Projects cleared by CEA would be taken up for construction after

o
o
o
o

receiving the statutory clearances like, environment and forest;

receiving the title rights of the land;
tying up of funds and
award of works

Special Issues:
o Central Water Commission examines the DPRs in respect of aspects
related to hydrology, dam/ barrage design, gates design, hydel civil
design, foundation engg. & seismicity, construction machinery and civil
cost.
o Geological Survey of India examines the aspects related to geology of
area, where different components of the project are located.
o Adequacy and suitability of construction material is examined by Central
Soil and Material Research Station.
o Aspects related to international water issues are examined by Ministry of
Water resources.
o Aspects in respect of pondage provision, power potential, E&M design,
power evacuation, E&M cost, quantities of civil works, phasing of
expenditure, IDC & FC and tariff are examined in different Divisions

Constraints: The main reasons for delay in according concurrence by CEA are
listed below:
o DPRs are not prepared as per CEA, CWC and GSI Guidelines and codal
procedures.
o Many of the private developers are new in hydro sector are without any
experience and DPRs submitted to CEA are of very poor quality.
o Private developers normally submit the sketchy and incomplete DPRs to
meet the time-line of submission of DPRs as stipulated by State
Governments.
o DPRs are prepared based on inadequate geological investigations.
Required number of drill holes and drifts made are not of adequate
numbers or not of proper size. Requisite rock mechanic tests are not done
etc.
o Locations of dam/ barrage, PH are not selected properly and got revised
during appraisal process.
o Some times type of dam is changed during appraisal process and require
resubmission of revised DPRs.
o Various alternatives for layout of water conductor system not explored and
selected layout is improper.
o In some cases, there are changes in power potential/ installed capacity of
the project due to enhanced environmental flows stipulations, requirement
of cumulative basin EIA studies as required by MOEF.
o In some cases, the design improvements are done by CEA/ CWC. This
may also result in revision of DPRs.

o In some cases, parameters of schemes need to be changed as per the

decisions of Standing Technical Committee of Conversion of Storage
scheme to ROR/ reduction in storage.
o In some cases, Model Tests are required to be carried out by the
developer as per suggestions of CWC. It may take from 60-90 working
days. Also there are very limited organisations for carrying such model
tests.
o Delay in complying comments of appraising groups by developers.
o Appraisal process involves a large number of appraising groups (20 nos.)
appraising about 35 aspects (14 by CEA, 15 by CWC, 1 by MOWR, 1 by
CSMRS, 1 by GSI and 3 by State Govt.). After receiving requisite
approvals from these agencies, CEA accords concurrence in a meeting
attended by all appraising groups, project developer and

o
o
o

Construction Challenges:
o The construction of hydro projects also take time. Obviously, it
will take some more time than a thermal projects
o We have to see it from technical point of view that it normally
takes more time than a thermal project because longer period of
time is taken in constructing dams and reservoirs
Mitigation: Technical appraisal of DPRs can also be expedited, if DPRs are
accepted for technical examination only if the following studies/
clearances have been finalized before submission of DPRs:
Hydrological studies from CWC
Power potential studies from CEA
Geological investigations from GSI
o
Location

Whats next?
Modi tweeted after the conference that it was a win for climate
justice. It is hard to see how the accord can be read in that light but
political posturing, as Modi understands, is critical and will become
increasingly so in the coming decade. Still, the Paris accord has
been successful in sending a resounding signal to the markets that
the era of fossil fuels is gradually approaching an end. A majority of
the known fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground if we are
to have any realistic chance of staying within a 1.5 degrees
temperature rise.

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels

unused when limiting global warming to 2 C
Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by
greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 C above the average global temperature of
pre-industrial times1. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of
keeping warming below 2 C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon
emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon
dioxide (Gt CO2)2, 3. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates
of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2, 4, and so the unabated
use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 C. Here we
use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities,
locations and nature of the worlds oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is
shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different
assumptions5, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in
different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas
reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to
2050 in order to meet the target of 2 C. We show that development of resources in the
Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to
limit average global warming to 2 C. Our results show that policy makers instincts to exploit
rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their
commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also
render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because
any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.

Thirdly, the construction of hydro projects also take time. Obviously, it will
take some more time than a thermal projects
We have to see it from technical point of view that it normally takes more
time than a thermal project because longer period of time is taken in
constructing dams and reservoirs
We can make efforts to reduce this time taken also. But mainly we have to
work towards reducing the time taken in clearance by CEA as well as the
environment related clearance."
Technical appraisal of DPRs can also be expedited, if DPRs are accepted for technical
examination only if the following studies/ clearances have been finalized before
submission of DPRs:
(i) Hydrological studies from CWC
(ii) Power potential studies from CEA
(iii) Geological investigations from GSI
(iv) Location of main components of the project and project layout from CEA/
CWC.

AQCS
Product Catalogue: Air quality control
systems
Ensure you meet the most stringent environmental regulations in the most cost effective manner with
a tailored solution from Alstom. We are the number 1 supplier of air quality control systems (AQCS) in
the world.
Why choose Alstom air quality control systems?

Over 80 years dedication to AQCS business with renowned reputation

Broadest portfolio of air quality control system technologies

Largest installed base with more than 500 GW in power generation and 2,800 systems for
industry globally

Technology leadership driven by dedicated R&D and feedback from installed base

Global presence with highly competent local project execution units

Selective catalytic reduction of NOx (SCR)

Choose a solution from the world leading provider of SCR systems

Flue gas desulphurisation

Easily remove SO2 from your coal-fired steam generators.

Particulate control
Particulate control solutions to cater to the most stringent of norms on a wide variety of applications in
power and industry

Mercury control
Reduce mercury emissions by up to 90% with Alstoms technology.

Air quality control projects

Our Power the Future (PTF) projects invested in advanced power generation, renewable
energy resources and improvements at existing power plants. The investments have allowed
us to further reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate emissions,
which began their steady reduction in the 1980s. Our implementation of new technologies at
our generation facilities help us meet new state and federal air quality requirements while
maintaining cost-effective reliability for our system.

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant

As part of our commitment to upgrade environmental performance, a new state-of-the-art Air
Quality Control System (AQCS) was added to the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. A selective
catalytic reduction system was put in place to reduce NOx emissions, and a flue gas
desulfurization system was constructed to reduce SO2.
Read more about the Pleasant Prairie project

(PDF 437k)

Oak Creek Power Plant

A new AQCS was completed at Oak Creek Power Plant in 2012, which cut SO2 emissions by
80 to 90 percent and NOx emissions by 60 to 70 percent.
Read more about the Oak Creek project

How we produce electricity

while reducing emissions
The process of generating electricity occurs in several steps. First, coal is burned in a large
boiler to make high-pressure, high-temperature steam. A turbine converts the thermal
energy in the steam to mechanical energy. The spinning turbine then drives the generator to
produce electricity.
Specialized equipment is used at different points throughout the generation process to
remove emissions from the units. The first step in reducing emissions occurs by utilizing a low
NOx burner to burn the coal. This equipment regulates the rate of combustion of the coal by
controlling the amount of air available at different elevations within the boiler to complete the
combustion. This results in lower NOx emissions.
After exiting the boiler, the flue gas goes through an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). In the
ESP, a series of positively charged collection plates, remove negatively charged particulate

matter from the flue gas. The ESP captures more than 99 percent of the particulate matter in
the flue gas.
Next, the wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, also known as the wet FGD or
scrubber, is used to control SO2 and hydrogen chloride, as well as other water-soluble
emissions. As the flue gas passes through the scrubber, it is mixed with limestone slurry. The
limestone reacts with the flue gas and absorbs the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas, forming
calcium sulfite. Air (oxygen) is blown into the absorber tank causing a chemical reaction
which converts the calcium sulfite into calcium sulfate or synthetic gypsum. The gypsum
slurry is then dewatered and can be used as a valuable product to make wallboard for
construction projects.
To reduce NOx emissions even further, a selective catalytic reduction system (SCR) is
employed. Within this system, an ammonia solution is injected into the flue gas stream. The
NOx in the flue gas reacts with the injected ammonia, in the presence of a catalyst, producing
nitrogen and water vapor.