Li Junfeng talks about smog control

Everyone is concerned about air pollution and energy development routes. It is very interesting to put these two issues together. More than 80% of our air pollution problems are directly and indirectly caused by fossil energy combustion emissions. These pollutants are mainly dust, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and secondary and tertiary pollutants formed by them, such as sulfate particles and nitrate particles. Of course, the media also pays attention to other issues, such as cooking, burning straw in the countryside, setting off firecrackers, etc., but these are all previous habits, and we have not encountered smog problems in the past. Why is there more haze now? The consumption of major fossil energy sources has skyrocketed. In other words, the chief culprit of air pollution in our country is the excessive consumption of fossil energy, and this problem cannot be avoided.

 There are three aspects to what I want to talk about today. One is how to treat the problem of air pollution. The second is energy policy, what changes we can do, and what can we do in terms of institutional mechanisms. The third is what the media and NGOs should do.

 One is how to treat the problem of air pollution. First of all, we made mistakes in pollutant control and did not make timely arrangements, resulting in hard work. In fact, my country has been studying PM2.5 issues for many years. As soon as the PM2.5 issues in developed countries came out, the national environmental protection agencies began to study it, but at that time my country’s air pollution control efforts were mainly focused on PM10 and above particle pollution. At that time, I personally participated in the air pollution control strategy research organized by Tsinghua University. This research raised the issue of controlling PM2.5 and controlling the excessive growth of coal as early as 2007. At that time, it was raised in Beijing and Tianjin. Control coal consumption in Hebei, the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta. Only Guangdong listened, so the proportion of coal consumption in Guangdong is less than 50%, and their air quality is much better than that of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and Yangtze River Delta.

 In the past, we focused on the control of PM10 and above large particulate matter, ignoring PM2.5 and other smaller particulate matter. We have insufficient understanding of pollutants, especially those from fossil energy. In 2000, my country had only 200 million kilowatts of installed power generation capacity, which was 1/5 of that of the United States. In fact, by 2008, our installed power generation capacity was only 600 million kilowatts, and the power generation capacity was only about 70% of that of the United States. At that time, we only paid attention to the control of sulfur dioxide emissions. Since 2000, all coal-fired power plants must install desulfurization devices. Therefore, our coal-fired power plants are doing better desulfurization. But we did not require denitrification, that is, we did not control nitrogen oxides. As pointed out by Professor Tang Xiaoyan of Peking University, nitrogen oxides are also one of the culprits in the formation of PM2.5. Therefore, my country only started to control nitrogen oxides last year. In addition, we only controlled the emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide in large-scale installations, such as power plants, but did not properly control the emission of pollutants in the burning of coal. This has led to the out-of-control of nitrogen oxide emissions and the out-of-control of sulfur dioxide and dust emissions from small users. In addition, the total amount of fossil energy is large, the growth is fast, and the environmental standards are not strict. For example, in 2002, my country had only 1.4 billion tons of coal, and now it consumes 4 billion tons of coal. In 2002, my country only consumed 300 million tons of oil, and now it consumes more than 500 million tons. At the same time, our emission control standards are low. For example, in addition to large users such as power plants and steel plants, most small coal users have low emission standards and poor management. For example, the sulfur content of diesel in the United States is 10PPM, and our national standard is 2000PPM, which is 200 times that of the United States. In fact, the National Ten Articles for Air Pollution Prevention and Control only require 137PPM by 2017, which is still more than 10 times that of the United States. In addition, we take care of most of the pollution problems. For example, the emission of soot from a good coal-fired power plant in my country can reach 30 micrograms per cubic meter, and the emission of sulfur dioxide can be controlled to 30 PPM or below, but the national control standard is 3-4 times the international advanced level. .

 Ignoring this issue is not the responsibility of the environmental protection department alone. Economic development, energy planning, and production organization departments are all responsible. None of us would have thought that my country's fossil energy is growing so fast. The national energy medium and long-term plan announced in 2004 stated that in 2020, the energy consumption will be 2.4 billion tons and the installed power generation capacity will be 960 million kilowatts. In fact, we exceeded 3 billion tons and 1 billion kilowatts in 2010. In 2004, my country’s newly installed capacity exceeded 55 million kilowatts. The whole country was cheered, but the situation in the future made everyone unhappy. From 2005 to 2013, with the elimination of nearly hundreds of millions of kilowatts of small thermal power, my country’s annual equivalent When the newly-built power plants are hundreds of millions of kilowatts, foreign friends asked us whether it is true that China is building one coal power plant every week. I joked that "No, we can only meet the needs by building two power plants a week." 75% of the installed capacity and 80% of the power generation are coal-fired power plants. Now my country’s installed capacity of power plants exceeds that of the United States, and its power generation capacity is 1.4 times that of the United States, and coal-fired power generation is the mainstay, accounting for about 80% of the power generation, and the United States is less than 30%. , Its emissions are many times that of the United States. In addition, in 2002, there were only 2 million new vehicles in our country each year, and now we are adding more than 20 million vehicles each year. However, we lag behind Europe in adopting automobile emission standards for many years. Until now, the haze is overwhelming, and everyone is adopting Euro 5 standards. The issue is still not positive. Careful about the year of realization.

 Also, our fossil energy consumption is relatively concentrated. my country’s economic center can be drawn, that is, a line is drawn from Mohe to Tengchong. my country’s main population, cities and economic deployment are concentrated on the east of this line, about 3 million square kilometers, which is 3 million square kilometers. The population and economy are most concentrated in the small space of more than 1.5 million square kilometers in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei-Lu-Henan, Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta. This small place consumes more than 70% of my country's energy. Think about it, everyone. There are 1 billion people on 1.5 million square kilometers of land, consuming more than 3 billion tons of coal, and an average annual consumption of 2,000 tons of coal per square kilometer. At the same time, there are hundreds of millions of cities with hundreds of millions of cars. Even if our country’s standards are the same as those of the United States, the environmental quality will be worse than that of the United States. Moreover, our environmental standards are much lower than those of Europe, America and Japan.

 We argue a lot about the causes of air pollution, but just compare the United States and China to know where the problem lies. Both China and the United States are more than 9 million square kilometers, and both consume more than 3 billion tons of standard coal. But the United States only consumes 600-700 million tons of coal. We consume 4 billion tons. The quality of their oil is 200 times higher than ours. Coupled with our dense population, heavy industrial load, and low emission standards, it is only natural that pollution is heavier than that of the United States. The emergence of highly polluted areas in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and Yangtze River Delta is even more natural.

 In addition, we cannot think that air pollution control in developed countries has taken 70-80 years and has not yet been resolved. We must realize that the large-scale air pollution problem in developed countries was solved in the 1970s, and now it is changing from good to good, meeting the high requirements put forward by the World Health Organization, and achieving 10PPM for PM2.5. We are solving the problem of more than 75PPM, 100PPM and more serious pollution problems. This issue is very urgent, and it is a "heart and lung disease" of the people and cannot be ignored.

 The second is the issue of energy strategy. Now that we know that the haze problem is mainly caused by the excessive consumption of fossil energy, especially coal, we need to see how to change it. We are really anxious sometimes. In fact, when I was doing research on air pollution 10 years ago, I should have figured out a solution, which is to reduce coal consumption and increase renewable energy and natural gas. Therefore, the Renewable Energy Law was promulgated in 2005. The development of renewable energy is for To reduce the consumption of fossil energy, Guangdong once proposed not to build coal-fired power plants. However, we have not done enough. Wind power and solar power generation have not been paid enough attention. Natural gas has also increased, but it is not enough. The growth of coal has been rushing to the runaway horse. From the beginning, it increased by 1 billion tons every 40 years, and increased by 1 billion tons in 2014. , The recurrence is an increase of 1 billion tons in 3-5 years, what should we do if we do not control it? There are only a handful of countries that consume more than 50% of global coal, and more than 70% are rare. Decoalization is a major trend in international energy. Now if you don’t look at China, other countries in the world account for less than 20% of coal, about 17%. -19%. Can we reduce the proportion of coal by 2 percentage points every year, so that by 2030, it can be reduced from the current 70% to 40%, and then to 20-30% in 2050. This is a long-term strategic issue that cannot be solved overnight. Can we use coal to generate electricity as much as possible, conduct centralized governance, and reduce the terminal consumption of coal as much as possible? And can the coal for terminal consumption be washed clean? Also, reducing coal and increasing natural gas, everyone is rushing for natural gas, but how to use natural gas? Which places should be used first? Wait for the problem to be more important, or it will be more effective if you figure it out. Our habitual thinking is from various central departments to local governments, and then to central enterprises. This is how everyone thinks. Good things are first supplied to big cities, such as Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin. In fact, giving priority to the supply of natural gas to Hebei can achieve a multiplier effect than giving priority to Beijing.

 Also, what should I do if nearly half of the coal is burned? Especially looking at the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei-Shandong-Henan region, especially the small industries in Hebei, Shandong, and Henan. There are no effective control measures, so when it is difficult to restrict coal consumption, can the loose coal be cleaned up? And whether ordinary boilers must be equipped with dust removal, desulfurization, and denitrification devices. This must be done. If the power plant achieves zero emissions, it will not solve the pollution problem of coal burning. 2 billion tons of coal, preliminary calculations, sulfide and nitrogen oxides may exceed 30 million tons, at least 25 million tons, which is 4-5 times that of power plants, plus 10 million tons of dust, so small Pollution sources must also be controlled.

 Another is to increase the quality of oil. All the quality of oil, including tractors, trucks, road rollers, pile drivers, oil for inland and ocean-going ships, and fuel oil for some small businesses, has a sulfur content of Without control, pollution emissions may be worse than car ownership. These seemingly small pollution sources should also be controlled.

 Therefore, in terms of technology, we must consider doing everything possible to increase renewable energy and natural gas, and develop core technologies related to them. Another problem is that in the long run, institutional mechanisms and energy policies must be changed. I recently wrote an article that caused a lot of controversy. Whether it is smog management or energy management, we must re-examine our energy policy. It is no longer a general guarantee of energy supply security. Clean energy is also an important indicator, and environmental security is also safe. Our internationalization on the energy issue is not enough. One-sided emphasis on focusing on domestic and non-internationalization has created a contradiction. Our energy system is out of touch with the world. Some people blame it on shutting down the country. In fact, we have opened up a long time ago. It has been 30 years, but the country is still closed on the issue of energy. Only a few companies are engaged in relatively clean natural gas. There are a large number of central enterprises in fossil energy, but there is no renewable energy central enterprise directly under the State Council. On the energy issue, we have a vicious circle, what is good, and what is not usable. This is a paradox. When it comes to the issue of natural gas, the price of natural gas in the United States is 1/4 of us, and the price of natural gas in Europe is 1/2 of us. Why are we so expensive? What we sell will become cheaper; what we buy will become expensive. , This thing is your own creation. This is a market economy, and no one uses guns to force you to buy expensive things. Now everything is your choice. Why is it expensive to buy what is expensive, and what to sell is cheaper? The United States is much cheaper, and why is it cheaper. We have so little natural gas, why is it so expensive? Why does natural gas have a US pricing mechanism, a European pricing mechanism, and a Japanese low-price mechanism (we call it the Asian pricing mechanism shamelessly)? We are a big energy consumer. Why is there no Chinese pricing mechanism for natural gas? At least we should lead Asia, or Asia Pacific, to develop an Asia Pacific pricing mechanism! This is the issue of deep-level energy system and mechanism reform. Can it change the status quo of a small number of people engaged in oil and gas?

 We must consider this matter in terms of our subsidy policy and price policy. For example, our natural gas matter, for example, our denitrification problem. I will treat what pollution, desulfurization, and denitrification, I will add some money, which is equivalent to helping coal become the most competitive energy source, and coal is not competitive in the world, otherwise its proportion will not be so low. Why don't we dare to make coal uncompetitive. Let some things that should have been withdrawn from the market, and those that are not competitive, become competitive under our subsidy mechanism, such as coal-to-natural gas. In the future, there may be a big strange phenomenon, which has now been seen, such as liquefaction. Natural gas car. Why are LNG cars so popular? Now that many large trucks are converted to natural gas, the cost of LNG has been compressed at more than two yuan for about three yuan per cubic meter, and it is still very profitable to sell to large truck drivers for 5 yuan per cubic meter. Now, diesel is 8 yuan a liter, and 1 cubic meter of natural gas can replace 1.2 liters of diesel. Everyone is happy, so it is the welfare of taxi drivers to change taxis to burning natural gas. Therefore, many unreasonable things become economically feasible because of the price mechanism and institutional mechanism. Therefore, it is necessary to work hard on the issue of energy policy and the long-term control of the source of air pollution to clean up the energy as a whole. This is the important position of clean energy in the energy strategy.

 Then there is the emission standard. We cannot be lower than Europe, America and Japan. Only better than them can we ensure that our environment will gradually get better. We must change the problem of becoming more expensive if something is good. In Europe, the cost of coal-fired power generation is relatively expensive, and it is less economical than natural gas power generation, nuclear power generation and renewable energy power generation. After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, energy supply was so difficult. They did not increase coal imports, but expanded natural gas imports. This is not a competition with China, but from the overall economics, especially after considering environmental factors, natural gas is better than coal. much better. In the United States, Europe, and most countries in the former Soviet Union, natural gas power generation is more cost-effective than coal power generation because of environmental standards. Our environmental standards are low, coal-fired power generation is cheaper, while European, American and Japanese environmental standards are high, and coal-fired power generation is much more expensive. This is the internalization of environmental costs.

 Of course, energy policy is difficult to change in the short term, but without planning now, it is even more difficult to change in the long term. The issue of whether to abandon coal as the mainstay is still arguing, and there is still no serious reflection. For example, the Development Research Center of the State Council has issued a report on energy strategy. By 2030, coal consumption will be 4.7 billion tons. How can this be achieved? In 2013, it was 4 billion tons of coal. The environment is already like this. I don't want to reduce it, but continue to grow. It will continue to grow in 2030? There will not be much time to 2030, and not much time to 2050, that is, the problem of 16 and 36 years. When we discussed improving the energy structure in 1980, it was also 34 years ago. At that time, coal accounted for 69%, and now it is 70%. If there is no change now and no determination to change, not only will there be little change in 2030, but also not much in 2050. This lesson is too profound. We can’t turn a blind eye to the issue of energy structure, we must