AQRV

b) Air Quality Related Value

b) To limit the emission of air pollutants to protect sensitive ecosystems.

c) Economic impact of emission limits

c) Balancing economic development with environmental protection.

b) Developing more sophisticated models for AQRV assessment.

**1. Potential Environmental Impacts:**

• **Acid Rain:** Sulfur dioxide reacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid, which can fall as acid rain. Acid rain can damage trees, acidify lakes and streams, and harm aquatic life.
• **Visibility Impairment:** Sulfur dioxide can contribute to haze and reduce visibility, impacting the aesthetic value of the national park and limiting recreational opportunities.
• **Ecosystem Impacts:** Sulfur dioxide can negatively impact sensitive ecosystems within the park, such as forests and wetlands, by damaging vegetation and altering soil chemistry.

  **2. Strategies for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide Emissions:**

  • **Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD):** This technology removes sulfur dioxide from the flue gas before it is released into the atmosphere. FGD systems use various methods, such as scrubbing with a limestone slurry, to capture and remove sulfur dioxide. * **Pros:** Highly effective in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, widely available technology. * **Cons:** Can be costly to install and operate, requires significant space and maintenance.
  • **Coal Switching:** Replacing high-sulfur coal with lower-sulfur coal can significantly reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. This may require sourcing from different suppliers or investing in coal washing technologies. * **Pros:** Relatively straightforward approach, potentially lower costs compared to FGD. * **Cons:** May not achieve the desired emission reduction levels, could impact energy efficiency and require adjustments to the plant's operations.
  • **Partnership with Renewable Energy Sources:** The company can collaborate with renewable energy providers to offset its sulfur dioxide emissions through renewable energy certificates (RECs). This can involve investing in renewable energy projects or purchasing RECs to demonstrate environmental responsibility. * **Pros:** Improves the company's environmental profile, contributes to a cleaner energy mix, may provide financial benefits. * **Cons:** Requires investment in a separate renewable energy project or REC purchase, may not directly reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at the power plant.

    **3. Evaluation of Strategies:**

    • **FGD:** FGD is generally considered the most effective technology for achieving significant sulfur dioxide reduction. However, it has the highest upfront and operating costs. The company needs to carefully weigh the cost-benefit analysis and consider the long-term environmental benefits.
    • **Coal Switching:** Coal switching is a less expensive option but may not achieve the desired emission reduction levels. This strategy might be suitable for achieving a moderate reduction, but the company should consider the overall environmental impact and the availability of lower-sulfur coal sources.
    • **Renewable Energy Partnership:** This strategy allows the company to demonstrate environmental responsibility and reduce its carbon footprint without directly reducing emissions at the power plant. It is a good option for companies seeking to achieve carbon neutrality or improve their environmental image. However, it does not directly address the sulfur dioxide emissions at the source.