help us to minimize the damage costs from the coal-fired power plant in order that
they become more environmentally friendly.
Keywords: Characterization, Damage Assessment, Weighting, Contingent Valuation, CoalFired Power Plant
1. INTRODUCTION
Thailand is set to achieve its electricity capacity plant during the period 2012–2030,
which requires an annual increase in coal-fired power plant of up to 800 MW (EPPO, 2013).
However, the increasing of the number of capacity coal-fired power plants should be based
on clean energy and a reduction in environmental problems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is
a tool used in compiling and evaluating inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts
of products and services throughout their life cycles [1]. LCA assists companies in
identifying the production in terms of selecting input raw materials, production process, or
management policy to achieve the least environment impact [2]. Among the undesired
environmental impacts are emission of greenhouse gases of CO2, N2O, and CH4, which is the
1

2. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
cause of global warming and many health hazards, in addition to the damages caused to
various social assets.
In this work, we focus on the environmental assessment of coal-fired power plant
because of their importance in providing clean energy for electricity capacity plants in
Thailand. There are various methods of environmental assessment, of which there exists no
common method that can be used to analyze the LCIA phase for Thailand. Instead, foreign
methods are often employed for such a purpose. For example, Malakulet al. [3] and
Sampattagulet al. [4] used different LCA methods for analyzing the life-cycle environmental
impacts of biodiesel production from palm oil. When comparing its Global Warming
Potential (GWP), Malakulet al. used CML baseline 2000, while Sampattagulet al. used
EDIP2003. Accordingly, their results were vastly different. For example, Malakulet al.
showed the GWP to be 1.42 kg CO2 eq./liter, while Sampattagulet al. showed that it is 22.45
kg CO2 eq./liter. This variation in results is in addition to the fact that both these methods
might not be appropriate for Thailand. Taking this into account, this research aims to adjust
an LCIA method by adapting the existing models so that it is suitable for Thailand.
Currently, there are many environmental assessment methods, such as EDIP2003
(Environmental Design of Industrial Products 2003), IMPACT 2002+, LUCAS (an LCIA
method used for a Canadian-specific context), and LIME (Life–cycle Impact assessment
Method based on Endpoint modeling). It is only the LIME method that consists of the cause–
effect chain of the environmental problems. Take, for example, the case of CO2 causing
global warming and eventually a loss of biodiversity that is called the endpoint damage.
LIME is the only method that consists of the cause and effect relationship of the
environmental problems, which would be adjusted method for Thailand.
The environmental problems caused by coal-fired power plant are mainly in power
generation, and its operation discharges CO2, SO2, and NOX, which cause global warming
and acidification [5]. Thus, this study aims to perform an environmental assessment on a
coal-fired power plant regarding the issues of global warming and acidification based on the
LIME method.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Goal and scope of this study
The goal of this LCA research is to identify the environmental emission from each
process of coal-fired production, from cradle to grid of electricity production, and to compare
the environmental impacts from the emissions released during the generation process. The
main system boundary included from all the life-cycle phase-coal mining, coal transportation,
and power plant operation is normalized to one kWh of electricity delivered from a power
plant (Fig. 1). The data used secondary data from the Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand (EGAT).
2

3. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
Figure 1: The system boundary of a coal-fired power plant
2.1.2 Functional unit
The functional unit for this research is one kWh net electricity generation from a coalfired power plant.
2.2 Life-cycle inventory
Coal-fired power plant is the case study. Coal from Mae Moh mine is the major fuel
resource. Diesel is a reserve fuel. Coal from the Mae Moh mine contains 2.88% sulfur, a
percentage that is considerably higher than that in the other fossil fuel power plant as a result
of the high volume of combustion. Nonetheless, the coal-fired power plant has installed highefficiency dust collectors and flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (92–95% efficiency) so
that the concentration of sulfur dioxide emitted from the power plant stacks is lower than the
standard emission baseline for lignite power plants in Europe and the United States. This case
study considers acidification from material acquisition (coal mining, chemical substances,
and fuel production), transportation, electricity production, as well as FGD systems and ash
management of the power plant. The inventory data of coal-fired power production from
cradle to grid is presented in Table 1.
3

4. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
Table 1: Inventory Data of Coal-fired Power Production from Cradle to Grid
(kgsubstance/kWh)
Common name
1
2
12
Ammonia
Carbon dioxide
Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-,
HFC-134a
Hydrogen chloride
Methane, bromotrifluoro-,
Halon 1301
Methane, chlorodifluoro-,
HCFC-22
Methane, chlorotrifluoro-,
CFC-13
Methane, dichlorodifluoro-,
CFC-12
Methane, dichlorofluoro-,
HCFC-21
Methane, trichlorofluoro-,
CFC-11
Methane, trifluoro-, HFC23
Nitrogen dioxide
13
Nitrogen oxides
14
15
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur hexafluoride
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
NH3
CO2
Raw
material
extraction
2.05E-06
1.66E-02
C2H3F3
2.96E-13
0.00E+00
1.12E-14
3.07E-13
HCl
1.14E-07
2.23E-18
1.23E-09
1.16E-07
CBrF3
4.63E-11
9.20E-23
2.18E-12
4.85E-11
CHClF2
6.74E-11
0.00E+00
8.89E-13
6.83E-11
CClF3
1.71E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.71E-13
CCl2F2
6.76E-13
0.00E+00
4.17E-15
6.80E-13
CHCl2F
6.45E-11
0.00E+00
8.11E-18
6.45E-11
CCl3F
1.26E-12
0.00E+00
1.32E-17
1.26E-12
CHF3
1.35E-13
0.00E+00
2.58E-15
1.38E-13
NO2
NOX as
NO2
SO2
SF6
4.12E-08
6.84E-18
0.00E+00
4.12E-08
4.95E-05
2.60E-06
2.98E-03
3.03E-03
1.86E-05
2.84E-11
6.02E-08
0.00E+00
1.26E-03
1.86E-12
1.28E-03
3.03E-11
Chemical
formula
No.
7.20E-16
2.49E-04
Power
plant
operation
9.61E-10
1.10E+00
2.05E-06
1.12E+00
Transportation
Total
2.2 Life-cycle impact assessment
2.2.1 LIME method concept
The present endpoint impact assessment method mainly uses damage models to
quantify environmental impact. Based on the endpoint damage concept in the LIME method
[6], the method consisted of three steps: characterization, damage evaluation, and integration.
Each step can be calculated as shown in equations (1)–(3) [7]:
Characterization
CI impact = ∑ ( CF impact ( X ) ⋅ Inv ( X ) )
(1)
X
Damage evaluation
DI ( safe ) =
∑ ∑ DF
impact
( safe, X ) ⋅ Inv ( X )
(2)
impact X
Integration
SI =
∑ ∑ IF
impact
( X ) ⋅ Inv ( X )
(3)
impact X
4

5. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
where X stands for the environmental burden materials, impact is the impact domain,
safe is the protection area, CI impact is the calculation result of characterization, DI ( safe ) is the
calculation result of damage evaluation, SI is the calculation result of integration, CF impact is
the characterization coefficient, DF impact ( safe, X ) is the damage coefficient, and IF impact ( X )
is the integration coefficient. In this research evaluated impact categories only two categories
are global warming and acidification, which the adjustment data for Thailand. For integration
index used primary data from random sampling in Thailand by using Contingent Valuation
Method (CVM) technique.
Figure 2: The principal framework of LIME [8]
ODS = Ozone Depleting Substances; GHG = Greenhouse Gas; AP = Acidifying Pollutants.
2.2.2 Characterization and damage factor application for global warming
The characterization factor of global warming was based on the IPCC third report [9].
As for the damage factor, LIME focused on human health and social assets as far as global
warming damage is concerned, but regarding development damage, the focus was put on ongoing biodiversity [10, 11]. However, those factors have not been published yet. Thus,
damage on human health can be calculated using the following equation, equation (4) [11]:
DFs , g =
∑∑∑ ( ∆TEMP
s ,t , g
d
where
DFs , g
r
× ∆RRd , r × INCs , d ,r ,t × CAPs ,r ,t × HDs ,d ,r ,t )
(4)
t
is human health damage factor of GHG g in the SRES s scenario;
∆TEMPs ,t , g is additional increment of the Global Mean Temperature (GMT) in time t and s
∆RRd ,r
scenario caused by the additional emission of 1 kg GHG g (°C/kg);
is increment of relative risk of health burden d in region r against 1°C increment
of GMT (%/°C);
5

6. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
INCs ,d , r ,t
is baseline mortality rate of health burden d in region r, time t, and scenario s (%);
CAPs ,r ,t
is future population in region r, time t, and scenario s (person);
HDs ,d ,r ,t
is DALYs(0,0) for 1 death by health burden d in region r, time t, and scenario s
(DALYs/person).
This research only adjusted in terms of ∆TEMP by using data from [12], and for the
social asset factor, the estimation was done by using the unit transfer with income adjustment,
as shown in equation (5):
BTH
Y 
= BJP ⋅  TH 
 YJP 
β
(5)
where BTH is the adjusted policy–site benefit for Thailand, BJP is the original benefit based
on Japan, YTH and Y JP are the domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita
(GDP(PPP)percap), and β is the income elasticity of demand for the analyzed environmental
good, which is assumed to be equal to one [13]. The original values based on Japanese rates,
which are taken to be of soybean and rice as they are goods of agricultural production, were
estimated at 240 yen/kg and 243 yen/kg, respectively. The GDP ( PPP ) percap of Thailand and
Japan were 8,703 Baht and 34,298 Baht according to the values in the year 2012 (exchange
rate = 38.70 Baht/100 Yen) [14]. The rates of soybean and rice, goods of agricultural
production, were 60.90 Baht/kg and 61.66 Baht/kg, respectively. However, it is worth
mentioning that Rewlay-ngoen et al. [15] developed global warming damage based on
primary production, which is also included in this research.
2.2.3 Characterization factor and damage factor of acidification
Both the characterization factor and the damage factor of acidification were studied
by Rewlay-ngoenet al. [5]. Damage on both terrestrial and social assets is included in the
model.
2.2.4 Integration
Damage assessment has a limited number of safeguard areas compared with that of
impact categories due to the fact that indexes can be aggregated into endpoints: human
health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. In addition, damage assessment
cannot provide a single index. Thus, this research provided weighting factors for comparing
the importance of safeguard subjects by using the Contingent Valuation (CV) technique.
Ciriacy-Wantrup [16] was the first to propose CV theory as a method for eliciting market
valuation of a non-market good. Several researches applied the CV technique to an estimation
of values, such as value based on travel costs and value based on environmental damage. The
key output of a CV study is an estimate of the maximum Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) for the
good of interest. The questionnaire put together while conducting CV can be classified into
two types: open-ended and choice experiments [17]. Choice experiments have become a very
popular elicitation format in recent years because it very closely chooses the attributes of the
good of interest. The ultimate goal of the research is to determine an amount of WTP for
6

7. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
avoiding a unit quantity of damage for every safeguard area: human health, social assets,
biodiversity, and primary production.
2.2.4.1 Design of field experiment
The data were collected during August 2012–April 2013. The main study included
two main groups: group 1 as the expert in economics, environment, science, and LCA, and
group 2 in various backgrounds and categories. This study was a face–to–face survey
conducted with the interviewee by using a single-bounded question, close-ended survey to
put forward the questionnaires using the four starting bids of 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 Baht
per year per individual and collecting the data over all the sub-regions in Thailand, which
gave a total of 418 samples.
2.2.4.2 Econometric estimation of model
The CV technique does the estimation using the conditional probit model, based on
Random Utility Maximum (RUM). The following discussions are based on studies conducted
in [17]–[18].
In terms of RUM, it is assumed to be utility for a particular alternative, and a utility
function involving a definite term V and an unobservable component term e is given by
U i j = Vi j + ε ij
(6)
where U i j is the utility of the j alternative to the i agent, Vi j is the utility function that can be
written as f i ( X j ) where X j is a vector of the parameter for the j alternative. The probability
of the respondent answer yes can be represented in terms of the WTP distribution by
{
}
Pr ( Response is ' yes ' ) = Pr C ( q 0 , q1 , p, y; ε ) ≥ A ≡1 − GC ( A )
(7)
where C ( q 0 , q1 , p, y; ε ) is a random variable, A is the bid, and GC is the cumulative
distribution function.
These parameters can be estimated by the BOX-COX model, as given by
α + η 
C = exp 

 β 
(8)
where η is the standard normal random variable, and α/β are estimated by the maximum
likelihood method.
The response probability formula for the RUM version of the BOX-COX model is given by
α + η

Pr ( Response is ' yes ' ) =1 − Pr 
≤ A
 β

(9)
Bishop and Heberlein [19] introduced the utility of a yes response, which is close-ended,
single-bounded, by which the following is obtained:
Pr ( Response is ' yes ' ) = exp  − exp ( −α + β ln A ) 


if (-η) has the standard extreme value distribute.
7
(10)

8. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
Table 2 shows the econometrical estimate WTP of each safeguard area and the
statistics of the response results obtained in the above in the manner based on the RUM
theory.
Table 2: Calculated Results of Contingent Valuation Analysis
WTP
Human health
Social assets
Biodiversity
Primary
production
Note:
Mean
WTP1,e
(Baht/unit1)
856.80
835.51
787.94
95% confidence
Standard
error
z
Pseudo
R2
Log
likelihood
Lower
Upper
89.04
89.92
81.25
9.62
9.29
9.70
0.1168
0.0878
0.0896
-234.15
-244.34
-247.34
682.28
659.28
628.70
1031.34
1011.74
684.83
86.10
9.40
0.0872
-246.88
640.31
947.19
809.06
1
Human health is unit DALY/person;
Social asset is unit Baht/person;
Biodiversity is unit EINES/person;
Primary production is unit kg/person.
The characterization, damage factor, and weighting coefficient of global warming and
acidification are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
2.4 Life cycle interpretation
The data collected from the inventory analysis which are analyzed and classified into
the two relevant impact categories of global warming and acidification can be interpreted for
endpoint damage. The interpretation of results can provide an explanation of the impact
generated from the different processes of power production at coal-fired power plant.
Table 3: Characterization, Damage, and Weighting Coefficients of Global Warming
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Common name
Carbon dioxide
Ethane, 1,1,1,2tetrafluoro-, HFC-134a
Methane,
bromotrifluoro-, Halon
1301
Methane,
chlorodifluoro-,
HCFC-22
Methane,
chlorotrifluoro-, CFC13
Methane,
dichlorodifluoro-,
CFC-12
Methane,
dichlorofluoro-,
HCFC-21
Methane,
trichlorofluoro-, CFC11
Sulfur hexafluoride
Global
warming
characterizati
on factor
(kg CO2 eq.)
Human
health
(DALY/kg)
Social assets
(Baht/kg)
Primary
production
(kg/kg)
Human
health
Social
assets
Primary
production
1
5.50E-07
6.39E-12
4.98E-05
4.71E-04
5.34E-09
4.03E-02
C2H3F3
1430
8.60E-04
9.99E-09
7.79E-02
7.37E-01
8.35E-06
6.30E+01
CBrF3
7140
-3.66E-02
-4.25E-07
-3.31E+00
-3.14E+01
-3.55E-04
-2.68E+03
CHClF2
1810
8.80E-04
1.02E-08
7.97E-02
7.54E-01
8.54E-06
6.45E+01
CClF3
14420
8.68E-03
1.01E-07
7.86E-01
7.44E+00
8.42E-05
6.36E+02
CCl2F2
10890
1.39E-03
1.61E-08
1.25E-01
1.19E+00
1.34E-05
1.01E+02
CHCl2F
151
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
CCl3F
4750
-6.86E-04
-7.97E-09
-6.21E-02
-5.88E-01
-6.66E-06
-5.03E+01
SF6
22810
1.27E-01
1.48E-06
1.15E+01
1.09E+02
1.24E-03
9.33E+03
Chemica
l
formula
CO 2
Damage
8
Weighting (Baht/kg)

9. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
Table 4: Characterization, Damage, and Weighting Coefficients of Acidification
Common
name
No.
1
Ammonia
Hydrogen
chloride
Nitrogen
dioxide
Sulfur
dioxide
2
3
4
Chemical
formula
Acidification
characterization
factor
(kg SO2 eq.)
Damage
Weighting (Baht/kg)
Social
assets
(Baht/kg)
Primary
production
(kg/kg)
Social assets
Primary
production
NH3
2.63E-04
8.00E-02
9.73E-04
6.68E+01
7.87E-01
HCl
1.02E-04
3.00E-02
3.78E-04
2.51E+01
3.06E-01
NO2
5.40E-02
1.75E+01
2.00E-01
1.46E+04
1.62E+02
SO2
1
3.22E+02
3.71E+00
2.69E+05
3.00E+03
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The environmental impact related to the life cycle of coal-fired power plant is the
topic of discussion in the section below.
3.1 Characterization of coal-fired power plant
3.1.1 Global warming potential (GWP)
The global warming potential (GWP) is contributed to mainly by CO2 emission with a
small contribution from SF6, CBrF3, and CHClF2. There is significant potential for the same
from power plants. The most significant process contributing to GWP is power plant
operation which contributes about 98.49%. The next significant contribution is from coal
mining (material extraction) (1.49%), followed by transportation (0.02%). However, the most
significant air pollution is due to the emission of CO2 from coal-fired plants, which
contributes to 98.49% of the total GWP. In the whole life cycle of a coal-fired power plant, it
contributes GWP of about 1.12 kg CO2 eq./kWh. A comparison of the results of such a study
was done by Spathet al. [20] who studied the coal-fired plants’ life cycle. The GWP
considered for the literature study was about 1.04 kg CO2 eq./kWh (which only included
CO2, CH4, and N2O), which is a value similar to the one in this study. The environmental
impact of GWP resulting from the air-polluting emissions from coal-fired power plants
during the production of 1 kWh of power is as presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Global Warming Potential of Coal-fired Power Plant
GWP (kg CO2 eq./kWh)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Substance
CO2
C2H3F3
CBrF3
CHClF2
CClF3
CCl2F2
CHCl2F
CCl3F
SF6
Total
Raw material
extraction
1.66E-02
4.23E-10
3.31E-07
1.22E-07
2.47E-09
7.36E-09
9.74E-09
5.99E-09
6.48E-07
1.66E-02
Transportation
2.49E-04
0.00E+00
6.57E-19
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.49E-04
9
Power plant
operation
1.10E+00
1.60E-11
1.56E-08
1.61E-09
0.00E+00
4.54E-11
1.22E-15
6.27E-14
4.24E-08
1.10E+00

10. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
3.1.2 Acidification potential (AP)
The acidification potential (AP) is contributed by the SO2 and NO2 emissions. SO2 is
the bigger contributor at about 99.89% of the total AP. The operation of the plant contributes
to this greatly, followed by coal mining and transportation. The amount of coal-fired power
plant acidification throughout the life cycle is estimated to be 3.84E-03 kg SO2 eq./kWh. The
environmental impact of AP resulting from the air polluting emissions for the production of 1
kWh of coal-fired power plant is as presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Acidification Potential of Coal-fired Power Plant
AP (kg SO2 eq./kWh)
No. Substance
Raw material
Power plant
Transportation
extraction
operation
1
NH3
5.39E-10
1.89E-19
2.53E-13
2
HCl
1.16E-11
2.27E-22
1.25E-13
3
NO2
2.22E-09
3.69E-19
0.00E+00
4
SO2
1.86E-05
6.02E-08
1.26E-03
Total
1.86E-05
6.02E-08
1.26E-03
3.2 Damage assessment of coal-fired power plant
As far as the damage assessment on Human Health (HH) is concerned, the major
damage is caused by CO2 and SF6. A negative value substance means that it has a net cooling
effect on the global temperature [15]. As for damage on Social Assets (SA) and Net Primary
Production (NPP), the major damage is caused by SO2. The total damage on HH, SA, and NPP
are 6.16E-07 DALY/kWh, 4.17E-1 Baht/kWh, and 4.80E-3 kgNPP/kWh. The data regarding the
environmental damage on human health, social assets, and primary production of coal-fired
power plant are presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Damage Impact of Coal-fired Power Plant Life Cycle
No.
Substance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
NH3
CO2
C2H3F3
HCl
CBrF3
CHClF2
CClF3
CCl2F2
CHCl2F
CCl3F
NO2
SO2
SF6
Total
Total
2.05E-06
1.12E+00
3.07E-13
1.16E-07
4.85E-11
6.83E-11
1.71E-13
6.80E-13
6.45E-11
1.26E-12
4.12E-08
1.28E-03
3.03E-11
Human health
(DALY/kWh)
6.16E-07
2.64E-16
-1.77E-12
6.01E-14
1.48E-15
9.42E-16
0.00E+00
-8.64E-16
3.86E-12
6.16E-07
10
Social assets
(Baht/kWh)
1.64E-07
7.16E-12
3.07E-21
3.48E-09
-2.06E-17
6.98E-19
1.72E-20
1.09E-20
0.00E+00
-1.00E-20
7.21E-07
4.12E-01
4.48E-17
4.12E-01
Primary production
(kg/kWh)
1.99E-09
5.58E-05
2.39E-14
4.38E-11
-1.61E-10
5.44E-12
1.34E-13
8.53E-14
0.00E+00
-7.83E-14
8.24E-09
4.75E-03
3.49E-10
4.80E-03

11. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
3.3 Integrated index of coal-fired power plant
The integration involved the impacts of emitted GWP and AP, such as CO2 and SO2,
and their impacts on health, social assets, and primary production. This integration coefficient
was based on the primary factors for Thailand and was calculated by using the CV technique.
In this study, the damage caused by the emission of SO2 is the major environmental influence
area in terms of both the SA and the NPP at the operation plant. Reducing the emissions can
improve the technologies and the capacity [21]; in addition, the use of the coal–bituminous
[7] can reduce the SO2 environmental impact. The results of the endpoint damage of coalfired power plant are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Endpoint Damage of Coal-fired Power Plant (Baht/kWh)
Raw material extraction
No.
Transportation
Power plant operation
Substance
HH
SA
NPP
HH
SA
NPP
HH
SA
NPP
1
NH 3
-
1.37E-04
1.61E-06
-
4.81E-14
5.67E-16
-
6.42E-08
7.57E-10
2
CO 2
7.82E-06
8.86E-11
6.69E-04
1.17E-07
1.33E-12
1.00E-05
5.18E-04
0.00E+00
4.43E-02
2.18E-13
2.47E-18
1.87E-11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.14E-13
0.00E+00
7.06E-13
-
2.86E-06
3.49E-08
-
5.59E-17
6.82E-19
-
3.12E-08
3.12E-08
-6.84E-11
-7.74E-16
-5.84E-09
3
C2H 3F3
4
HCl
5
CBrF3
-1.45E-09
-1.64E-14
-1.24E-07
-2.88E-21
-3.27E-26
-2.47E-19
6
CHClF2
5.08E-11
5.75E-16
4.34E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.70E-13
7.59E-18
5.73E-11
7
CClF3
1.27E-12
1.44E-17
1.09E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
8
CCl2F2
8.02E-13
9.09E-18
6.86E-11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.95E-15
5.60E-20
4.23E-13
9
CHCl2F
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
10
CCl3F
-7.41E-13
-8.39E-18
-6.33E-11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-7.76E-18
-8.79E-23
-6.63E-16
11
NO 2
-
6.02E-04
6.67E-06
-
1.00E-13
1.11E-15
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
12
SO2
-
1.33E+01
1.49E-01
-
6.98E-01
7.80E-03
-
8.01E+02
8.94E+00
13
SF6
3.10E-09
3.51E-14
2.65E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.75E-08
1.75E-08
1.75E-08
Total
7.83E-06
1.33E+01
1.49E-01
1.17E-07
6.98E-01
7.81E-03
5.18E-04
8.01E+02
8.99E+00
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The aim of this study was to assess the environmental impacts of the whole life cycle
of coal-fired power plant and to adjust the standard LCIA method by adapting the existing
models so that it becomes suitable for Thailand. The results of this study help identify the
major environmental impact aspects of power production from coal-fired power plant. It is
clear that the impact potentials, damage, and integrated emission affect the unit of cost. In the
future, the characterization and the damage coefficients should be improved to suit the
situation of Thailand, and the uncertainty analyses for the major relevant parameters will
provide helpful information on the reliability of the calculated damage. As for weighting, this
study found that the environmental damage in Thailand had a positive WTP for
environmental protection to decrease the loss of human health, social assets, biodiversity, and
primary production. Although the respondents were willing to pay for environmental
protection, they did not seem to be aware of the major problems. Thus, it is more important
that the Thai people are made to become aware and conscious about the significance of
11

12. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
environment protection than just creating funds for environmental protection. Thus, the study
could not directly certify that the respondents are WTP for the protection of the environment
in order to reduce the loss of human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary
production. Finally, the results will also be useful for further research on developing impact
assessment models based on the Thai circumstances.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. NorihiroItsubo for suggestion and advice on
the Life-cycle Impact assessment based on Endpoint modeling (LIME) method. Our
appreciation also goes to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand for providing the
data and information on power plant. Finally, the authors would like to express their profound
gratitude to the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and the
Graduate School, Chiang Mai University, for the financial support.
7. REFERENCES
[1]
ISO 14040, Environmental management: Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and
framework, International Organisation for Standardization, 1997.
[2] M. Pehnt, Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies,
Renewable energy, 31, 2006, 55-71.
[3] P. Malakul, S. Papong,T. Chom-in, and S. Noksa-nga, Life-cycle energy and
environmental analysis of biofuels production in Thailand, Kasetsart Engineering
Journal 75(24), 2010, 25–40.
[4] S. Sampattagul, P. Nutongkaew, and T. Kiatsiriroat, Life cycle assessment of palm oil
biodiesel production in Thailand, International Journal of Renewable Energy 6(1), 2011,
1–13.
[5] C. Rewlay-ngoen, S. Papong, and S. Sampattagul, The NPP and social asset impacts of
acidification from coal-fired power plant in Thailand, 2013 Alternative Energy in
Developing Countries and Emerging Economies, 30-31 May 2013, Pullman Bangkok
King Power, Bangkok, Thailand, 2013.
[6] N. Itsubo, and A. Inaba, A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed, Int. J.
LCA. 8(5), 2003, 305.
[7] H. Feng, H.A. Gabbar, S. Tanaka, H.E. Sayed, K. Suzuki, and W. Gruver, Integrated
life cycle assessment and environmental analysis: application to power plant, AsiaPacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2, 2007, 213-224.
[8] A.S.G. Andrae, Chapter3: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment from a LIME
Perspective,In:Global Life Cycle Impact Assessments of Material Shifts Global Life
Cycle Impact Assessments of Material Shifts, London: Springer, 2010, 23–58.
[9] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Good Practice Guidance and
Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Montreal:
IPCC–XVI, 2000.
[10] N. Itsubo, M. Sakagami, T. Washida, K. Kokubu, and A. Inaba, Weighting across
safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis, Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess 9 (3), 2004, 196–205.
12

13. International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), ISSN 0976 – 6383
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6391 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
[11] R. II., L. Tang, K., Tokimatsu, M. Nishio, and N. Itsubo, Damage assessment of global
warming in LIME3, EcoBalance 2012: International conference on EcoBalance-Since
1994, Yokohama, Japan, 2012.
[12] A.M. de Schryver, K.W. Brakkee, M.J. Goedkoop, and M.A.J. Huijbregts, Characterization
factors for global warming in life cycle assessment based on damages to humans and
ecosystems,Environmental Science & Technology 43 (6), 2009, 1689–1695.
[13] European Communities, ExternE: Externalities of Energy Methodology 2005 Update,
Edited by Bickel, P., and Friedrich, R. Available online: http://europa.eu.int, 2005.
[14] Bank of Thailand, Historical foreign exchange rates: 1 January 2012 to 31 December
2012, Available online: http://www.bot.or.th,2013.
[15] C. Rewlay-ngoen, S. Papong, P. Piumsomboon, P. Malakul, and S. Sampattagul, Life
cycle impact modeling of global warming on net primary production: A case study of
biodiesel in Thailand, Environment and Natural Resources J. 11 (1), 2013, 30-22.
[16] S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, Capital returns from soil-conservation practices, Journal Farm
Economics, 29, 1947, 1181-1196.
[17] R.T. Carson, and W.M. Hanemann, Chapter 17: Contingent Valuation, Handbook of
Environmental Economics, 2, Edited by K.G. Mäler and J.R. Vincent, 2005, 821-936.
[18] A. Lopea-Feldman, Introduction to contingent valuation using stata, Munich Personal
RePEc Archive (MPRA), available online: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41018.,
2012.
[19] R.C. Bishop, and T.A. Heberlein, Measuring values of extra market goods, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 1979, 926-930.
[20] P.L. Spath, M.K. Mann, and D.R. Kerr, Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power
Production, Including contributions on process definition and data acquisition from J.
Marano and M. Ramerzan, Federal Energy Technology Center, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), Prepared under Task No. BP911030, 1999.
[21] M. Rozpondek, and M. Siudel, Pollution control technologies applied to coal-fired
power plant operation. ActaMontanisticaSlovaca 14 (2), 2009, 156–160.
[22] Wani Ahmad, MSK Prasad, Bhat Javed and V Thangapandian, “Coal Accident
Analysis, Risk Quantification and Suggestive Scheme Improvements in Coal Bunkers
of Abstract Thermal Power Plants”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 18 - 25,
ISSN Online: 0976 - 6979, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6987.
13