So far, the USA, with regulations due to be finalised in December 2004, seems to be alone in the world in its dogged pursuit of measures specifically targetting the reduction of mercury emissions from coal fired plants. But might others follow? Take Europe for example. Following a request from the Council of Ministers in December 2002, the European Commission is now in the process of developing a strategy for mercury in the EU. This is intended to deal with all aspects of the “mercury cycle”, including production, trade and use, but is likely to include recommendations on emissions.Earlier this year the EC issued a consultation document on this mercury strategy (with comments invited by 11 May 2004). The consultation document identifies coal combustion as the largest source of mercury in the EU and notes that mercury emissions have reduced in recent times due to overall improvements in coal-plant emissions controls and declining use of coal for power generation. But nevertheless it poses the question: “What would be the advantages and disadvantages of further potential EU measures to reduce mercury emissions from coal combustion in power plants? Please provide quantified data on emissions and costs, and indicate any proposed difference in approach (eg what type of measures) between large and small plants.”Notice the word “further”. The consultation document notes that for EU coal fired plants above 50 MWt mercury is already regulated to some extent by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive, which was enacted in 1996 but does not kick in until 2007. The IPPC requires that, as from October 2007, installations, including “combustion plants” above 50 MWt, must use the “best available technology” to reduce emissions of a wide range of pollutants, mercury among them.One option suggested by the consultation document is to take no further action and simply rely on the IPPC, which determines the technology to be used, and the Large Combustion Plant directive (LCPD). The LCPD sets out the emissions limits for SOx, NOx and particulates for power plants of over 50 MWt that must be met as from 2008. It does not specifically mention mercury, but many of the technologies employed to meet the requirements of the LCPD will lead to reduced mercury emissions, as a fortuitous side effect.Interestingly, in the case of the IPPC, the working group charged with identifying the best available technology for large combustion plants (the BAT Reference document or BREF, in the jargon) “has concluded there is no specific mercury control technique available for this sector, although there are emerging techniques.”Another option put forward in the consultation document is to add mercury limits to those already specified in the LCPD for other pollutants, leaving it up to national authorities or plant operators to decide how to achieve them (eg switching to low-mercury coal, coal cleaning or even switching to another fuel such as gas).The consultation document also points out that the LCPD already contains within it an article inviting “the Commission to present to the Council of Ministers by 31 December 2004 an assessment of the amounts of heavy metals emitted by large combustion plants, the need for further measures, and the cost-effectiveness and technical and economic feasibility of further emission reductions.”A further option entertained by the consultation document is to introduce an incentive-based mercury emissions reduction system, perhaps along the lines of the mercury emissions trading scheme for power plants being proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (akin to the carbon trading scheme shortly to get underway in Europe).But are any specific mercury measures needed at all? Not surprisingly, Eurelectric, like other bodies representing European power generators, does not seem to think so. Eurelectric considers “mercury is a global problem to which Europe is a small and declining contributor.” It points out that the impact of climate change policy, in particular carbon trading and the many EU directives aimed at curbing emissions in general, will reduce electricity generation by coal – from around 25% to perhaps 18% by 2020 in the EU25 – with a consequent decline in mercury emissions. Further contributing to mercury emissions reduction will be increased penetration of high efficiency ESP, FGD and SCR, and retirement of older plants where backfitting of such equipment is not feasible. In addition “the increased use of imported low sulphur coals will lead progressively to a further reduction of mercury emissions in Europe,” says Eurelectric.A similar view on the likely effect of existing regulations was expressed recently by Stuart Mitchell of Mitsui Babcock, which on 12 May hosted the First International Experts’ Workshop on Mercury Emissions from Coal, at its Renfrew Technology and Engineering Centre (with the sponsorship of the IEA Clean Coal Centre and the UK Department of Trade and Industry). Stuart Mitchell predicted that “With the implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive and IPPC regulations, it is likely that mercury emissions from coal-fired plants in Europe will drop by approximately 50% by 2008.”However, if the European Commission really deems mercury from coal-fired power stations to pose a health risk that needs curtailing, as has been judged to be the case in the USA, will it be willing to rely on the side effects of regulations originally intended to achieve other ends and control other pollutants or will it be looking for additional mercury-specific measures, such as those being adopted in the USA? The answer to this question should be become clearer later this year when the Commission is due to make its proposals on mercury to the Council of Ministers.Horns Rev faces rough seasIt is likely to be a less than relaxed summer for Danish wind turbine maker Vestas, with the prospect of having to take all the remaining nacelles ashore from the 160 MWe Horns Rev wind farm for generator replacement (see news item, p5). This follows earlier problems with transformers, also requiring them to be changed.Being the first large scale offshore wind farm, with a very high profile for the wind industry in general and offshore wind business in particular, was always going to have its challenges, but this is the kind of thing the nascent offshore wind industry could well do without.There have obviously always been worries about the reliability, availability and maintainability of wind turbines at sea. But some comfort can be drawn from indications that the Horns Rev problems lie in the manufacturing of this particular batch of machines rather than any fundamental flaws in design or approach.