By now, just about everyone has said everything they know about clean air. Has the air become noticeably better as a result? We can each judge that every day, depending on where we are. So many factors affect air quality that it is hard to name a single effective measure, apart from the special mask recommended during smog episodes.
We can, however, take steps that we know contribute to better air quality.
Today our biggest problem is the burning of hard coal in heating appliances. It is the most important problem to solve, because our country burns a great deal of coal, far more than we can readily replace with another fuel.
Poland’s heating sector relies on coal and uses around 24–26 million tonnes of it each year. Households alone burn as much as 12 million tonnes. Looking at the EU as a whole, Polish households burn more than 80% of the coal used in homes across the European Union. Poland is therefore an outlier in the use of coal in individual buildings.
Dr Joanna Maćkowiak-Pandera, President of Forum Energii, speaking to Newseria Biznes
A problem of this scale should be tackled first, without spreading our efforts across a range of unrelated measures.
That is the view of the Myślenice Region Chamber of Commerce, which drew up its own programme called Gmina bez węgla (Coal-Free Municipality).
Our programme focuses on measures that phase out hard coal as a fuel. This is the most rational strategy because it directs all the work and resources towards one goal. Once we have moved away from coal, we can pursue other energy-saving programmes such as improving the energy performance of buildings, replacing inefficient equipment and changing energy sources. At present, we cannot afford to spread our resources across everything at once.
Does this strategy pay off?
The answer becomes clear from the figures.
According to information published on the website of the Myślenice Town and Municipality Office on Tuesday, 6 June 2023, the municipality sold more than 2,000 tonnes of coal.
The municipality ended its preferential coal sales on 31 May 2023. In all, it sold residents 2,159.72 tonnes of heating fuel for PLN 4,178,063.90.
Two coal suppliers distributed the coal at preferential prices in Myślenice: the Myślenice branch of EN22 sp. z o.o. at ul. Słowackiego 95 and Trans Opał Marcin Majda at ul. K. Wielkiego 203. Free delivery was available throughout the municipality.
Households entitled to the coal allowance in 2022 that submitted a valid application could buy solid fuel at the preferential price in the municipality from November 2022 to May 2023.
The coal supplied to the municipality by Węglokoks of Katowice reached 1,461 households. I am pleased that, despite the difficult situation on the coal market, we were able to help our residents secure heating fuel for winter. We sold more than 2,000 tonnes of coal for over PLN 4 million.
Jarosław Szlachetka, Mayor of the Town and Municipality of Myślenice
The Social Services Centre processed the coal allowance applications and settled the payments in cooperation with the Department of Development and External Funding at the Myślenice Town and Municipality Office.
That was the official announcement. Let us analyse it and see what conclusion we reach.
First, some calculations. Residents received about 2,160 tonnes of coal. The coal contains the energy we need for heating. How much heat energy was made available to households? The announcement did not specify the calorific value of the fuel. We can only estimate the amount of energy, which depends mainly on coal quality. That is a serious omission. People buy coal for the energy it contains, so it is worth knowing how much energy was in the coal purchased.
For the calculation, let us give the officials the benefit of the doubt and assume that the coal was of very high quality with a calorific value of 28 MJ/kg.
| Fuel | Energy content (MJ) |
|---|---|
| 1 kg of hard coal | 28 |
| 1 kg of wood pellets | 18 |
| 1 kg of dry wood (15% moisture content) | 18 |
The heating energy supplied to residents was therefore:
2,159,720 kg of coal × 28 MJ/kg = 60,472,160 MJ
The municipality supplied 60,472,160 MJ of energy at a cost of PLN 4,178,063, or PLN 0.069 per MJ.
In more familiar units, 1 kWh equals 3.6 MJ, so each kWh cost PLN 0.25. That was cheaper than electricity.
Burning coal also produces ash. Let us again be optimistic and assume the coal supplied contained just 6% ash. Even then, the municipality effectively bought around 129 tonnes of ash, almost six 20-tonne truckloads of waste that is particularly harmful to soil.
This raises several important questions:
- Where is this volume of ash stored?
- How is it disposed of?
- How much does disposal cost, and who pays for it?
These are additional costs of burning coal. Supplying about 2,160 tonnes therefore cost the municipality more than the roughly PLN 4.18 million paid for the fuel.
Now consider supplying the same amount of energy in the form of firewood.
We assume that the 1,461 households have wood-burning heating appliances. The amount of wood needed to supply the same energy as the coal depends on its calorific value.
Using the table’s value of 18 MJ/kg gives a requirement of 3,359,564 kg of wood, or about 3,359 tonnes.
That is about 1,200 tonnes more fuel. Since wood is usually measured in cubic metres, let us use that unit.
One cubic metre weighs an average of 600 kg, so a tonne of wood is about 1.66 m³.
Matching the energy content of the coal supplied would require 5,575 m³ of wood. The next question is the cost.
In October 2022, at the height of the price increases, firewood cost PLN 503 per m³ on average. Prices then fell steadily, which would make the comparison more favourable.
At that price, a municipal firewood programme would have cost the municipality, and therefore us, PLN 2,804,225. The cost would have been PLN 0.12 per kWh.
| Coal supply | Firewood supply |
|---|---|
| PLN 4,178,063.90 | PLN 2,804,225 |
| PLN 0.22 per kWh | PLN 0.12 per kWh |
Translator’s note: The Polish article gives PLN 0.25 per kWh in the calculation above and PLN 0.22 per kWh in the comparison.
Can the Town and Municipality Office be proud of spending PLN 1,373,838 more?
Given the situation, perhaps it can. But might the situation itself reflect a poorly designed government programme that for several years has paid too little attention to biomass as a heating fuel?
That brings us back to the question of whether this strategy pays off. I think the calculations above give a clear answer.
There is one more important point. Sourcing biomass for heating has other benefits, including ash that can be a useful material for soil. The same cannot be said for coal.
The conclusion is simple: let us do everything we can to burn less coal each heating season.
Author: Bronisław Burkiewicz