1 / 16

The Neutral Effect of Waste Energy Projects on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The Neutral Effect of Waste Energy Projects on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Peter Sagert, Cirrus Consultants Biomass &Waste Energy Seminar October 28, 2005. October 28 a.m. ,2005 ver. Presentation Points. Definition of a greenhouse gas (GHG) GHGs relevant to waste to energy projects

astra-franks
Download Presentation

The Neutral Effect of Waste Energy Projects on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Neutral Effect of Waste Energy Projects on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Peter Sagert, Cirrus Consultants Biomass &Waste Energy Seminar October 28, 2005 October 28 a.m. ,2005 ver

  2. Presentation Points • Definition of a greenhouse gas (GHG) • GHGs relevant to waste to energy projects • Climate/emission rationale for neutral effect • How to obtain a GHG offset credit

  3. Greenhouse Gas Defined • Constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation • Only trace constituents of the atmosphere are meteorologically significant (nitrogen and oxygen make up about 99% of the atmosphere but are generally passive meteorologically)

  4. Relevance of Individual GHGs • Carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone are the primary, natural GHGs • Methane and nitrous oxide trace constituents of combustion • Methane and carbon dioxide roughly equal and most common constituents of landfill gas • Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride can largely be ignored for waste to energy projects

  5. Primary GHG for Waste Energy Projects • Carbon dioxide is the key focus • Ozone not particularly relevant to these projects • Methane and nitrous oxide trace constituents of combustion a residual, at the margin, issue for “fine tuning” a GHG offset application

  6. GHGs Essential for Maintaining Climate • GHG effect of the atmosphere blocks ground radiation to space • GHGs raise mean temperature of the ground by about 33 oC; question of needed GHG level in the atmosphere • Energy surplus in low latitudes and deficit in high latitudes is the fundamental cause of the general circulation of the atmosphere

  7. Why is Biomass Combustion Neutral in Terms of Atmospheric Effect? • Atmospheric residence time for CO2 is long, global warming potential based on 100 years • No net atmospheric CO2 buildup for biomass used sustainably • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presents this view (e.g., Scientific Technical Analysis, 1995, p. 603)

  8. Some Acceptable Forms of Biomass • Wood residues from B.C.’s sustainable forest industry • Municipal solid waste (MSW) • Recovered landfill gas from MSW placement • Enhanced MSW products such as urban wood and refuse derived fuel (RDF)

  9. Options for CO2 Credits • Participate in utility programs (e.g., Environmental Choice Program-TerraChoice) • Large Final Emitter (LFE) through Canadian Federal and Delegated Provincial Program • Government of Canada’s Offset System for Greenhouse Gases most likely option

  10. Government of Canada Offset Program • Made in Canada program, not Kyoto compatible • GHG emission reduction (offset) only tradable in Canada • Canadian government plans to convince other nations of merits of Canadian approach • Corollary: international investor cannot transfer offset back to home country

  11. Environment Canada Time Frame • Intense effort in a short time frame • September 2005 stakeholder consultation • October 2005 rule writing • Early 2006 implementation. For 2006 application, credit for all of calendar 2006

  12. Barriers to Entry: Complexity and Cost • LFE program less complex in terms of calculating emissions • Federal government plans CSA protocols as a way to reduce cost barrier to entry • Aggregation and bundling ways to reduce costs • Ownership of an aggregated source being addressed by federal legal advisors

  13. Methods of Offset Verification • Protocol development and approval needed first if CSA protocol not prepared • Full Environment Canada review of application • Independent verifier review (criminal sanctions like tax system preferred by many)

  14. Uncertainty Issues to be Resolved • Threshold size of projects required to prove load displacement • Method to address load displacement • Value, derivation and role of national emission intensity factor • Role of insurance versus some other method to address risk

  15. Conclusions • Waste to energy projects CO2 neutral • GHG offsets practical for biomass and waste to energy projects • Province will need to decide if they have a role or program is under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

More Related