United Kingdom emissions levels

The EU Emissions Trading Directive established a very low level of heat input (20 MWth) as the threshold for inclusion in the ETS. If there is one refrain that arises from virtually every one of the ten NAP processes included in this volume, it is that the inclusion of small installations was not worth it. As noted in one contribution after another, a large proportion of CO2 emissions originate from a small number of installations, while a very large number of the installations contribute only a small percentage of emissions. For instance, in the United Kingdom, 20% of the sites account for 94% of emissions and 80% of the sites contribute 6% of the emissions (see Harrison and Radov, United Kingdom ). Similar statistics are found in every Member State. 

Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) as well as the United States (USA). Other countries, such as Finland, have drafts or proposals for legislation. As a summary. Table 2 shows the size of plants covered by NOx emission standards for new combustion plants as well as for existing plants and Table 3 shows the level of standards applied in g NOx/m, at 5-7% O2. 

Table 2 shows that no emission reductions are required anywhere to reduce deposition on the southwest coast of Norway to 1.5 g S m a . To reduce the deposition to 1.0 g S m a , emission reductions are required in the German Democratic Republic, the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark and Poland, in order of national percentage of the total European cost of 3.8 billion DM per year. Substantial percentage emission reductions (from unabated 1995 levels) are required in the German Democratic Republic, Denmark, and Norway the last two because of their relative proximity to the receptor site, the first because of the relatively low marginal costs for sulfur emission control there. Note that emissions in Norway are not lowered to the minimum possible value but only by 45% after that point it is more cost-effective to reduce emissions elsewhere. 

---