From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Thu Jul 5 14:51:29 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:51:29 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Quiet time Message-ID: <20dd85730707051151q147fbf30qf0989fda9de8b77f@mail.gmail.com> The Network's mailing list has been quiet lately, so I thought I would waken things up. To all the new members out there, you are welcome to post questions or announcements to the mailing list. It is moderated, so I will review it let you know if it is an acceptable post and/or help you to make it acceptable. We are still working on raising the funding to launch a new list for GHG emissions relevant news. I will let you know when it is ready. In the meantime, below are a couple of recent research articles. And other exciting new initiatives are in the works as well. More to come on that later. michael [moderator] * Estimation of annual CH4 and N2O emissions from fluidised bed combustion: An advanced measurement-based method and its application to Finland * * International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 1, Issue 3, July 2007, Pages 289-297 * Eemeli Tsupari, Suvi Monni, Kauko Tormonen, Tuula Pellikka and Sanna Syri Abstract The aim of this study was to develop and apply an advanced, measurement based method for the estimation of annual CH4 and N2O emissions and thus gain improved understanding on the actual greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of combustion of fossil fuels, peat, biofuels and REF. CH4 and N2O emissions depend strongly on combustion conditions, and therefore the emission factors used in the calculation of annual emissions contain significant uncertainties. Fluidised bed combustion (FBC) has many good properties for combustion of different types of fuels and fuels of varying quality, e.g., biofuels and wastes. Therefore, it is currently increasing its market share. In this study, long term measurements (up to 50 days) were carried out at seven FBC boilers representing different size classes, loadings and fuel mixes. Both decreasing load and increasing share of coal in fuel mix increased N2O emissions. Measurement results from different loading levels were combined with the common loading curves of similar plants in Finland to estimate annual emissions. Based on the results, recommendations for emission factors for the Finnish GHG emission inventory are given. The role of FBC as a potential technology for the utilisation of biofuels and wastes with future GHG reduction requirements is discussed. Nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emission from Hungarian forest soils; linked with atmospheric N-deposition Atmospheric Environment Volume 40, Issue 40 , December 2006, Pages 7786-7795 L?szl? Horv?tha, Hungarian Meteorological Service, Gilice t?r 39, 1181 Budapest, Hungary Erno F?hrerb, Forest Research Institute, Frankel Le? u. 42-44, 1023 Budapest, Hungary Kate Lajthac, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, Oregon, USA Abstract Studies of forest nitrogen (N) budgets generally measure inputs from the atmosphere in wet and dry deposition and outputs via hydrologic export. Although denitrification has been shown to be important in many wetland ecosystems, emission of N oxides from forest soils is an important, and often overlooked, component of an ecosystem N budget. During 1 year (2002?03), emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were measured from Sessile oak and Norway spruce forest soils in northeast Hungary. Accumulation in small static chambers followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry detection was used for the estimation of N2O emission flux. Because there are rapid chemical reactions of NO and ozone, small dynamic chambers were used for in situ NO flux measurements. Average soil emissions of NO were 1.2 and 2.1 ?g N m-2 h-1, and for N2O were 15 and 20 ?g N m-2 h-1, for spruce and oak soils, respectively. Due to the relatively high soil water content, and low C/N ratio in soil, denitrification processes dominate, resulting in an order of magnitude greater N2O emission rate compared to NO. The previously determined N balance between the atmosphere and the forest ecosystem was re-calculated using these soil emission figures. The total (dry+wet) atmospheric N-deposition to the soil was 1.42 and 1.59 g N m-2 yr-1 for spruce and oak, respectively, while the soil emissions are 0.14 and 0.20 g N m-2 yr-1. Thus, about 10?13% of N compounds deposited to the soil, mostly as Click to view the MathML source and Click to view the MathML source, were transformed in the soil and emitted back to the atmosphere, mostly as greenhouse gas (N2O). Available from Science Direct at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&_method=citationSearch&_uoikey=B6VH3-4M0S3G5-3&_origin=SDEMFRASCII&_version=1&md5=c0a7ebc9d321dc5a27c57deb7ac78dbe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070705/6d5249c5/attachment.html From jking at mwcog.org Mon Jul 9 15:00:43 2007 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeff King) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories Message-ID: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance that addresses issues like: 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up the mixing height, etc. 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's boundaries. 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste is sent outside the region to be landfilled. Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are doing, Jeff King Environmental Planner MWCOG From jillinfo at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 9 19:52:29 2007 From: jillinfo at sbcglobal.net (Jill Boone) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:52:29 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> Jeff - I am doing some similar calculations for the jurisdictions in San Mateo County, CA. But rather than one big regional number, the intention is to report on each city (and the County) so that people are encouraged to take action for their piece. I think your questions about air travel are interesting and would like to hear any responses you get that are not posted to the list. For electricity, natural gas and waste and recycling - we generally use numbers that are based on consumption or disposal belonging to the community, not necessarily waste that would be imported from anohter community to a local landfill. And conversion to CO2 tons from energy usage in the built environment would be based on how clean or dirty the source is. So, if you throw away a ton, no matter where this ton goes to be buried or burned, it counts - and the conversion factor is based on its destination. And then there is gasoline and diesel impacts - all the transportation emissions, which will be easier for you to get a number for since you are doing this regionally. You might also check how much cement is being used and if any forests are being planted or cut down. have fun, Jill On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Jeff King wrote: Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance that addresses issues like: 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up the mixing height, etc. 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's boundaries. 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste is sent outside the region to be landfilled. Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are doing, Jeff King Environmental Planner MWCOG _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov Tue Jul 10 09:22:20 2007 From: Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov (Cooper, Craig (Feinstein)) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:22:20 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> References: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <01877EAA2B6D4A43B01014D2AC210B81026313A5@SENATE-MS24.senate.ussenate.us> Jeff & Jill- This is an interesting conversation that raises two interesting points. Aviation: Given that the FAA governs flight ops within a certain range of an airport, and the local airport is limited in what it can do to reduce those emissions, do the emissions within this bubble "belong" to the community or the federal government? Concrete versus Asphalt: Concrete costs more GHG to produce, but absorbs GHG over its lifetime. Asphalt costs fewer GHG to produce, but emits GHG over its lifetime. Is there a standard way to do lifecycle GHG calculations for these materials? Thanks, Craig Craig Cooper, Ph.D. Science and Technology Policy Fellow Senator Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-9646 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:52 PM To: GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories Jeff - I am doing some similar calculations for the jurisdictions in San Mateo County, CA. But rather than one big regional number, the intention is to report on each city (and the County) so that people are encouraged to take action for their piece. I think your questions about air travel are interesting and would like to hear any responses you get that are not posted to the list. For electricity, natural gas and waste and recycling - we generally use numbers that are based on consumption or disposal belonging to the community, not necessarily waste that would be imported from anohter community to a local landfill. And conversion to CO2 tons from energy usage in the built environment would be based on how clean or dirty the source is. So, if you throw away a ton, no matter where this ton goes to be buried or burned, it counts - and the conversion factor is based on its destination. And then there is gasoline and diesel impacts - all the transportation emissions, which will be easier for you to get a number for since you are doing this regionally. You might also check how much cement is being used and if any forests are being planted or cut down. have fun, Jill On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Jeff King wrote: Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance that addresses issues like: 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up the mixing height, etc. 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's boundaries. 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste is sent outside the region to be landfilled. Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are doing, Jeff King Environmental Planner MWCOG _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From Justin.Goodwin at aeat.co.uk Tue Jul 10 09:27:32 2007 From: Justin.Goodwin at aeat.co.uk (Justin Goodwin) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:27:32 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> References: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <46939754.29ED.00F7.0@uk.aeat.com> Jill, Jeff, We compile carbon footprint statistics for the UK using a number of different approaches. Generally the "End User" approach seems to be the most useful for linking to Local Action. This approach assigns emissions from the production of energy (e.g. electricity generation and solid and liquid fuel production and distribution) to the users of the fuel. Full details of the data and methods can be found on: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/galocalghg.htm Our current approach is to exclude aviation fuel use but to include the emissions from production of the fuel and include airside vehicles. It may be appropriate to assign emissions from domestic aviation to airports based on the number of domestic flights. International is still out to be consistent with national reporting. For electricity generation emissions are assigned to users of electricity. For waste we are working on an approach to apply a factor per tonne of waste sent to landfill assigned to the waste generation in the area of interest. The general principal is to calculate the footprint according to the "demand" generated in the area of interest so that any reduction in "Demand" in that area will be captured by an indicator. Many regards Justin Justin Goodwin AEA Energy & Environment Gemini Building Fermi Avenue Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR UK Switchboard +44 (0870) 190 1900 Phone: 44 (0) 870 190 6480 Fax: 44 (0) 0870 190 6607 e-mail - justin.goodwin at aeat.co.uk http://www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk/ >>> Jill Boone 10/07/2007 00:52 >>> Jeff - I am doing some similar calculations for the jurisdictions in San Mateo County, CA. But rather than one big regional number, the intention is to report on each city (and the County) so that people are encouraged to take action for their piece. I think your questions about air travel are interesting and would like to hear any responses you get that are not posted to the list. For electricity, natural gas and waste and recycling - we generally use numbers that are based on consumption or disposal belonging to the community, not necessarily waste that would be imported from anohter community to a local landfill. And conversion to CO2 tons from energy usage in the built environment would be based on how clean or dirty the source is. So, if you throw away a ton, no matter where this ton goes to be buried or burned, it counts - and the conversion factor is based on its destination. And then there is gasoline and diesel impacts - all the transportation emissions, which will be easier for you to get a number for since you are doing this regionally. You might also check how much cement is being used and if any forests are being planted or cut down. have fun, Jill On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Jeff King wrote: Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance that addresses issues like: 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up the mixing height, etc. 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's boundaries. 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste is sent outside the region to be landfilled. Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are doing, Jeff King Environmental Planner MWCOG _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss *********************************************************************** This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it on behalf of the addressee you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please contact the sender. Thank you for your cooperation. *********************************************************************** For more information about AEA please visit our Web site at http://www.aeat.co.uk ( http://www.aeat.co.uk/ ) AEA Technology plc registered office 329 Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QJ. Registered in England and Wales, number 3095862. From Heiner.VonLuepke at fao.org Tue Jul 10 09:47:29 2007 From: Heiner.VonLuepke at fao.org (VonLuepke, Heiner (FOMC)) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:47:29 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] FW: CH4 emissions from refuse-derived fuels? Message-ID: > Dear Network Members, > > currently we are working on a revision of a small scale methodology that > would enable the eligibility of avoidance of methane emissions from wood > stockpiles (i.e., anaerobic decomposition of sawdust) through the > production of wood pellets. The wood pellets would then be used outside the > project boundary for energy generation in combustion facilities, which > would imply that the methodology could be used independently from a fuel > switch project, but could be combined, if appropriate. > > Pellets have a moisture content of 8-10 % and are stored in such a way that > anaerobic and humid conditions are excluded, since this would lead to > deterioration of combustion qualities and emissions of methane. > > Now, a literature search didn't give any results regarding GHG emissions > from refuse-derived fuels, in this case wood pellets. We would be highly > interested to learn whether there was any experience gained concerning > emissions from the ready made product. (Emissions from the combustion > facility are not regarded here) > > Any hint to literature or other information would be greatly appreciated! > > With best regards, > > Heiner von Luepke > Heiner von Luepke - Forest and Climate Change - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla I-00100 Roma, Italy Phone (work): +39 06 57056095 Phone (mobile): +39 340 8583795 Fax: +39 06 57055137 URL: www.fao.org/forestry/site/climate-change/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070710/89226252/attachment.html From Peter.Brunelli at po.state.ct.us Tue Jul 10 13:49:29 2007 From: Peter.Brunelli at po.state.ct.us (Brunelli, Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:49:29 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> References: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> <44796EFE-22D6-41E0-8537-8BB148D80029@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: I replied to Jeff off the list but I wanted to mention that the EPA has a very well designed State Inventory Tool, based in MS Excel, that comes with good default state-level data, and allows a large degree of customization. This is a "top-down" tool, and uses mostly area-based consumption data, along with some specific usage data. Jeff's questions might better be addressed in a "bottom-up" approach where specific facilities and activities are aggregated with a higher level of detail. I consider the trade off to be more complete coverage/capture in a top-down, vs. resolution/detail in a bottom-up. Info Here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_guidance.html Opinion: whatever methodology you choose it should be integrated with other similar efforts (for future integration) and also address the specific needs of the program in question. This could involve building a standardized inventory based on "within the boundaries, on the ground" emissions and sinks, and then use that to set the groundwork for more wide-ranging measurements. With something like the EPA SIT it is fairly simple to at least run the default data and have a baseline to work from. Pete Brunelli Climate and Energy Programs Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 USA peter.brunelli at po.state.ct.us phone (860) 424-3536 fax (860) 424-4063 On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Jeff King wrote: Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance that addresses issues like: 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up the mixing height, etc. 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's boundaries. 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste is sent outside the region to be landfilled. Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are doing, Jeff King Environmental Planner MWCOG _______________________________________________ From matt.spannagle at undp.org Tue Jul 10 19:51:51 2007 From: matt.spannagle at undp.org (Matt Spannagle) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:51:51 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] FW: CH4 emissions from refuse-derived fuels? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b701c7c34d$498d8ce0$dc7641a5@GEFADMIN> Heiner, UNDP is investigating similar projects, and we have started with the CDM SS methodologies AMS-III.E and AMS-III.F which you can see at http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/approved.html but these will likely not give you the details you seek in calculating emission reductions, but maybe its a start. I would be interested, and would appreciate you sharing any results/conclusions you draw on this matter. Regards, Matt Spannagle Carbon Technical Advisor Environment and Energy Group Bureau for Development Policy United Nations Development Program 304 East 45th st., FF-9th floor New York, NY, 10017, USA. Ph: (1) 212 906 6329 _____ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of VonLuepke, Heiner (FOMC) Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:47 AM To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] FW: CH4 emissions from refuse-derived fuels? Dear Network Members, currently we are working on a revision of a small scale methodology that would enable the eligibility of avoidance of methane emissions from wood stockpiles (i.e., anaerobic decomposition of sawdust) through the production of wood pellets. The wood pellets would then be used outside the project boundary for energy generation in combustion facilities, which would imply that the methodology could be used independently from a fuel switch project, but could be combined, if appropriate. Pellets have a moisture content of 8-10 % and are stored in such a way that anaerobic and humid conditions are excluded, since this would lead to deterioration of combustion qualities and emissions of methane. Now, a literature search didn't give any results regarding GHG emissions from refuse-derived fuels, in this case wood pellets. We would be highly interested to learn whether there was any experience gained concerning emissions from the ready made product. (Emissions from the combustion facility are not regarded here) Any hint to literature or other information would be greatly appreciated! With best regards, Heiner von Luepke Heiner von Luepke - Forest and Climate Change - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla I-00100 Roma, Italy Phone (work): +39 06 57056095 Phone (mobile): +39 340 8583795 Fax: +39 06 57055137 URL: www.fao.org/forestry/site/climate-change/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070710/4b1ef187/attachment.html From jillinfo at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 10 17:22:45 2007 From: jillinfo at sbcglobal.net (Jill Boone) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:22:45 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <20070710133546.ASM68179@mp6.mc.surewest.net> References: <20070710133546.ASM68179@mp6.mc.surewest.net> Message-ID: That would be great! The issue with concrete is the cement used in it. If fly ash is substituted, it decreases the impact significantly. When I worked at the County, the engineers did some work on using fly ash in concrete and those documents can be found at: http://www.recycleworks.org/ greenbuilding/gb_prog_policies.html I have never heard about concrete absorbing CO2 over its life and Asphalt giving it off... very interesting if this is true. I look forward to the report. Jill On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:35 PM, wrote: I have a colleague at Carnegie Mellon Univ who has worked on the Concrete vs. Asphalt question. I believe he is on vacation this week but I will fwd to him. Stay tuned. Best regards, Greg Chambers From stephen.kenihan at iclei.org Tue Jul 10 22:08:42 2007 From: stephen.kenihan at iclei.org (Stephen Kenihan) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:08:42 +1000 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprints in Inventories In-Reply-To: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20070709190043.B71E8C180BF@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <61879.220.238.203.13.1184119722.squirrel@webmail.iclei.org> Hi Jeff, ICLEI has considerable experience in local area emissions analysis, through the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign. The US office is in Oakland CA & I'm sure they would be happy to assist. We are currently developing a local government protocol that interprets many of the issues you are facing, in the context of various standards & protocols released over the past 2 years (particularly ISO 14064, GHG Protocol Initiative work & GRI guidelines). CCP has traditionally attributed emissions to the end user, so indirect emissions from electricity consumption would be included in the analysis of the area in which the electricity is used regardless of where it is generated. Emissions from exported electricity would not be included in your analysis even though the generator is in your area. The boundary guidance in the GRI Boundary Protocol & the Sector Supplement for Public Agencies would be particularly useful for you. regards, Stephen Kenihan Technical Advisor ICLEI Oceania On Tue, July 10, 2007 05:00, Jeff King wrote: > Hi. Per Michael's comment about the list being quiet, I have a question: > > We are in the process of developing a draft GHG inventory for the > Washington DC metropolitan region (including DC, parts of Maryland and > parts of Virginia). As part of our workgroup efforts questions have been > raised about what emissions to count. Can someone direct me to guidance > that addresses issues like: > > 1) for aviation emissions, what emissions to count, fuel dispensed at > airports, all fuel consumed within the airspace above the region, all fuel > consumed for all flights in and out of the region, all fuel consumed up > the mixing height, etc. > > 2) for electricity emissions, what emissions to count, counting all > emissions from power plants actually located in the region, and (?) > emissions from KWH imported into the region from outside the region's > boundaries. > > 3) similar question for solid waste/recycling, especially if solid waste > is sent outside the region to be landfilled. > > Thanks for any insights and references for sound policy/what others are > doing, > > Jeff King > Environmental Planner > MWCOG > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From fiona.berry at arup.com Tue Jul 10 18:07:32 2007 From: fiona.berry at arup.com (Fiona Berry) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Airport GHG Inventory Message-ID: <20070710220732.BB4B7C180E9@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Network Members, Have been noticing some questions about aviation emissions. I am currently doing some research on GHG inventories for airports. Is anyone aware of any available airport GHG inventories that I could view? Many thanks Fiona Berry Sustainability Consultant Arup San Francisco From Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov Tue Jul 10 16:49:56 2007 From: Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov (Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:49:56 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Model of HFC, PFC, SF6 consumption and emissions Message-ID: Dear Network Members, Estimating HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions from long-lived equipment, such as air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical equipment, can be challenging. To illustrate some of the issues that can arise in meeting this challenge, I am posting (1) a model that shows the relationships between actual emissions from equipment and demand-based estimates of these emissions (i.e., potential emissions and the emissions estimated using the mass-balance approach), and (2) a brief tutorial explaining how to use the model. The model and tutorial are intended to be used as learning tools by inventory analysts who estimate emissions of fluorinated gases from electrical, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. They show how the relationships between consumption-based estimates and actual emissions change over time and under different situations. The model makes it easy to simulate a number of different situations, including different equipment lifetimes, refill periods, leak rates, and recovery practices, just by filling in the values at the appropriate places in the worksheet. (The model is not intended to represent any particular equipment set in the real world, although it could be adapted for this purpose.) The model includes self-updating graphs that present the information visually. The tutorial explains how to use the model and provides suggested exercises for understanding the relationships between actual emissions and demand-based estimates of these emissions. This model is closely related to the one used in the 2006 Guidelines to examine the relationship between actual emissions and those estimated using the mass-balance approach. (See Volume 3, Chapter 1, pp. 1.28 and 1.29.) For those interested in the inner workings of the model, there is a documentation tab entitled "Key to Quantities." The model is in Excel, so it should be fairly transparent. One thing that the model shows is that, even after the transition to HFCs is complete, potential emissions (HFC consumption) can greatly overestimate HFC emissions. I am indebted to several experts on HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions who gave me excellent advice on making the model more user-friendly. These experts included Dave Godwin at USEPA, Roberto Peixoto at the Maua Institute of Technology, Winfried Schwarz at Oekorecherche, and Friedrich Ploeger at Siemens. I think the model is much better thanks to their suggestions; any remaining user-hostility is my responsibility alone. I would be very interested in any comments or suggestions that subscribers to the network may have to offer on the user-friendliness of the model, although I may not be able to respond immediately. Feel free to share the model with your colleagues. I hope you find it useful! Best Regards, Deborah Ottinger Schaefer Inventory Analyst for High-GWP Emissions Climate Change Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency e-mail: ottinger.deborah at epa.gov phone: 202-343-9149 (See attached file: Introduction to model.doc)(See attached file: Simple model for equip 20070709.xls) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Introduction to model.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070710/4bf9e8d0/attachment-0001.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Simple model for equip 20070709.xls Type: application/msexcel Size: 174592 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070710/4bf9e8d0/attachment-0001.bin From michael.rynne at holcim.com Wed Jul 11 00:04:38 2007 From: michael.rynne at holcim.com (michael.rynne at holcim.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:04:38 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jill, Greg etc., Fascinating discussion thread evolving on concrete, asphalt etc! The most interesting and comprehensive work done to date (in my opinion) on recarbonation of concrete is a recent huge series of reports by a group of Scandinavian research groups (Danish Technological Institute, NORDEN, Byggforsk, SCCRI...). See: http://www.danishtechnology.dk/building/18487,1?hilite=Concrete The various authors include Knut Kjellsen, Mette Glavind, Engelsen, etc. etc.. The works reported are truly mammoth in scale and detail. As a preliminary indicator of the magnitude of the recarbonation potential, I suggest you read the Preface and Abstract of "The CO2 Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective" by Knut O. Kjellseni, Maria Guimaraesii and ?sa Nilssoniii: "...The calculations show that up to 30% of the total CO2 emission from cement production, or up to 57% of the CO2 emission from the so-called calcination process in cement manufacturing, is re-absorbed when the cement is utilized in concrete construction in the Nordic countries." There's a lot more good stuff like this in the various other reports in the series. Anyone with an interest in concrete life cycle couldn't find a better series of reports to work from. Mind you, this assumes that the concrete is largely recycled at end of life. This practice is not yet widespread....but I guarantee that if these really are the re-carbonation factors, then you can be darn sure it will become normal practice!! There's also stuff on fly ash etc. I've little idea about asphalt - sorry! I too hadn't known that asphalt "re-emits" over its life. I presume its some sort of GHG volatiles, rather than just CO2? I'd be really keen to learn more. Greg, I hope you can persuade your Carnegie Mellon friend to share some of his work on the asphalt/concrete issue! Regards Michael L. Rynne Group Manager Energy and Climate Change Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd New Zealand michael.rynne at holcim.com http://www.holcim.com/nz ________________________________ For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim Awards competition. Submissions and details at http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. __________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070711/f3b0bb41/attachment.html From M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl Wed Jul 11 05:12:01 2007 From: M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl (M.Hekkenberg) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:12:01 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Model of HFC, PFC, SF6 consumption and emissions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Deborah, Your model shows in a nice way the emissions lagging the consumption, caused by the shift towards new equipment and sector growth over the time that the gases are contained within their application. Last year I made a similar model on HFC emissions, which may interest you. This model was based on German emission data, but was intended also to be used for more general purposes. With this model I have tried to show the effects of several policy interventions, by enabling a change of certain parameters from a selected year onwards. A paper on the results called 'Exploring policy strategies for mitigating HFC emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning' is published this month in the International Journal for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Vol 1, Iss 3. July 2007, Pages 298-308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00030-8 I have attached the model to this mail. Beware though that the interface is less sophisticated than yours is. I have not written a tutorial about it, as I have only used it myself sofar. But as you already wrote, it is in excel, so it should be pretty transparant, especially since you made a similar model already. I would suggest looking at the 'Parameters' tab first, which is the tab in which you can change all kinds of parameters for different scenarios. This tab links to other tabs that show the numbers on HFC stocks and emissions in different years in the different scenarios. I hope it may be of use. If you have any questions, or wish to work on this some more together, don't hesitate to contact me! Best, Michiel Hekkenberg Michiel Hekkenberg Center for Energy and Environmental Sciences IVEM University of Groningen 9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:49:56 -0400 Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov wrote: > > Dear Network Members, > > Estimating HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions from long-lived >equipment, such > as air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical >equipment, can be > challenging. To illustrate some of the issues that can >arise in meeting > this challenge, I am posting (1) a model that shows the >relationships > between actual emissions from equipment and demand-based >estimates of > these emissions (i.e., potential emissions and the >emissions estimated > using the mass-balance approach), and (2) a brief >tutorial explaining > how to use the model. > > The model and tutorial are intended to be used as >learning tools by > inventory analysts who estimate emissions of fluorinated >gases from > electrical, air-conditioning, and refrigeration >equipment. They show > how the relationships between consumption-based >estimates and actual > emissions change over time and under different >situations. The model > makes it easy to simulate a number of different >situations, including > different equipment lifetimes, refill periods, leak >rates, and recovery > practices, just by filling in the values at the >appropriate places in > the worksheet. (The model is not intended to represent >any particular > equipment set in the real world, although it could be >adapted for this > purpose.) The model includes self-updating graphs that >present the > information visually. The tutorial explains how to use >the model and > provides suggested exercises for understanding the >relationships between > actual emissions and demand-based estimates of these >emissions. > > This model is closely related to the one used in the >2006 Guidelines to > examine the relationship between actual emissions and >those estimated > using the mass-balance approach. (See Volume 3, Chapter >1, pp. 1.28 and > 1.29.) For those interested in the inner workings of >the model, there > is a documentation tab entitled "Key to Quantities." > The model is in > Excel, so it should be fairly transparent. > > One thing that the model shows is that, even after the >transition to > HFCs is complete, potential emissions (HFC consumption) >can greatly > overestimate HFC emissions. > > I am indebted to several experts on HFC, PFC, and SF6 >emissions who gave > me excellent advice on making the model more >user-friendly. These > experts included Dave Godwin at USEPA, Roberto Peixoto >at the Maua > Institute of Technology, Winfried Schwarz at >Oekorecherche, and >Friedrich Ploeger at Siemens. I think the model is much >better thanks > to their suggestions; any remaining user-hostility is my >responsibility > alone. > > I would be very interested in any comments or >suggestions that > subscribers to the network may have to offer on the >user-friendliness of > the model, although I may not be able to respond >immediately. Feel free > to share the model with your colleagues. I hope you >find it useful! > > Best Regards, > > Deborah Ottinger Schaefer > Inventory Analyst for High-GWP Emissions > Climate Change Division > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > e-mail: ottinger.deborah at epa.gov > phone: 202-343-9149 > > (See attached file: Introduction to model.doc)(See >attached file: Simple > model for equip 20070709.xls) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: alternative scenarios.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 1522688 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070711/01750c95/attachment-0001.xls From charikr at yahoo.com Wed Jul 11 08:03:01 2007 From: charikr at yahoo.com (Chari Kumanduri) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification Message-ID: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I need help in understanding: When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I would have done through the fossil fuel route. How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? Pl. help me. regards Chari --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070711/fc05fc23/attachment.html From Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov Wed Jul 11 13:36:16 2007 From: Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov (Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:36:16 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Model of HFC, PFC, SF6 consumption and emissions In-Reply-To: <20070711095142.278.qmail@web36206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imoh, I'm glad you are willing to try out the model! The main purpose of the model is to help people understand the relationship between actual emissions and estimates of emissions based on demand. This doesn't require actual data--just hypothetical examples. However, the model could also be used to estimate emissions. Before you use it to estimate emissions, though, please consider two issues. First, although I've tried very hard to check over the model and its formulae, and I've had some other experts take a look at it, I can't guarantee that it is error-free. I think it meets the standard for a learning tool, but the standard for an estimation tool is higher. Thus, I encourage you to check the model yourself and to follow the GHG Network conversation in case someone else finds a problem. Of course, if I find a problem in the model, I'll immediately correct it and alert the Network. Second, please make sure that the model is an appropriate tool for your situation. The model uses an emission-factor approach, which is good to use if HFCs or SF6 have been used in your country for only a short while (i.e., less than 5-20 years, depending on the equipment type). Chapter 1, Volume 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories includes guidance on when to use an emission-factor approach vs. a mass-balance approach. Here's the website where you can find Volume 3: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol3.htm If an emission-factor approach is appropriate for your situation, you can use the model to estimate emissions by (1) making multiple copies of the spreadsheet to accommodate the different equipment types that use a given chemical, (2) for each equipment type, entering appropriate values for the quantities of equipment sold in column B and for the parameters in cells B3 through G3, and (3) adding the results across the spreadsheets. If a mass-balance approach is more appropriate for your situation, you can use one of the mass-balance estimation tools available on the web. There's a tool for air-conditioning and refrigeration at the WRI/WBCSD GHG protocol website at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/templates/GHG5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=OTAx&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=Calculation%20tools There's also a tool for electrical equipment at EPA's website for its SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership at http://www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6/resources.html#6 You could actually use either protocol for either type of equipment as long as you made appropriate adjustments (i.e., GWP) for the chemical used. They are both corporate-level protocols, but the same approach can be used on a national level. Of course, whether you use the emission-factor approach or the mass-balance approach, the key issue is data! This can be challenging to gather, although there's good guidance on how to get it in the 2006 Guidelines (Volume 3, Chapters 7 and 8). I know that one of the key recommendations in the Guidelines for gathering data on electrical equipment is to contact national utilities and/or industry trade groups. They will often have information on the total amount (ideally, nameplate capacity in kg) of equipment already installed and/or on the amount installed each year. They may also have information on emission rates. Chemical manufacturers and/or importers can be contacted to gather information on HFC, PFC, and SF6 sales. You can then use this sales information to check the sales predicted by the model in column K ("Consumption of New Gas"). If there's a significant difference, you may need to adjust some of the parameters of the model, depending on your confidence in the chemical sales data. Good luck with your work! Best Regards, Deborah Ottinger Schaefer Inventory Analyst for High-GWP Emissions Climate Change Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency e-mail: ottinger.deborah at epa.gov phone: 202-343-9149 "Dr. Imoh Obioh" To Deborah Ottinger/DC/USEPA/US at EPA, 07/11/2007 05:51 discuss at ghgnetwork.org AM cc Subject Re: [GHG Network] Model of HFC, PFC, SF6 consumption and emissions Dear Deborah, I am highly delighted to receive the information about comparative analysis of actual to potential emissions of HPC, PFC and SF6 emissions from long-lived equipment. I would try in the next few months try to use available information in the electricity, airconditioning and refrigeration equipment in Nigeria to run this model. It is only then that I think any comments, based on a developing country experience where I work would be worth the while. Meanwhile thanks again for sharing your model with the network. Best regards. Imoh Obioh --- Ottinger.Deborah at epamail.epa.gov wrote: > > Dear Network Members, > > Estimating HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions from > long-lived equipment, such > as air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical > equipment, can be > challenging. To illustrate some of the issues that > can arise in meeting > this challenge, I am posting (1) a model that shows > the relationships > between actual emissions from equipment and > demand-based estimates of > these emissions (i.e., potential emissions and the > emissions estimated > using the mass-balance approach), and (2) a brief > tutorial explaining > how to use the model. > > The model and tutorial are intended to be used as > learning tools by > inventory analysts who estimate emissions of > fluorinated gases from > electrical, air-conditioning, and refrigeration > equipment. They show > how the relationships between consumption-based > estimates and actual > emissions change over time and under different > situations. The model > makes it easy to simulate a number of different > situations, including > different equipment lifetimes, refill periods, leak > rates, and recovery > practices, just by filling in the values at the > appropriate places in > the worksheet. (The model is not intended to > represent any particular > equipment set in the real world, although it could > be adapted for this > purpose.) The model includes self-updating graphs > that present the > information visually. The tutorial explains how to > use the model and > provides suggested exercises for understanding the > relationships between > actual emissions and demand-based estimates of these > emissions. > > This model is closely related to the one used in the > 2006 Guidelines to > examine the relationship between actual emissions > and those estimated > using the mass-balance approach. (See Volume 3, > Chapter 1, pp. 1.28 and > 1.29.) For those interested in the inner workings > of the model, there > is a documentation tab entitled "Key to Quantities." > The model is in > Excel, so it should be fairly transparent. > > One thing that the model shows is that, even after > the transition to > HFCs is complete, potential emissions (HFC > consumption) can greatly > overestimate HFC emissions. > > I am indebted to several experts on HFC, PFC, and > SF6 emissions who gave > me excellent advice on making the model more > user-friendly. These > experts included Dave Godwin at USEPA, Roberto > Peixoto at the Maua > Institute of Technology, Winfried Schwarz at > Oekorecherche, and > Friedrich Ploeger at Siemens. I think the model is > much better thanks > to their suggestions; any remaining user-hostility > is my responsibility > alone. > > I would be very interested in any comments or > suggestions that > subscribers to the network may have to offer on the > user-friendliness of > the model, although I may not be able to respond > immediately. Feel free > to share the model with your colleagues. I hope you > find it useful! > > Best Regards, > > Deborah Ottinger Schaefer > Inventory Analyst for High-GWP Emissions > Climate Change Division > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > e-mail: ottinger.deborah at epa.gov > phone: 202-343-9149 > > (See attached file: Introduction to model.doc)(See > attached file: Simple > model for equip 20070709.xls)> _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > Imoh B. Obioh, PhD Coordinator, ARIAL; and Head, ETM Division, CERD Atmospheric Research and Information Analysis Laboratory (ARIAL) Energy Technology and Management (ETM) Division, Centre for Energy Research and Development (CERD), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Tel: 234-(0)36-233-638, 234-(0)805-3105146, 234-(0)803-406-1053 Emails: iobioh at yahoo.com, iobioh at oauife.edu.ng, arial_cerd at yahoo.com http://www.oauife.edu.ng/research/arial/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com Wed Jul 11 14:12:49 2007 From: KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:12:49 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1184177569.8420.28.camel@slb-laptop> I believe that since the C in any of the biomass came from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, the C in the biomass is considered "neutral" with respect to the atmosphere. You'd have to confirm with latest CDM guidance, but this is the general principle. Keith On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 05:03 -0700, Chari Kumanduri wrote: > I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of > power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the > Rice husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering > the amount of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of > carbon as I would have done through the fossil fuel route. > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your > story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com Wed Jul 11 14:00:02 2007 From: KEITH.J.FORBES at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:00:02 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> This is indeed interesting, but I wonder if the qualification "in the Nordic countries" implies that this isn't so elsewhere? On a lighter note, does Scandinavian concrete have chlorophyll and photosynthesize? :) I can just see inventories adding a concrete anthropogenic C sink and builders/concrete makers/homeowners claiming concrete carbon sequestration projects. You saw it here first! Keith On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:04 +1200, michael.rynne at holcim.com wrote: > > Jill, Greg etc., > Fascinating discussion thread evolving on concrete, > asphalt etc! > The most interesting and comprehensive work done to date (in my > opinion) on recarbonation of concrete is a recent huge series of > reports by a group of Scandinavian research groups (Danish > Technological Institute, NORDEN, Byggforsk, SCCRI...). > > See: http://www.danishtechnology.dk/building/18487,1?hilite=Concrete > > The various authors include Knut Kjellsen, Mette Glavind, Engelsen, > etc. etc.. The works reported are truly mammoth in scale and detail. > As a preliminary indicator of the magnitude of the recarbonation > potential, I suggest you read the Preface and Abstract of "The CO2 > Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective" by Knut O. Kjellseni, > Maria Guimaraesii and ?sa Nilssoniii: > > "...The calculations show that up to 30% of the total CO2 emission > from cement production, or up to 57% > of the CO2 emission from the so-called calcination process in cement > manufacturing, is re-absorbed when the cement is utilized in concrete > construction in the Nordic countries." > > There's a lot more good stuff like this in the various other reports > in the series. Anyone with an interest in concrete life cycle couldn't > find a better series of reports to work from. > > Mind you, this assumes that the concrete is largely recycled at end of > life. This practice is not yet widespread....but I guarantee that if > these really are the re-carbonation factors, then you can be darn sure > it will become normal practice!! > > There's also stuff on fly ash etc. > > I've little idea about asphalt - sorry! I too hadn't known that > asphalt "re-emits" over its life. I presume its some sort of GHG > volatiles, rather than just CO2? I'd be really keen to learn more. > Greg, I hope you can persuade your Carnegie Mellon friend to share > some of his work on the asphalt/concrete issue! > > Regards > > Michael L. Rynne > Group Manager Energy and Climate Change > Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd > New Zealand > michael.rynne at holcim.com > http://www.holcim.com/nz > ________________________________ > > For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being > offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim > Awards competition. Submissions and details at > http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an > information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an > initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and > is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. > __________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From tnmaraseni at hotmail.com Wed Jul 11 19:40:36 2007 From: tnmaraseni at hotmail.com (tnarayan maraseni) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:40:36 +0000 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Friends Can you please give me some idea (website) form where I can get time-series GHGs emissions data of all countries? Thank you Tek Narayan Maraseni Research Fellow Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments-Condamine Alliance, University of Southern Queensland Phone 0061-7-4631-2995 (Office) Mobile: 0431676132 & 0432044065 Toowoomba, 4350, Queensland, Australia >From: Chari Kumanduri >To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) > >I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of >power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice >husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount >of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I >would have done through the fossil fuel route. > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > > > >--------------------------------- >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >_______________________________________________ >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >www.ghgnetwork.org > >To post message: >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >To unsubscribe: >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From amsebbit at tech.mak.ac.ug Thu Jul 12 11:11:00 2007 From: amsebbit at tech.mak.ac.ug (Eng. Dr. Adam Sebbit) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:11:00 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c7c496$e0bf4b40$5602a8c0@toshibauser> Dear Chari In CDM, there are two types of emissions namely biogenic and anthropogenic. If biomass resources is grown sustainably, it implies that the emissions will be absorbed by the same energy resource. But if the biomass is not grown sustainably, the emissions from rice husks etc. would be considered as anthropogenic. Regards Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: Chari Kumanduri To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:03 AM Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification I need help in understanding: When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I would have done through the fossil fuel route. How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? Pl. help me. regards Chari ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070712/7b127ae0/attachment.html From korscha at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 04:47:24 2007 From: korscha at gmail.com (ruy anaya de la rosa) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:47:24 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <804afd080707120147i233dc506yd0ee742a04999715@mail.gmail.com> Dear Chari, For CDM purposes, It all depends on the baseline and on the activities you will carry out in your project. Baseline: What would happen to the rice husk, bagasse or any other biomass if your project did not take place?? Project Activities: Are you incoporating sustainable management of your plantations in your activities in order to get the renewable biomass you will use for power generation? You will have to prove to the CDM Executive Board that indeed you are taking advantage of the biomass, that otherwise would have left to decay, to replace fossil fuels and that you are doing it in a sustainable manner. You could only claim the emission reductions due to the displacement of fossil fuels. And your biomass could be considered renewable (not equivalent to fossil fuels) if you demonstrate so. Best Regards, Ruy Korscha Anaya de la Rosa On 7/11/07, Chari Kumanduri wrote: > > I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of > power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice > husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount > of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I > would have done through the fossil fuel route. > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > > > ------------------------------ > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070712/726cd37c/attachment.html From playboybilly at hotmail.com Thu Jul 12 00:27:13 2007 From: playboybilly at hotmail.com (Billy Lai) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Industrial Plant Energy Consumption Vs Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide eq Message-ID: <20070712042713.31E9CC1812D@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear all Greenhouse experts: Hi, my name is Billy from Sydney Australia.I am working on a project to try to evaluate (t CO2-e) for an industrial site based on it's power usage. Will you guys know what is the best estimation / calculation methods for Australia Standard, US Standard or Europe Standard? If so, can you point me to the these standard? Is there some standards or guidelines out there which detailed out something like: 1kw/hr power usage = x tonnes of CO2-e? Coal and nuclear power stations are the main type of power station in Australia. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Billy From Jens.Borken at dlr.de Fri Jul 13 10:58:03 2007 From: Jens.Borken at dlr.de (Jens.Borken at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:58:03 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Tek and all, GHG emissions for ALL countries is demanding, but there are some good (=standard/widely used) emission inventories (for atmospheric research/climate change). I would suggest to use EDGAR for the past http://www.rivm.nl/edgar/model/ and IIASA data for the future http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ggi/GgiDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=about If you are interested in emissions from the transprotation sector in particular, contact me. Best regards Jens _______________________________ Dr. Jens Borken German Aerospace Center (DLR), Transportation Studies, Rutherfordstr. 2, 12489 Berlin/Germany Tel.: ++49-30-67055-238 / Fax: ++49-30-67055-202 / http://www.dlr.de/vs / email: Jens.Borken at dlr.de ________________________________ Forthcoming in TRR Transportation Research Records: "Global and Country Inventory of Road Passenger and Freight Transportation - Their Fuel Consumption, and Their Emissions of Air Pollutants in 2000" > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] Im Auftrag von > tnarayan maraseni > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Juli 2007 01:41 > An: charikr at yahoo.com; Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Betreff: Re: [GHG Network] Need a clarification > > Dear Friends > > Can you please give me some idea (website) form where I can > get time-series GHGs emissions data of all countries? > > Thank you > > Tek Narayan Maraseni > Research Fellow > Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments-Condamine > Alliance, University of Southern Queensland Phone > 0061-7-4631-2995 (Office) > Mobile: 0431676132 & 0432044065 > Toowoomba, 4350, Queensland, Australia > > > > > > >From: Chari Kumanduri > >To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) > > > >I need help in understanding: > > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a > replacement > >of power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either > >the Rice husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And > >considering the amount of Calories I need, I might be burning almost > >equivalent of carbon as I would have done through the fossil > fuel route. > > > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > > > Pl. help me. > > regards > > Chari > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, > your story. > > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org > > > >To post message: > >Discuss mailing list > >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > > >To unsubscribe: > >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From Stanford.Mwakasonda at uct.ac.za Fri Jul 13 11:17:25 2007 From: Stanford.Mwakasonda at uct.ac.za (Stanford Mwakasonda) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:17:25 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4697B3A5.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> All countries?! Your best shot would be the UNFCCC Secretariat, the RDA (Reporting and Data Analysis) section. ///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////\\\\ Stanford Mwakasonda Energy Research Centre (ERC) University of Cape Town P/Bag, Rondebosch, 7701 South Africa Tel: +27-21-650 2521 Fax: +27-21-650 2830 Cell: +27-7220 37352 Web: www.erc.uct.ac.za Email 2: stanford at sedec.org >>> "tnarayan maraseni" 7/12/2007 1:40:36 am >>> Dear Friends Can you please give me some idea (website) form where I can get time-series GHGs emissions data of all countries? Thank you Tek Narayan Maraseni Research Fellow Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments-Condamine Alliance, University of Southern Queensland Phone 0061-7-4631-2995 (Office) Mobile: 0431676132 & 0432044065 Toowoomba, 4350, Queensland, Australia >From: Chari Kumanduri >To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) > >I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of >power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice >husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount >of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I >would have done through the fossil fuel route. > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > > > >--------------------------------- >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >_______________________________________________ >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >www.ghgnetwork.org > >To post message: >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >To unsubscribe: >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jillinfo at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 13 11:25:46 2007 From: jillinfo at sbcglobal.net (Jill Boone) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:25:46 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc In-Reply-To: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> References: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> Message-ID: I think it is important to recognize who does the studies. If they are funded by the cement industry, there might be some vested interest or even a leaning towards optimism in the results. I did a little checking about the absorption of CO2 into concrete and learned that only the outer couple of inches absorbs CO2 (thus the need for a certain amount of concrete outside of the rebar to protect it from corrosion). I don't think that concrete will be seen as a sink anytime soon, if we all stay alert! Jill On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Keith J. Forbes wrote: This is indeed interesting, but I wonder if the qualification "in the Nordic countries" implies that this isn't so elsewhere? On a lighter note, does Scandinavian concrete have chlorophyll and photosynthesize? :) I can just see inventories adding a concrete anthropogenic C sink and builders/concrete makers/homeowners claiming concrete carbon sequestration projects. You saw it here first! Keith On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:04 +1200, michael.rynne at holcim.com wrote: > > Jill, Greg etc., > Fascinating discussion thread evolving on concrete, > asphalt etc! > The most interesting and comprehensive work done to date (in my > opinion) on recarbonation of concrete is a recent huge series of > reports by a group of Scandinavian research groups (Danish > Technological Institute, NORDEN, Byggforsk, SCCRI...). > > See: http://www.danishtechnology.dk/building/18487,1?hilite=Concrete > > The various authors include Knut Kjellsen, Mette Glavind, Engelsen, > etc. etc.. The works reported are truly mammoth in scale and detail. > As a preliminary indicator of the magnitude of the recarbonation > potential, I suggest you read the Preface and Abstract of "The CO2 > Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective" by Knut O. Kjellseni, > Maria Guimaraesii and ?sa Nilssoniii: > > "...The calculations show that up to 30% of the total CO2 emission > from cement production, or up to 57% > of the CO2 emission from the so-called calcination process in cement > manufacturing, is re-absorbed when the cement is utilized in concrete > construction in the Nordic countries." > > There's a lot more good stuff like this in the various other reports > in the series. Anyone with an interest in concrete life cycle couldn't > find a better series of reports to work from. > > Mind you, this assumes that the concrete is largely recycled at end of > life. This practice is not yet widespread....but I guarantee that if > these really are the re-carbonation factors, then you can be darn sure > it will become normal practice!! > > There's also stuff on fly ash etc. > > I've little idea about asphalt - sorry! I too hadn't known that > asphalt "re-emits" over its life. I presume its some sort of GHG > volatiles, rather than just CO2? I'd be really keen to learn more. > Greg, I hope you can persuade your Carnegie Mellon friend to share > some of his work on the asphalt/concrete issue! > > Regards > > Michael L. Rynne > Group Manager Energy and Climate Change > Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd > New Zealand > michael.rynne at holcim.com > http://www.holcim.com/nz > ________________________________ > > For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being > offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim > Awards competition. Submissions and details at > http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an > information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an > initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and > is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. > __________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From DBROEKHOFF at wri.org Fri Jul 13 11:51:29 2007 From: DBROEKHOFF at wri.org (Derik Broekhoff) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:51:29 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <4697B3A5.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4697B3A5.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> Message-ID: <46976740.C056.006E.0@wri.org> You could also consult WRI's "CAIT" database, which has all countries with six-gas GHG emissions to 2003. However, it's not entirely "time-series" friendly (i.e., hard to download all years at once for a number of countries). http://cait.wri.org Alternatively, consult EarthTrends (which imports CAIT data)-- http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=3 --much easier to get time series. Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate, Energy and Pollution Program 10 G Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 USA (202) 729-7628 Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest: http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm >>> "Stanford Mwakasonda" 7/13/2007 11:17 AM >>> All countries?! Your best shot would be the UNFCCC Secretariat, the RDA (Reporting and Data Analysis) section. ///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////\\\\ Stanford Mwakasonda Energy Research Centre (ERC) University of Cape Town P/Bag, Rondebosch, 7701 South Africa Tel: +27-21-650 2521 Fax: +27-21-650 2830 Cell: +27-7220 37352 Web: www.erc.uct.ac.za Email 2: stanford at sedec.org >>> "tnarayan maraseni" 7/12/2007 1:40:36 am >>> Dear Friends Can you please give me some idea (website) form where I can get time-series GHGs emissions data of all countries? Thank you Tek Narayan Maraseni Research Fellow Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments-Condamine Alliance, University of Southern Queensland Phone 0061-7-4631-2995 (Office) Mobile: 0431676132 & 0432044065 Toowoomba, 4350, Queensland, Australia >From: Chari Kumanduri >To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) > >I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of >power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice >husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount >of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I >would have done through the fossil fuel route. > > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > > > >--------------------------------- >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >_______________________________________________ >Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >www.ghgnetwork.org > >To post message: >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > >To unsubscribe: >http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov Fri Jul 13 13:07:54 2007 From: Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov (Cooper, Craig (Feinstein)) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:07:54 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc In-Reply-To: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> References: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> Message-ID: <01877EAA2B6D4A43B01014D2AC210B81026DB68F@SENATE-MS24.senate.ussenate.us> Actually, you saw it HERE first. This came up as a topic of conversation about cap and trade policy sometime earlier this year. The cement industry wants a fair, life-cycle accounting -- partially due to the fact that the lifecycle costs of various building materials are very different than their manufacturing costs. Proof positive that it is indeed possible for government to help inform the debate.... :-) Craig Cooper, Ph.D. Science and Technology Policy Fellow Senator Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-9646 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:00 PM To: michael.rynne at holcim.com Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc This is indeed interesting, but I wonder if the qualification "in the Nordic countries" implies that this isn't so elsewhere? On a lighter note, does Scandinavian concrete have chlorophyll and photosynthesize? :) I can just see inventories adding a concrete anthropogenic C sink and builders/concrete makers/homeowners claiming concrete carbon sequestration projects. You saw it here first! Keith On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:04 +1200, michael.rynne at holcim.com wrote: > > Jill, Greg etc., > Fascinating discussion thread evolving on concrete, > asphalt etc! > The most interesting and comprehensive work done to date (in my > opinion) on recarbonation of concrete is a recent huge series of > reports by a group of Scandinavian research groups (Danish > Technological Institute, NORDEN, Byggforsk, SCCRI...). > > See: http://www.danishtechnology.dk/building/18487,1?hilite=Concrete > > The various authors include Knut Kjellsen, Mette Glavind, Engelsen, > etc. etc.. The works reported are truly mammoth in scale and detail. > As a preliminary indicator of the magnitude of the recarbonation > potential, I suggest you read the Preface and Abstract of "The CO2 > Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective" by Knut O. Kjellseni, > Maria Guimaraesii and ?sa Nilssoniii: > > "...The calculations show that up to 30% of the total CO2 emission > from cement production, or up to 57% > of the CO2 emission from the so-called calcination process in cement > manufacturing, is re-absorbed when the cement is utilized in concrete > construction in the Nordic countries." > > There's a lot more good stuff like this in the various other reports > in the series. Anyone with an interest in concrete life cycle couldn't > find a better series of reports to work from. > > Mind you, this assumes that the concrete is largely recycled at end of > life. This practice is not yet widespread....but I guarantee that if > these really are the re-carbonation factors, then you can be darn sure > it will become normal practice!! > > There's also stuff on fly ash etc. > > I've little idea about asphalt - sorry! I too hadn't known that > asphalt "re-emits" over its life. I presume its some sort of GHG > volatiles, rather than just CO2? I'd be really keen to learn more. > Greg, I hope you can persuade your Carnegie Mellon friend to share > some of his work on the asphalt/concrete issue! > > Regards > > Michael L. Rynne > Group Manager Energy and Climate Change > Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd > New Zealand > michael.rynne at holcim.com > http://www.holcim.com/nz > ________________________________ > > For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being > offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim > Awards competition. Submissions and details at > http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an > information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an > initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and > is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. > __________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov Fri Jul 13 13:10:25 2007 From: Craig_Cooper at feinstein.senate.gov (Cooper, Craig (Feinstein)) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:10:25 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc In-Reply-To: References: <1184176802.8420.22.camel@slb-laptop> Message-ID: <01877EAA2B6D4A43B01014D2AC210B81026DB692@SENATE-MS24.senate.ussenate.us> Not having read the studies and become as informed as I need to be, I wonder how much of that Nordic concrete footprint is associated with recycling of materials. If so, that would mean that the Nordic countries' government is a larger factor than photosynthetic concrete. As I understand it, it is a lot easier to recycle concrete than asphalt?? C. Craig Cooper, Ph.D. Science and Technology Policy Fellow Senator Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-9646 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:26 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of concrete; asphalt etc I think it is important to recognize who does the studies. If they are funded by the cement industry, there might be some vested interest or even a leaning towards optimism in the results. I did a little checking about the absorption of CO2 into concrete and learned that only the outer couple of inches absorbs CO2 (thus the need for a certain amount of concrete outside of the rebar to protect it from corrosion). I don't think that concrete will be seen as a sink anytime soon, if we all stay alert! Jill On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Keith J. Forbes wrote: This is indeed interesting, but I wonder if the qualification "in the Nordic countries" implies that this isn't so elsewhere? On a lighter note, does Scandinavian concrete have chlorophyll and photosynthesize? :) I can just see inventories adding a concrete anthropogenic C sink and builders/concrete makers/homeowners claiming concrete carbon sequestration projects. You saw it here first! Keith On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:04 +1200, michael.rynne at holcim.com wrote: > > Jill, Greg etc., > Fascinating discussion thread evolving on concrete, > asphalt etc! > The most interesting and comprehensive work done to date (in my > opinion) on recarbonation of concrete is a recent huge series of > reports by a group of Scandinavian research groups (Danish > Technological Institute, NORDEN, Byggforsk, SCCRI...). > > See: http://www.danishtechnology.dk/building/18487,1?hilite=Concrete > > The various authors include Knut Kjellsen, Mette Glavind, Engelsen, > etc. etc.. The works reported are truly mammoth in scale and detail. > As a preliminary indicator of the magnitude of the recarbonation > potential, I suggest you read the Preface and Abstract of "The CO2 > Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective" by Knut O. Kjellseni, > Maria Guimaraesii and ?sa Nilssoniii: > > "...The calculations show that up to 30% of the total CO2 emission > from cement production, or up to 57% > of the CO2 emission from the so-called calcination process in cement > manufacturing, is re-absorbed when the cement is utilized in concrete > construction in the Nordic countries." > > There's a lot more good stuff like this in the various other reports > in the series. Anyone with an interest in concrete life cycle couldn't > find a better series of reports to work from. > > Mind you, this assumes that the concrete is largely recycled at end of > life. This practice is not yet widespread....but I guarantee that if > these really are the re-carbonation factors, then you can be darn sure > it will become normal practice!! > > There's also stuff on fly ash etc. > > I've little idea about asphalt - sorry! I too hadn't known that > asphalt "re-emits" over its life. I presume its some sort of GHG > volatiles, rather than just CO2? I'd be really keen to learn more. > Greg, I hope you can persuade your Carnegie Mellon friend to share > some of his work on the asphalt/concrete issue! > > Regards > > Michael L. Rynne > Group Manager Energy and Climate Change > Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd > New Zealand > michael.rynne at holcim.com > http://www.holcim.com/nz > ________________________________ > > For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being > offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim > Awards competition. Submissions and details at > http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an > information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an > initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and > is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. > __________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jrogers at arb.ca.gov Fri Jul 13 15:44:04 2007 From: jrogers at arb.ca.gov (Jamesine Rogers) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:44:04 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <4697B3A5.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4697B3A5.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> Message-ID: <4697D604.8040005@arb.ca.gov> The CDIAC also has a data set of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels for all nations, some dating back to 1750. Stanford Mwakasonda wrote: > All countries?! Your best shot would be the UNFCCC Secretariat, the RDA (Reporting and Data Analysis) section. > > > > ///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////\\\\ > Stanford Mwakasonda > Energy Research Centre (ERC) > University of Cape Town > P/Bag, Rondebosch, 7701 > South Africa > > Tel: +27-21-650 2521 > Fax: +27-21-650 2830 > Cell: +27-7220 37352 > Web: www.erc.uct.ac.za > Email 2: stanford at sedec.org > > > >>>> "tnarayan maraseni" 7/12/2007 1:40:36 am >>> >>>> > Dear Friends > > Can you please give me some idea (website) form where I can get time-series > GHGs emissions data of all countries? > > Thank you > > Tek Narayan Maraseni > Research Fellow > Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments-Condamine Alliance, > University of Southern Queensland > Phone 0061-7-4631-2995 (Office) > Mobile: 0431676132 & 0432044065 > Toowoomba, 4350, Queensland, Australia > > > > > > >> From: Chari Kumanduri >> To: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification >> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT) >> >> I need help in understanding: >> When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of >> power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice >> husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount >> of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I >> would have done through the fossil fuel route. >> >> How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? >> >> Pl. help me. >> regards >> Chari >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. >> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network >> www.ghgnetwork.org >> >> To post message: >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org >> >> To unsubscribe: >> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jamesine Rogers Air Pollution Specialist Air Resources Board (916) 323-2722 (916) 322-3646 (fax) "The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.arb.ca.gov." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jrogers.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 244 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070713/683a5feb/attachment.vcf From michael.rynne at holcim.com Fri Jul 13 22:27:44 2007 From: michael.rynne at holcim.com (michael.rynne at holcim.com) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:27:44 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] Recarbonation of Concrete - Discuss Digest, Vol 15, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4bafcb00975957ba06a56e4a8de077104698345a@holcim.com> Jill, You are absolutely correct that recarbonation in concrete is typically limited in the surface. HOWEVER, this is not what is dealt with fundamentally in the Scandanavian reports: they are talking about concrete that is at end-of-life and is recycled (by crushing down to 'small' sizes for re-cycling). The surface area of small particles is very high per unit of mass, and recarbonation becomes very significant in such particles - so significant that most of the available material is recarbonated to some degree. Conversely, recarbonation of 'in-service' concrete (where the specific surface area is very low) is rather insignificant - as you suggest. The key message of the Scanadanavian work is that if you make the effort to recycle post-service concrete, you will be rewarded by high re-carbonation rates. In fact, when you think about this, it makes sense - it's just normal chemistry at work (catalysts work this way - high surface area means high chemical reaction rates). So, presuming there is a cost of carbon in the market, this is an incentive for construction materials businesses to recycle concrete. That has got to be a good thing. Michael __________________________________ For your special attention: US $2 million in prize money is being offered for projects in sustainable construction entered in the Holcim Awards competition. Submissions and details at http://www.holcimawards.org or email mary.pauwels at holcim.com for an information booklet. This regional and global Awards competition is an initiative of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction and is proudly supported by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd. __________________________________ Michael L. Rynne Group Manager Energy and Climate Change PO Box 6040, Christchurch Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd Phone: ( +64) (3) 3397574 Mobile: (+64) 021 66 55 07 New Zealand michael.rynne at holcim.com http://www.holcim.com/nz This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above named addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and notify us by e-mail or telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070714/c9255d5b/attachment.html From stephen.kenihan at iclei.org Fri Jul 13 23:14:02 2007 From: stephen.kenihan at iclei.org (Stephen Kenihan) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:14:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Industrial Plant Energy Consumption Vs Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide eq In-Reply-To: <20070712042713.31E9CC1812D@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20070712042713.31E9CC1812D@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <61340.58.105.183.102.1184382842.squirrel@webmail.iclei.org> Billy, the Australian Greenhouse Office has published an annual Factors & Methods Workbook for the past 7 years. See their website to download. Stephen On Thu, July 12, 2007 14:27, Billy Lai wrote: > Dear all Greenhouse experts: > > Hi, my name is Billy from Sydney Australia.I am working on a project to > try to evaluate (t CO2-e) for an industrial site based on it's power > usage. > > Will you guys know what is the best estimation / calculation methods for > Australia Standard, US Standard or Europe Standard? If so, can you point > me to the these standard? > > Is there some standards or guidelines out there which detailed out > something like: > > 1kw/hr power usage = x tonnes of CO2-e? > > Coal and nuclear power stations are the main type of power station in > Australia. > > Any comments are greatly appreciated. > > Billy > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From carbosur at adinet.com.uy Sat Jul 14 10:32:41 2007 From: carbosur at adinet.com.uy (Daniel Martino) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:32:41 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <563153.56975.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713121125.03ca9e08@adinet.com.uy> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070714/e28d8a97/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 - Release Date: 7/12/2007 4:08 PM From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Sun Jul 15 09:20:38 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:20:38 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] New message submission policy Message-ID: <20dd85730707150620y2e2f5eedt7b530eb094c73d2@mail.gmail.com> In response to feedback from some Network members, I am instituting a new policy for submitting messages to the email list. In the future, please include your name and organizational affiliation (if you have one) at the bottom of your message submissions. It is helpful for other Network members to know where postings are originating. You may also include other contact information (e.g., email, phone, etc.), but this is not required for privacy reasons. Feel free to let me know if you have questions or other suggestions for the Network. And thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Michael -- Michael Gillenwater Executive Director GHG Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org Princeton University Science, Techonology & Environmental Policy Program Skype: mwgillenwater Tel +1 202 997 3335 gillenwater at alum.mit.edu -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070715/f00640b2/attachment.html From tonyknowles at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 05:55:38 2007 From: tonyknowles at gmail.com (Tony Knowles) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:55:38 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Industrial Plant Energy Consumption Vs Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide eq In-Reply-To: <61340.58.105.183.102.1184382842.squirrel@webmail.iclei.org> References: <20070712042713.31E9CC1812D@milkyway.forumone.com> <61340.58.105.183.102.1184382842.squirrel@webmail.iclei.org> Message-ID: <48ddf61a0707160255g40160f3ar395e08b1750282a3@mail.gmail.com> Dear Billy, With regard to general emissions factors, conversion ratios etc. the best source and most respected source is the GHG protocol standards (www.ghgprotocol.org). These are regularly updated as new and improve methodologies develop or are published, for example the IPCC 2006 report. With regard to power (CO2 per kwh) in Australia, you can take the GHG protocol conversion ratio, or better, you can contact your electricity supplier directly or find it on their website. In South Africa, it is found in our national electricity suppliers annual envrionmental report - for interest sake ours is 0.98kgCO2e/kwh. Australia is hopefully less. Kind regards, Tony Knowles Tony Knowles Senior Associate Genesis Analytics & Biocomplexity Research Group Department of Botany and Zoology University of Stellenbosch, 7602 South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 83 415 6239 Fax: +27 (0) 21 808 2405 tonyknowles at gmail.com On 14/07/07, Stephen Kenihan wrote: > Billy, the Australian Greenhouse Office has published an annual Factors & > Methods Workbook for the past 7 years. See their website to download. > > Stephen > > > On Thu, July 12, 2007 14:27, Billy Lai wrote: > > Dear all Greenhouse experts: > > > > Hi, my name is Billy from Sydney Australia.I am working on a project to > > try to evaluate (t CO2-e) for an industrial site based on it's power > > usage. > > > > Will you guys know what is the best estimation / calculation methods for > > Australia Standard, US Standard or Europe Standard? If so, can you point > > me to the these standard? > > > > Is there some standards or guidelines out there which detailed out > > something like: > > > > 1kw/hr power usage = x tonnes of CO2-e? > > > > Coal and nuclear power stations are the main type of power station in > > Australia. > > > > Any comments are greatly appreciated. > > > > Billy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > > www.ghgnetwork.org > > > > To post message: > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > > > To unsubscribe: > > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- ------------------------------------------------------ From yogesh.kumar at carbonfreezone.com Wed Jul 18 22:20:20 2007 From: yogesh.kumar at carbonfreezone.com (Yogesh Kumar) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Invitation to Experts to be a part of CarbonFreeZone Message-ID: <20070719022020.30D23C182B1@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear GHGNetwork Members, www.CarbonFreeZone.com is a Carbon Market portal started with the objective of creating a common platform for various carbon market players for sharing views and conducting business. We are already running a successful CDM Bazaar, primarily consisting of CDM Project Developers/CER/VER Sellers and Project Investors/CER/VER Buyers. With the growing demand for technical experts in the market, we have created a section dedicated to PIN/PDD writers and other technical experts having expertise in various domains. This will enable other participants of the Bazaar, to find technical experts on a need by need basis. We would like to invite members of the GHG Network to be a part of this community and thus help in creating a larger and stronger pool of experts. We also have a section where we showcase Innovations happening in the of area of renewable energy. If you have any case studies, analysis on Green house gases, climate change, CDM Methodologies etc. or know of any innovative products or ideas, which you believe can be helpful to the carbon market community, please let us know and we would be happy to publish it on our site. We are also building a community of experts for PIN/PDD writing for various projects which we are part of, from across the globe. If you would like to be a part of this activity, you can directly contact us with your profiles at experts at carbonfreezone.com. Please let me know if you have further suggestions or feedback on how we can further improve at CarbonFreeZone.com. Regards, Yogesh Kumar CarbonFreeZone, US Mail: yogesh.kumar at carbonfreezone.com From james_davley at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 19 05:36:13 2007 From: james_davley at yahoo.co.uk (James Olaniyi Ogunleye) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] CDM in NIgeria Message-ID: <20070719093613.378E6C18082@milkyway.forumone.com> Hello all! I understand that CDM is now getting known to many in Nigeria. I want to know if a power plant like Oji River which is a coal plant but not in operation for more than a decade if revamped and changed to advanced coal plant can still be certified for Emissions reduction. From mueller at atmosfair.de Wed Jul 25 11:12:25 2007 From: mueller at atmosfair.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Robert_M=FCller?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:12:25 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] diesel consumption (CO2 emissions) of diesel pumps for irrigation Message-ID: <46A76859.3090601@atmosfair.de> Dear GHGNetwork Members, I am trying to find out about the diesel consumption (CO2 emissions) of diesel pumps commonly used in rural areas in China or elsewhere for irrigation. This is part of the baseline calculation for a CDM Gold Standard project consisting in the installation of hydraulic rams replacing diesel pumps. We already set up some experiments but are looking for further reference data. Could anyone help me with: - Relevant field studies - Estimations based on field experience - Relevant contacts Ideally, data should indicate average diesel consumption to lift a defined amount of water to a defined height, between 7 and 40m. Thanks and kind regards, Robert Robert M?ller atmosfair gGmbH Vo?str. 1 D-10117 Berlin Tel.: +49- (0) 30-288835683 Fax: +49- (0) 30-28883561 www.atmosfair.org From jillinfo at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 25 15:42:07 2007 From: jillinfo at sbcglobal.net (Jill Boone) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:42:07 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Familiarity with EthosFR? Message-ID: <72F9CB9C-452F-4392-8A4E-759409F94764@sbcglobal.net> Has anyone used the fuel additive EthosFR, which is made of esters and claims a 30% reduction in GHG emissions if used in diesel? This is a new one for me. I'm interested in any performance data, especially in regards to GHGs. Thank you, Jill Jill Boone Sustainability and Environmental Consultant City of San Mateo Climate Change Program ~ environmental policy, programs and project management ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070725/54b4478b/attachment.html From will.mcgoldrick at mnre.gov.ws Wed Jul 25 19:38:55 2007 From: will.mcgoldrick at mnre.gov.ws (Will McGoldrick) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:38:55 -1100 Subject: [GHG Network] IPCC Guidelines - Excel spreadsheets Message-ID: Hi all, For those who are interested, the worksheets for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are now available in Excel format - http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/worksheets/2006GL_Worksheets. zip This is good news, as I had previously been informed that the spreadsheets were not available. It is also worth noting that various corrections have been made to the guidelines. See: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/corrigenda.htm Cheers, Will __________________________________________________________ This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. __________________________________________________________ From daniele.russolillo at fondazioneambiente.org Thu Jul 26 05:42:07 2007 From: daniele.russolillo at fondazioneambiente.org (Daniele Russolillo) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:42:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GHG Network] Snap/Corinair ---> IPCC transcoding Message-ID: <57778.158.102.162.7.1185442927.squirrel@webmail.asmtel.it> Dear network members, it is the first post for me here, though I'm a regular reader of GHGN since its beginning: compliments to Mike Gillenwater for this initiative. Let's go to my question. Has anybody yet faced the problem of transforming a Snap/Corinair (European standard) database of air emissions data into a coherent IPCC layout (according to revised 1996GLs or 2006GLs) for GHG? In Europe the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change developed a software for this specific task to help European countries in compiling annual air emission inventories (not only GHG data, any air pollutant) It is downloadable from http://www.air.sk/projects/corinair/e_reporter.html More information on: http://www.air.sk/projects/corinair/e_corinair.html I'm at the moment working to extract only GHG data from a Snap/Corinair database of a large region in Italy, in order to develop a local GHG data set according to IPCC GLs. I was wondering if anybody is working on the same activity and/or has been using, like me, Reporter software. Thanks in advance! Daniele -- Daniele Russolillo Fondazione per l'Ambiente "T. Fenoglio" Project Manager Via Ferrari 1, I-10124 Torino (Italy) Tel. +39 011 8613750 Fax +39 011 8613749 Mobile +39 347 7731827 www.fondazioneambiente.org email: daniele.russolillo at fondazioneambiente.org From martin.adams at eea.europa.eu Thu Jul 26 09:01:21 2007 From: martin.adams at eea.europa.eu (Martin Adams) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Snap/Corinair ---> IPCC transcoding Message-ID: <20070726130121.AD667C18264@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Danielle As you noted, the CollectER & ReportER software system certainly provides some functionality that allows export of GHG data from the CollectER SNAP-based database into an IPCC-CRF format (e.g. for national inventory reporting CollectER data can be exported into CRF tables and XML files that can then be imported into the UNFCCC CRF Reporter database). However, if you're operating a separate SNAP-based inventory database, one useful information source for the conversion task is the EMEP-Corinair Guidebook. This contains a section giving the correspondence between SNAP97 and IPCC96 source categories. This can be used as the basis of a mapping table within a database. The latest guidebook version is at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/ and the SNAP97-IPCC correspondence document is at: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/BSVI_A.pdf kind regards Martin Adams From mollerst at iiasa.ac.at Fri Jul 27 11:35:50 2007 From: mollerst at iiasa.ac.at (Kenneth MOLLERSTEN) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:35:50 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <20070727134128.M87880@iiasa.ac.at> References: <20070727134128.M87880@iiasa.ac.at> Message-ID: <20070727153334.M62365@iiasa.ac.at> > At 04:32 PM?7/14/2007, Daniel Martino wrote:? ? > Dear Mr. Kumanduri, > > I think you posed a very interesting question. You are right when you say that both biomass and fossil fuels emit more or less a similar amount of CO2 to the atmosphere when they are burned for obtaining a certain amount of energy. > > But your question is about allocation of the emissions rather than about their quantification. This is, what are the human activities to be blamed for the emissions (and what are the activities to be credited for the CO2 removals associated with the biomass production). > > There seems to be a wide agreement amongst policymakers and scientists (e.g., governments, UNFCCC decisions, IPCC Inventory Guidelines) in that emissions are allocated to the biomass production activity rather than to the biomass use activity. > > This is of course very convenient to the biomass energy industry (paraphrasing my friend Justin Ford-Robertson from New Zealand, by this treatment, they get "emissions-free biomass" for promoting their technologies), but does not necessarily reflect the reality, and it is not necessarily a fair agreement. > > The activity truly responsible for the climate benefit is the photosynthesis by the forests and crops which produce biomass by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The treatment given by by IPCC inventory guidelines to the photosynthetic activity varies according to the type of biomass being produced. In the case of crops with a more or less annual cycle of photosynthesis/harvest, the photosynthesis is simply ignored (except in those cases where there is accumulation of organic carbon in soils, which is accounted as a net removal of CO2). In the case of forests, the biomass (and soil organic carbon and dead wood) accumulation as a result of the photosinthesis is accounted, but the default assumption is that all the stored carbon is released back to the atmosphere as CO2 instantly at the year of harvest. This instant emission is what enables the treatment of biomass energy as "emissions-free", because the emissions are already (artificially) accounted for in the forest. > > This assumption of instant emissions has triggered a long debate on the issue of how harvested wood products should be accounted in inventories. The UNFCCC promoted several workshops and seminars, and even produced a technical paper on the issue. Several "approaches" have been proposed to deal with harvested wood products (allocating emissions and removals in different ways), but due to inter-activity (e.g., forest-energy industry) and international transfers of wood products, it is necessary to choose one of them to be applied universally in order to avoid inconsistencies and double counting of emissions and/or removals. The IPCC 2006 Guidelines produced a basic procedure to be applicable to any of the four proposed approaches once a political decision is made, but can not be applied as it stands. The issue is still unresolved beacause of the lack of understanding of the basic processes involved. > > The artificial treatment biomass as "emissions-free" raised the concern about the origin of the biomass. If biomass is obtained from forests which are permanently converted to other land uses in non-Annex I countries, then its use for energy purposes would not be "emissions-free", since the carbon losses due to deforestation are not accounted for, and in this case, these emissions should be treated the same as if they came from fossil fuels. There were a lot of discussions about this in the CDM Afforestation-Reforestation Working Group, and they came up with the requirement that biomass originate in "sustainably grown forests" for CDM projects. > > The situation is different when you are dealing with biomass which is harvested and moved out of the land where it was grown, and would be rapidly decomposed (e.g., within the year of harvest). In this case, it is fair to assume that its use as an energy source will not cause emissions. One of the approaches proposed for accounting carbon in harvested wood products which I mentioned above ("simple decay") enables differentiating between wood products that would decompose at different speeds. > > There are also issues related with crop biomass. In a normal annual cycle, crop products are harvested and removed from the field in one year, and photosynthesis in the following year replaces the carbon removed. But if an additional amount of biomass is removed (e.g., crop residues that? would otherwise remain on site), and used for energy, it should not be considered as neutral from the GHG emissions point of view because the removal may cause reduction in land carbon stocks (e.g. litter or soil organic carbon). > > Conventional wisdom is that all renewable energy sources are equally good for climate change mitigation as long as they replace fossil fuels. But it is clear that biomass is not always the same as wind or solar because, as you said, it does cause GHG emissions. But biomass gets its way to be comparable with those sources through the resource of attributing the emissions to the forest or the cropland. > > Sincerely, > > Daniel Martino > Carbosur > Uruguay > > At 09:03 AM 7/11/2007, Chari Kumanduri wrote: I need help in understanding: > When I use biomass for power generation and use it as a replacement of power from fossil fuel, I am still burning the carbon from either the Rice husk, or the bagasse or whatever biomass it is. And considering the amount of Calories I need, I might be burning almost equivalent of carbon as I would have done through the fossil fuel route. > ? > How is this treated as far as the CDM is concerned? > ? > Pl. help me. > regards > Chari > ? > > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 5:44 PM >? > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 - Release Date: 7/12/2007 4:08 PM > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070727/d14520a6/attachment.html From steveb at cwo.com Sat Jul 28 15:04:01 2007 From: steveb at cwo.com (Steve Brink) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:04:01 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Need a clarification In-Reply-To: <20070727153334.M62365@iiasa.ac.at> Message-ID: <005e01c7d14a$0fb936d0$0b01a8c0@com1341deab8cf> The notion that "stored carbon in forest biomass is released back to the atmosphere at the year of harvest" is utter nonsense and, thus, simply not credable. The carbon life cycle for active forest management has been well documented by Dr. Bruce Lippke etal at the University of Washington over the last several years (sample publication attached; there are many more of his publications and powerpoint presentations on his website at www.corrim.org). In his latest publication (attached) he shows the dramatic effect of wildfire on forest carbon life cycles that are in fire-adapted ecosystems subject to high frequency of wildfire. Dr. Lippke's data clearly shows that in the cap and trade world there should be 3 renewable energy credits for active forestry: 1) Annual sequestration of CO2 and carbon storage in wood products; the credit would be owned by the landowner. Lippke's work indicates for most site class and vegetation types, an actively managed forest should be expected to produce 1-2 tons carbon per acre per year net sequestration. Multiplying by 3.67 to get to CO2 equivalent, that would be an annual tradeable credit of 3.7-7.4 tons CO2 per acre per year. 2) Substitution - for every solid wood product used in lieu of a steel, aluminum, concrete, or plastic non-renewable product, there is a renewable energy credit created for the manufacturer who makes and sells the wood product. It takes 250-280% more fossil fuel energy to create a non-renewable product than the equivalent wood product, hence a renewable tradeable credit owned by the manufacturing facility. 3) Wood waste (from harvesting and/or manufacturing mill residues) used to produce electricity in a biomass powerplant -- for every 1 bone dry ton of wood waste consumed to make electricity, there is at least a net reduction of 1 ton of greenhouse gases compared to a coal or natural gas-fired powerplant, hence a renewable tradeable credit owned by the biomass powerplant. This fact is well documented by Dr. Gregg Morris, Green Power Institute. The life cycle of carbon in wood products is well documented. Wood used as a building material often has a carbon storage life of 70 years or more. When the building is demolished, the wood is either buried in a landfill (where it decays at an extremely slow rate) or is used as wood waste to power a biomass powerplant for electricity generation. Ken Skog, Linda Heath, Richard Birdsey, and others in U.S. Forest Service research have several publications regarding life expectancy of wood products and decay rates. Steve Brink California Forestry Association 1215 K St., Suite 1830 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-444-6592 916-444-0170 fax 916-208-2425 cell steveb at cwo.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]On Behalf Of Kenneth MOLLERSTEN Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:36 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Need a clarification Dear Mr Martino, Mr Kumanduri and others, Thank you for initiating a very interesting discussion concerning the treatment of carbon emissions from bioenergy applications! I find this issue quite an interesting one that can also be rather tricky. Mr Martino's reply was indeed very clarifying and emphasised a few important points, one of them being that for forests, the IPCC inventory guidelines use the assumption that the stored carbon in forest biomass is released back to the atmosphere at the year of harvest. Therefore, biomass energy can be treated as emissions free, because the emissions have already been accounted for in the forest. As a follow-up I would like to post a remark that concerns the treatment of CO2 emissions from landfill gas recovery projects in the CDM. The CDM methodologies for this project category ignore the CO2 emissions (from what was originally biomass) and this appears to be based on the way that CO2 emissions from biomass are treated in the IPCC inventory guidelines. In the case of the CDM (project-based!), however, the project scenario should be evaluated against a baseline scenario - and it is quite clear that in the baseline scenario of landfill gas recovery projects the carbon is released as methane and not carbon dioxide. I would say that, therefore, the CO2 emissions that occur instantly when methane is oxidised should be accounted for. Taking into account the stoichiometry of methane oxidation and the respective molar weights and global warming potentials of methane and carbon dioxide it appears as if the currently approved methodologies overestimate the GHG-reducing impact of landfill gas (methane) oxidation by roughly 13%. The long version of this argument (including also a discussion concerning risks for double counting) is presented in a paper published in the July 07 issue of Energy Policy. (M?llersten K, Gr?nkvist S. All CO2 is equal in the atmosphere - A comment on CDM GHG accounting standards for methane recovery and oxidation projects). I would be interested in hearing peoples' comments on this. Kind regards, Kenneth M?llersten > At 04:32 PM 7/14/2007, Daniel Martino wrote: > Dear Mr. Kumanduri, > > I think you posed a very interesting question. You are right when you say that both biomass and fossil fuels emit more or less a similar amount of CO2 to the atmosphere when they are burned for obtaining a certain amount of energy. > > But your question is about allocation of the emissions rather than about their quantification. This is, what are the human activities to be blamed for the emissions (and what are the activities to be credited for the CO2 removals associated with the biomass production). > > There seems to be a wide agreement amongst policymakers and scientists (e.g., governments, UNFCCC decisions, IPCC Inventory Guidelines) in that emissions are allocated to the biomass production activity rather than to the biomass use activity. > > This is of course very convenient to the biomass energy industry (paraphrasing my friend Justin Ford-Robertson from New Zealand, by this treatment, they get "emissions-free biomass" for promoting their technologies), but does not necessarily reflect the reality, and it is not necessarily a fair agreement. > > The activity truly responsib