Comparison and Optimization Path of Quality Control Systems for Direct Carbon Emission Measurement Data in Thermal Power Plants

This study systematically compares thermal power direct carbon emission data quality control systems in China, the EU, and the U.S., quantifying differences and proposing optimization strategies. Core results: (1) Regulatory frameworks: The EU’s “Directive-Regulation-Standard” system controls data uncertainty ≤ ±3%; the U.S. “Clean Air Act+40 CFR Parts 75/98” framework achieves Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) median accuracy ~2% but has regional gaps; China’s 2024 legalization of CEMS data leaves a 32% eastern–western installation gap (~90% vs.~58%). (2) Technical paths: The EU mandates CEMS for units > 20 MW (65% ultrasonic flowmeters); the U.S. uses CEMS for coal-fired (error ≤ 1%) and accounting for gas-fired units; China’s 70% S-type Pitot tubes have 17% error in complex flow fields, while pilot multi-channel ultrasonic flowmeters reach ±1.5%. (3) Mechanisms: The EU’s QAL1-QAL3+AST cuts uncertainty by 40–60%; the U.S. NIST calibration limits cross-plant deviation ≤ 1.5%; China’s big data boosts anomaly identification by 72% but lacks full-process control. (4) China-specific proposals: Mandate CEMS for units > 300 MW, build 3–5 national flue gas platforms by 2026, and offer 60% western equipment subsidies, supporting carbon data quality improvement and international mutual recognition.