Analysis of the Effects of the Thai Power Development Plan 2015 on Air Quality from 2016 to 2036

Air pollution is a serious issue that affects many parts of the world, Southeast Asia in particular. Nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and other emissions have negative impacts on human health as well as overall environmental quality. The major sources in Thailand are open burning and fossil fuel combustion, i.e. in vehicles, energy use in industries and power generation. Given increasing actual and projected GDP growth, subsequent increases in energy consumption are inevitable. The power generation system must grow and expand as well to meet changes in demand from industrial, commercial, and residential customers. The Ministry of Energy of Thailand has published the Power Development Plan 2015 (PDP 2015) to outline policies and goals of the growing power generation and transmission systems throughout the nation. Notably, the plan involves increasing the use of coal-fired generation. Using both the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies Model (GAINS) and the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), we have compared two different emissions scenarios: one with standard emission control technology, and another with maximum feasible emission controls. The effectiveness of emission control technology varied by region and pollutant. The greatest increase in air quality was located around the Rayong province in central Thailand. For PM10 in the northern Thailand, however, emission control technologies did little to improve the air quality because the main source of pollutant, biomass burning, was left unabaited. This forecast of air quality can show possible impacts from future emissions in Thailand and regions that may benefit from added emission control technology in the future.


Introduction
Air emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels at power plants are known to negatively impact human health and contribute to environmental destruction through the release of compounds such as particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg).With projections of Thai GDP growth averaging 3.94 percent annually, the demand for power and associated emissions will inevitably increase [1].In order to maintain or improve air quality, sufficient measures must be utilized to control emissions and meet power demand in an efficient way.This study examines the projections of Thailand's power generation growth as published by the

Description
The GAINS model developed by the IIASA is an atmospheric modeling system that provides the basis for analyses of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and reduction strategies.All activities contributing to air pollution (energy production, agriculture, industry, transportation, etc.) are inputted into the model to project emissions over a specified time scale [3].Created scenarios may be adjusted by selecting control strategies from a GAINS database and altering fuel inputs.The model provides emissions data for the nation, calculated from all sectors and activities.The output emission data is further separated into one of five regions in Thailand: Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR), Central Valley (CVAL), Northern Highlands (NHIG), Northeastern Plateau (NEPL), or Southern Peninsula (SPEN).In addition, the GAINS model incorporates projected GDP growth for a given country so that economic analyses can reflect control strategy choices.The forecasted average GDP growth, 3.94 percent, was obtained from the PDP and based upon data published by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB).The method of emissions modeling is shown in the following equation [4]: Ei,p = ∑k ∑m Ai,kefi,k,m,pxi,k,m,p where, i, k, m, p-Country, activity type, abatement measure, pollutant, respectively.Ei,p-Emissions of pollutant p (for SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM2.5, CO2, CH4, N2O, F-gases) in country i.
Ai,k-Activity level of type k (e.g., coal consumption in power plants) in country i. efi,k,m,p-Emission factor of pollutant p for activity k in country i after application of control measure m.
xi,k,m,p-Share of total activity of type k in country i to which a control measure m for pollutant p is applied.

Data Input
The data input for the GAINS model can be divided into two major sources.The first source is the ECLIPSE project.Further, a branch of ECLIPSE dubbed Toyota's Clean Air for Asia Project (TCAP) ECLIPSE contributed GAINS initial scenario settings from a similar study analyzing the PDP plan from 2010.The TCAP ECLIPSE project team gathered emission estimates for air pollution contributing sectors through surveys as well as individualized combustion efficiencies and megawatt capacities for all power plants in Thailand.Additionally, the TCAP ECLIPSE data provided a compiled list of the power plants' spatial distribution in Thailand from 2010.
The power plant data was cross referenced with the PDP, the second major source, to create an accurate list of all power plants in Thailand with geographic locations, as of 2015.From 2010 to 2015, 18 power plants were retired and 24 added, though most were small biomass plants under 30 megawatts.Additional 2015 PDP referencing for existing plants resulted in updated megawatt capacities.Beyond 2015, the PDP separates power plant installations into 5 year intervals from 2016 to 2036.Using these fuel projections in the appendix of the PDP, the total fuel consumption, in petajoules, was calculated for each power plant in each five-year interval from 2016 to 2036.Based on the TCAP ECLIPSE results for fuel consumption and net energy output, the conversion ratio for each projected plant was assumed to be equal to that of an existing plant of the same fuel type.
Thailand Ministry of Energy classifies three major power plant types, large power producer, including plants under Electric Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and independent power producers (IPP), small power producers (SPP), and very small power producers (VSPP) based on megawatt capacity.IPPs are plants greater than 90 megawatts, SPPs are between 10 and 90 megawatts, and VSPPs are less than 10 megawatts.While data for a current inventory was available, the PDP's 5-year interval projections were spatially vague for all plants except IPPs.Added SPP and VSPP capacity beyond 2016 was assumed to be installed at existing plants.In order to distribute the additions, the total megawatts for each year was administered proportionally by region and fuel type.This was to ensure realistic growth based on existing spatial and fuel type distribution patterns.This was also coordinated with projected increases in renewables and decreases in natural gas as published in the PDP.The fuel conversion ratio was also assumed to remain constant at these plants based on TCAP ECLIPSE.

Fuel Mix for Power Plants
The fuel input data was formatted for the GAINS model and split into categories by region, fuel type, and power plant type.The following tables provide a summarized view of the totals, by region, and demonstrate the fuel share.Natural gas generation accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total generation capacity in 2016 and coal and biomass account for just over 30 percent combined.In 2036, as seen in Table 2, natural gas will account for approximately 40 percent of the total generation capacity, coal will provide between 20 and 25 percent, and biomass/renewables will account for another 30 percent.Diesel and fuel oil are projected to be phased out, but in this time scale, they remain in use as a transition fuel.The biomass/renewable category encompasses many forms of electricity generation, but only biomass was considered as far as emissions are concerned.These fuel requirements approximately align with PDP's 2036 fuel share goal.

Scenario Development
Fuel projections were modeled in two emission control cases: a current legislation (CLE) scenario, and a maximum feasible reduction (MFR) one.The CLE scenario was based on a previous TCAP ECLIPSE scenario and aimed to establish baseline emissions for the PDP, where the MFR scenario was designed to observe the benefits of the most efficient control technologies.These scenarios were developed in the GAINS model scenario builder.An inventory of emission control technologies, as well as their efficiencies, are available in the model.

Current Legislation (CLE)
The first two scenarios used emission controls derived from the TCAP ECLIPSE project.These controls assumes power plants would continue operations using control technologies based on current legislation goals and emission standards.A CLE case was developed for the year 2016 as well as 2036.

Maximum Feasible Reduction (MFR)
The emission control scenario was created to project the gradual, yet aggressive implementation of emission control technologies for power plants from 2016 to 2036 (Table 3).Controls for coal emission were selected and limited to those that reduce NOx, PM (2.5 and 10), and SO2 because of significant hazards to human and environmental health.The results from the scenario, however, are not limited to these chemicals, and co-benefit reductions for greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful pollutants may be observed.The emission controls selected were the most effective based on the GAINS provided technology efficiencies.When altering emission controls in GAINS for MFR, aggregate share of penetration by emission control technologies can be no greater than 100 percent for each fuel type in each sector.For NOx, PM, and SO2 emission control technologies, the most effective, according to the efficiency values provided by GAINS, were utilized throughout the 2016-2036 period to make up the percent share for the respective fuel in each sector.
For NOx and SO2, the most effective technologies were implemented at 80 percent penetration in the initial five-year period (2016-2021) of GAINS modeling, and were increased to 100 percent penetration from 2021-2036.
For PM, a similar method was employed.ESP1 (1 electrostatic precipitator) was upgraded to ESP2 (2 electrostatic precipitators), thus decreasing the penetration of ESP1 as it was upgraded.The remaining share of PM emission control penetration is held by HED, another highly effective technology (see Appendix A), which increases its penetration from 40 percent (2016-2021) to 50 percent (2021-2036).
Modern control technologies from the 2012 Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) were cross referenced with GAINS emission controls while designing the MFR scenario (Table 4).However, to determine the penetration of each, the technologies were adjudged based on their review in the ETP.Existing penetration values previous to 2016 were not taken into account.The MFR did not allocate control technologies based on regional or sector fuel share.The MFR did not allocate different types of control technologies based on regional differences in fuel share.This is because the MFR observed the changes in emissions in response to more efficient control technologies.
The MFR accounted for changes in the PDP that may occur between 2016 and 2036, and provided assumed controls for coal that may not be retired as planned.

Description
CAMx is a gridded, three dimensional photochemical dispersion model that provides projections of tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics in a wide range of spatial scales [6].The model takes into account an array of variables when modeling chemical mechanisms in the atmosphere in addition to background information necessary to runCAMx (meteorology data, regional solar intensity, VOC composition from different sources, etc.).The CAMx model was run in the CLE scenario for March and August in 2016 and 2036 and the same months of 2036 in the MFR scenario.These months, according to TCAP ECLIPSE project findings, have proven to have the highest and lowest concentrations of air pollutants, respectively, in a given year as March represents the driest month and August the wettest one in Thailand.CAMx computes pollutant concentration data on a national scale in four-minute intervals for the duration of each month.Also, CAMx includes international pollution transported by air mass currents.In this study, a special emphasis was on PM10, SO2, NOx, and tropospheric ozone as they correlate to emissions of air pollutants from power plant activity.The data flow through CAMx model is presented in Figure 1.

Spatial Profile
The CAMx modeling region was registered using latitude and longitude with gridded cells totaling 115 columns and 171 rows in addition to 22 vertical layers.The grid resolution was 12 km by12 km, and the map projection used was the Lambert Conformal Projection.

Input Requirements
Almost all of the CAMx inputs were set to match the TCAP ECLIPSE 2010 project assuming change in the emission values over a temporal period of five years.Changes in weather patterns due to global climate change were not taken into consideration.
The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) meteorological model was used to simulate hourly winds in three dimensions corresponding to each 12 km by 12 km grid.The WRF model manages atmospheric temperature, pressure, rainfall, wind speed and direction, and top modeling region borders.The AHOMAP ozone column data was also utilized.
Thirteen pollutant emissions were processed from GAINS in order to calculate average pollutant concentrations in March and August of each scenario.The pollutants processed were CH4, CO, CO2, HG, N2O, NH3, NOx, PMBC, PMOC, PM10, PM25, SO2, and VOC.For all emissions except for the power plant and shipping sectors, the study used the MEGAN MACC database for biogenic emissions and the GFEDs database for biomass burning at each hour for each gridded cell.Because these two inputs relied heavily on meteorological conditions, their land cover databases were merged with the WRF model predictions, notably radiation intensity and temperature estimates.Shipping projections were calculated from TCAP ECLIPSE survey data.
Since the power plant sector's emissions were tied to point source locations in Thailand's five GAINS regions, power plants were appended spatially to the CAMx 12 km by 12 km grid.To do so, a geographic information systems (GIS) software, ArcGIS 10.3, was utilized.
In order for CAMx to properly assign emissions to a grid cell, horizontal references were calculated for each sector so that each WRF mixing layer began any given scenario with a starting concentration of each pollutant species.Horizontal references were calculated proportionally by petajoule contribution for a plant in a given sector in a given region so that each sector summed to 1.
Initial concentrations of the simulation were compiled hourly in 4-minute time steps using the WRF model.However, for each target month, one week, at minimum, of the previous month was simulated in order for the model to "spin up" and acclimate to existing conditions.
Several models were used for chemical speciation processing including the PPM advection model, the EBI chemistry solver model, and the Wesley89 dry deposition model.

NOx Emissions
Detailed NOx emissions resulted from GAINS are reported in Figure 2 and Table 5. Levels of NOx across all sectors increased by a factor of 1.2 between 2016 CLE and 2036 CLE scenarios, going from a total 947 kilotons per year to 1144 kilotons per year.Three of the five regions showed an increase in levels of NOx emissions, with the BMR and CVAL regions showing a reduction.Though the CVAL region was forecasted to install 40 petajoules of hard coal by 2036 and ranked second highest by region for average five-year biomass additions (27 petajoules), the CVAL region's power plants equated to 19% of the CVAL region's NOx emissions.Top emitting NOx sectors like cement production and agricultural transportation using diesel combustion were predicted to be replaced by combined cycle natural gas.The region with the largest NOx increase, NEPL, was forecasted to install one 105 petajoule lignite plant in 2016 and 32 petajoules of biomass every five years while uninstalling 20 petajoules of natural gas by 2026.The NEPL regions top five NOx emitting sectors in both 2016 and 2036 CLE are transportation or diesel engine related.

SO2 Emissions
As shown Figure 3 and Table 6, SO2 emissions from all sectors in the CLE 2036 were higher than those in the MFR 2036 by a factor of 1.2.However, CLE 2036 SO2 power plant emissions were higher than the MFR 2036 emissions by a factor of 1.9.Only one GAINS region, NIGH, exhibited a decrease in SO2.This most likely results from retired coal plants since a decrease from 160 petajoules to 102 petajoules was observed from 2016 to 2036.Two regions, the SPEN and the CVAL responded favorably to the 2036 MFR scenario.2036 CLE SO2 emissions were higher in the SPEN region than those of the 2036 MFR emissions by a factor of 14.The NEPL and BMR regions showed no change due to a lack of coal fire power plants in the BMR region, and unchanging coal capacity in the NEPL.

PM10 Emissions
Detailed PM10 emissions resulted from GAINS are displayed in Figure 4 and Table 7. PM10 emissions from all sectors were higher in the CLE 2036 than in the MFR 2036 by a factor of 1.1.However, as seen in Figure 4, CLE 2036 emissions were higher than MFR 2036 emissions by a factor of 2.8 for the power plant sector.The NIGH region had higher PM10 emissions in the MFR 2036 as opposed to the CLE 2036 most likely due to the absence of tech controls on biomass.Addtionally, the CVAL region contributed 198 kilotons and 190 kilotons of PM10 in the CLE 2036 and MFR 2036 scenarios, respectively.Though a small difference between the two, CVAL power plant emissions commanded only small percentages of total PM10 emissions in the aforementioned scenarios.The main contributor to PM10 CVAL emissions was the coal storage and handling sector built around the demand from added coal capacity in the CVAL region.This sector contributed over half of the PM10 emissions in both 2036 scenarios contributing 96 kilotons of PM10 in each.

CAMx Results
CAMx post processing simulates pollutant concentrations at know weather monitoring stations in Thailand.The simulated March and August concentrations in each three scenarios were averaged monthly.Seven stations were selected based on apparent changes, areas of high concentration, and locations with new installed capacity.Four stations are located in the CVAL region, Phra Nakhon Si Ayudhya, Saraburi, Rayong and Chonburi.Two stations are located in the NIGH region, Lampang and Nakhon Sawan.One station, Surat Thani, is located in the SPEN region.For fair comparison, hourly pollutant concentrations were compiled into a monthly pollutant average for each station.Four pollutants, NOx, SO2, PM10, and Ozone, were analyzed.The obtained results are reported in Figures 6-9.

Scenario Emissions and Cost Comparison
In addition to the MFR demonstrating more efficient technological controls, the scenario also models the cost of the technologies and the price of increasing emissions.The emissions comparison is shown in Table 8.In all emission categories, pollutant levels were either reduced or remained the same, despite increased fuel consumption.Only the BMR region remained constant because it has no coal fired power plants.A cost of these scenarios, calculated in the GAINS model, is given in Table 9.The cost units are given in million euros per year.The MFR scenario is more expensive due to the fact that better control technologies are more expensive.Emission totals for all pollutants decreased significantly.NOx was reduced by 21.41 kilotons, SO2 was reduced by 86.03 kilotons, and PM10 was reduced by 68.03 kilotons.The cost of the control strategy added an additional 355 million euros per year on top of the baseline costs.

Discussion
Judging by the emissions and pollutant concentration results, it is clear that different regions of Thailand can expect varying impacts to air quality if control technologies are maximized for coal power plants.The value of economic and human health benefits resulting from the implementation of such control technology is not consistent throughout the country.The locations with the greatest improvement in air quality in the MFR scenario were closest to coal power plants, which was expected.However, optimal control technologies may not be worth the added cost in certain areas.

Human Health Impacts
To analyze the human health impacts of each pollutant, this study utilized air quality standards set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) [7].Thailand has a series of air quality standards, but they are higher than guidelines set by the WHO.While Thailand is in the process of updating their standards, the WHO guidelines revisited frequently and intended to be applied internationally.For these reasons, this study did not include the Thai air quality guidelines for assessing human health risk.
While CLE and MFR scenarios each showed marked differences between air pollutant concentrations, many of the areas with concentrations over the recommended WHO guidelines did not drastically change with added emission control.However, the most notable change was seen with SO2 concentrations near the Rayong province station.Figure 10 displays a graph of the average monthly air concentrations of SO2 at each of the selected monitoring stations.A line representing the WHO air quality standard for the 24-h average of SO2 is superimposed in yellow.There is no monthly average standard available.The acceptable average concentration for air pollutants decreases as time span increases.Since this is a comparison of the 24-h WHO air quality standard to the monthly average, the Saraburi station will likely experience unhealthy levels of SO2 in August.While there is suspected risk to human health near Saraburi, control technologies implemented near Rayong have the greatest potential to positively impact human health.It may also be worthwhile to install SO2 control technologies at the plant near Saraburi.Since other monitoring stations experienced much lower concentrations of SO2, it is probably not effective to install costly SO2 emissions reduction technology in those regions.
Figure 11 visually displays a snapshot of emissions of SO2 throughout Thailand in March 2036.The MFR scenario shows drastic reductions near Rayong and the entirety of Thailand.These differences account for the reductions in average monthly SO2 concentrations.Other than SO2, the only other pollutant that threatened human health was particulate matter.However, the emissions from power plants did not greatly alter the concentration of PM10 in either 2036 CLE or MFR scenarios.Biomass burning proved to be a huge emitter of particulate matter, especially during March.These particulate matter concentrations were high enough that the impact of power plants was barely noticeable.Figure 12    Figure 13 depicting areas where the monthly average concentration of PM10 in March is higher than the WHO standard clearly shows the extent to which biomass burning, which occurs mainly in the north, drowns out other sources of pollution entirely.Even if emission control technologies were added to new and existing coal power plants, the concentrations of PM10 would remain virtually unchanged.Rather than investing in costly control technology, it would be best to address the issue of biomass burning first.Reducing biomass burning has the potential to lower PM10 levels more effectively than adding control technology to power plants.

Results for the Southern Peninsula
The CAMx results displayed little difference between the 2036 CLE and MFR scenarios in the SPEN region, which comes as a surprise.In 2019, a new, 800 MW coal power plant will be installed in Krabi followed by two 1000 MW coal installations in Thepa, a township south of Krabi in the Songkla province.These plans have drawn criticism and concern regarding impacts on air quality.GAINS results demonstrated that there was a large difference between the emissions from this power plant in CLE and MFR scenarios for 2036, but it seems that virtually no changes in concentration were measured by Surat Thani, the closest monitoring station to the plant.
It is unlikely that both scenarios would yield the same pollutant concentrations because there was a large discrepancy in emissions.For example, total SO2 emissions in the southern peninsula region for MFR proved to be 53 kilotons less than CLE in 2036.There are two possible causes for the lack of emissions showing through in the point-source data: (1) wind patterns; and (2) the influence of the ocean and grid resolution on emissions in the CAMx model.
The meteorology scenario created by meterolological modeling application in Thailand [8] incorporated wind patterns that could push emissions from the new Krabi power plant away from the monitoring station and even out of Thailand.Figure 14 displays a snapshot of wind patterns utilized in the meteorological scenario within CAMx.As shown in Figure 14, a plume from a power plant located in Krabi would not reach the monitoring station due to wind direction, thus preventing the opportunity to measure the impact of control technologies on air quality.
The ocean could also contribute to these unexpected results since the Krabi plant will be located on the coast.CAMx is split into a 12 km by 12 km grid.Water will have no emissions of pollutants like SO2 or NOx.Since the power plant is located adjacent to water, its large emissions are averaged with the low emissions in the surrounding 144 square km area.This could make the otherwise substantial emissions from this power plant appear negligible.To see if the impact of this power plant's proximity to water, another CAMx model run could look at the change in air quality if the power plant were relocated further inland.

Conclusions
This study was able to model the possible impacts of the Thai PDP (2015-2036) on future air quality while focusing on the possible benefits of maximum feasible emissions control technology for coal power plants.The benefits provided by an MFR scenario vary for different areas of Thailand in 2036, and the greatest reduction of air pollutants was seen near the Rayong province monitoring station.The results of this study enables to indicate that Rayong area may be the optimal location to invest in emissions control technology.
Considering Figure 7, Rayong, located in the CVAL region, proves to be an optimal choice for MFR related technology that would impact SO2 emissions significantly.Even so, retrofitting coal plants may prove futile for improving air quality given that the coal transportation sector contributed over 50 percent of PM10 emissions in both 2036 scenarios.
Other areas saw little change between CLE and MFR cases.Much of the southern peninsula, for example, may not find worth in investing in costly control technologies.Across the different pollutants considered in this study, maximum feasible control technology provided little impact on air quality.
It is worth noting, however, that the GAINS emissions input for this region did not necessarily match the resulting CAMx output.This could have been caused by weather pushing the plume of a newly installed coal power plant away from the closest monitoring station.Since the Krabi power plant will be located on the coast, the proximity of water could have skewed the results of the CAMx model.In order to conclusively determine the benefits of emission control technologies for the SPEN GAINS region, further study is recommended to model pollutant concentrations in this area.
In Thailand's NHIG and NEPL regions, MFR also did not appear to have a great impact on regional air quality, yet, for a different reason.Biomass in this region dwarfed coal power plants in both emissions and spatial distribution.Even with coal power plant emission reductions in the MFR scenario, the concentration of PM10 and NOx persisted.Coal emission control technology would not greatly improve human and environmental health to justify the technology cost.Therefore, this study recommends that policy makers focus first on reducing emissions from biomass burning.Biomass is a renewable resource, but its encouragement in the 2015 Thai PDP must be coupled with control strategies in areas such as the NHIG, a location already at risk from drifting particulate matter from Myanmar.
To build upon the results of this study, regional modelling with resolution better than 12 km by 12 km could increase the accuracy of air quality forecasts.Such models could also better inform region-specific solutions for improving air quality.In addition, scenarios with wider ranges of emissions control technologies could help identify optimal control strategies across fuel types.Different fuel types could be interchanged to optimize air quality in scenarios, as well.It is imperative to maintain good air quality as power production increases over time.This project provides suggestions and a start to addressing the problems that may arise from air pollutants from the power sector in Thailand in the future.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.A visual representation of data flow through the CAMx model.

Figure
Figure 2. Change in NOx emissions by region from 2016 to 2036.

Figure 10
Figure 10.(a) Monthly average SO2 concentrations compared to WHO standard.(b) As in Figure 10a, except for August.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Hourly SO2 emissions comparison between CLE and MFR for March in kt.
displays the average monthly PM10 concentrations across Thailand in 2036 CLE and MFR scenarios for March.

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Monthy average concentration of PM10 for March in each scenario (ug/m 3 ).

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Areas of Thailand with average monthly concnetrations of PM10 above WHO standard.

Figure 14 .
Figure 14.An example of wind patterns in Thailand used in a meteorology model.
GAINS Region

Natural Gas Diesel Fuel Oil Biomass/Renewable Hard Coal Brown Coal
1All values given in petajoules.
GAINS Region

Natural Gas Diesel Fuel Oil Biomass/Renewable Hard Coal Brown Coal
1All values given in petajoules.

Table 3 .
Control technology scenario outline.

Table 4 .
Emissions control technology descriptions and efficiencies 1 .

2 .
Change in NOx emissions by region from 2016 to 2036.

Table 5 .
Power Plant NOx Emission as a Percent of Total NOx Emissions.
1All values given in kilotons per year.

Table 6 .
Power Plant SO2 Emission as a Percent of Total SO2 Emissions 1All values given in kilotons per year.

Table 7 .
Power Plant PM10 Emission as a Percent of Total PM10 Emissions.
1All values given in kilotons per year.

GAINS Region NOx CLE 1 NOx MFR SO2 CLE SO2 MFR PM10 CLE PM10 MFR
1All values given in kilotons per year, for year 2036.

Table 9 .
Cost Comparison of Control Scenarios.
1All values given in million euro per year, for year 2036.

Table A3 .
Average, min and max concentrations of NOx in ppb for each monitoring station.

Table A4 .
Average, min and max concentrations of ozone in ppb for each monitoring station.The 1st International Electronic Conference on Atmospheric Sciences (ECAS 2016), 16-31 July 2016; Sciforum Electronic Conference Series, Vol. 1, 2016 24

Table A5 .
Average, min and max concentrations of PM10 in ug/m 3 for each monitoring station.