From jillinfo at sbcglobal.net Thu May 3 01:32:11 2007 From: jillinfo at sbcglobal.net (Jill Boone) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:32:11 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Message-ID: <19C3F7E8-5185-4A0F-B913-98C5F210BED7@sbcglobal.net> Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill From RLanza at icfi.com Fri May 4 08:08:43 2007 From: RLanza at icfi.com (Lanza, Robert) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:08:43 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? In-Reply-To: <19C3F7E8-5185-4A0F-B913-98C5F210BED7@sbcglobal.net> References: <19C3F7E8-5185-4A0F-B913-98C5F210BED7@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <539B4DD8AA0519458CEB9BE350EF94C305819B07@wdcwxch01.icf-hq.icfconsulting.com> Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 mradcliffe at brwncald.com Fri May 4 10:41:43 2007 From: mradcliffe at brwncald.com (Radcliffe, Mike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:41:43 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? References: <19C3F7E8-5185-4A0F-B913-98C5F210BED7@sbcglobal.net> <539B4DD8AA0519458CEB9BE350EF94C305819B07@wdcwxch01.icf-hq.icfconsulting.com> Message-ID: <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA76F6@bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com> Jill, Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" on this subject, your timing could not have been better. I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC methodology is better practice. However, the World Bank also has a good methodology that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM projects). The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the methodology selected. The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector methodology or protocol. Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were willing to share with us. The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates methane generation in SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC does allow correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by EPA. For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50%. The EPA ignores the continued methane generation in years 40 to 100. Happy to discuss further, if you would like. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Lanza, Robert Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 mgonzalez at mgminter.com Fri May 4 11:02:05 2007 From: mgonzalez at mgminter.com (Mauricio Gonzalez) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:02:05 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? In-Reply-To: <19C3F7E8-5185-4A0F-B913-98C5F210BED7@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Dear Jill, After reviewing some registered and on validation PDDs (Project Design Documents) of landfill gas (LFG) projects under CDM, I have found a wide conversion factor of around 0.2 - 1.2 tCO2 equivalent per tone of disposed waste at the landfill. There are several variables that can affect the conversion factor: operational conditions of the landfill, environmental conditions of the location of the project, final use of LFG (flaring, use of LFG as fuel or for electricity generation), among others. Regards, Mauricio -----Mensaje original----- De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] En nombre de Jill Boone Enviado el: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:32 AM Para: GHGNetwork Asunto: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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/20070504/2dd76d7d/attachment.html From fasen at menara.ma Fri May 4 11:10:12 2007 From: fasen at menara.ma (fasen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:10:12 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] RE : tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? In-Reply-To: <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA76F6@bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com > Message-ID: Hi Mike, Can you please elaborate more on your statement ?For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50% ?. To my inderstanding a coolection efficiencyof 75% is hgher than 35 to 50% ! Am I wrong ? Would it be possible to have a copy of your ?wite paper? ? Thanks, faouzi senhaji Rabat Morocco fasen at menara.ma -----Message d'origine----- De?: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] De la part de Radcliffe, Mike Envoy??: vendredi 4 mai 2007 14:42 ??: Lanza, Robert; Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Objet?: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill, Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" on this subject, your timing could not have been better. I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC methodology is better practice. However, the World Bank also has a good methodology that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM projects). The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the methodology selected. The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector methodology or protocol. Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were willing to share with us. The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates methane generation in SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC does allow correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by EPA. For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50%. The EPA ignores the continued methane generation in years 40 to 100. Happy to discuss further, if you would like. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Lanza, Robert Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 mradcliffe at brwncald.com Fri May 4 11:30:14 2007 From: mradcliffe at brwncald.com (Radcliffe, Mike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:30:14 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] RE : tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? References: Message-ID: <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA76FC@bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com> Faouzi, Certainly! The 75% collection efficiency is predicated on what is termed as "instantaneous loading" - that is the LFG system does collect 75% of the currently available LFG. Thus, it lowers the potential emissions of methane in that current accounting/reporting period by a given amount. However, LFG collection systems do not operate throughout the entire life cycle of the landfill. THey are typically (and I use that term advisedly) shout down around year 40 of the life cycle. We found that in a typical (again I used this term advisedly) SWLF that the methane emissions continue until about year 100 (or so). (There is published literature on this and am glad to provide a reference.) We integrated the areas of the curves for the collected LFG and that for the 40 to 100 year life cycle stage. We found that the fugitive emissions from 40 to 100 amounted to approximately 30% of the total methane emissions while the collected LFG amounted to about %60 (+/-) of this same amount. When weighted for that, the overall efficiency of the LFG collection system was much lower than 75%. We also checked this by performing some calculations over the life cycle that accounted for LFG "lag time" and other issues - intermediate cover, open cells and the like - and found pretty close agreement. A fellow in Madison, WI (Anderson by name) has also published a similar argument - look for that on the web. He belongs to an NGO that is pushing for diverting SW from LF, so take that in context. However, this is similar to the approach used in the UK , where they are conforming to the EU waste directive. Hope this helps! Mike R -----Original Message----- From: fasen [mailto:fasen at menara.ma] Sent: Fri 04-May-07 10:10 AM To: Radcliffe, Mike; 'Lanza, Robert'; 'Jill Boone'; 'GHGNetwork' Subject: RE : [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Hi Mike, Can you please elaborate more on your statement "For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50% ". To my inderstanding a coolection efficiencyof 75% is hgher than 35 to 50% ! Am I wrong ? Would it be possible to have a copy of your "wite paper" ? Thanks, faouzi senhaji Rabat Morocco fasen at menara.ma -----Message d'origine----- De?: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] De la part de Radcliffe, Mike Envoy??: vendredi 4 mai 2007 14:42 ??: Lanza, Robert; Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Objet?: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill, Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" on this subject, your timing could not have been better. I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC methodology is better practice. However, the World Bank also has a good methodology that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM projects). The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the methodology selected. The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector methodology or protocol. Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were willing to share with us. The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates methane generation in SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC does allow correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by EPA. For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50%. The EPA ignores the continued methane generation in years 40 to 100. Happy to discuss further, if you would like. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Lanza, Robert Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 cob at rti.org Fri May 4 13:03:43 2007 From: cob at rti.org (Coburn, Jeff B.) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:03:43 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? In-Reply-To: <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA76F6@bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com> Message-ID: There appears to be some mischaracterizations regarding EPA's methodology. In the latest U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, EPA has adopted the IPCC model (using a U.S. specific DOC estimate based on methane collection measurements). The DOC estimate was calculated assuming 75% collection efficiency, so that statement is true. On the other hand, the comment regarding ignoring methane generation in years 40 to 100 is false. The 75% efficiency is applied to measurement data from operating landfill gas collection systems, so there is no need to discount the collection efficiency for the purposes of calculating and appropriate DOC. Second, when the flare or energy recovery project is discontinued (in later years of a given landfill), than no collection/destruction efficiency is applied to those systems. Thus, EPA inventory uses more of a step function for gas recovery systems (75% recovery while operating with destruction system and 0% when the system is not operating), rather than a life-cycle average. ************* Back to Jill's question, there are three sources of CO2 emissions: one direct CO2 emissions from the biodegradation of the waste; one from subsequent oxidation of methane as the landfill gas percolates through the soil cover; and one from the subsequent conversion of methane to CO2 in the flare (or other combustion device). These CO2 emissions are generally considered biogenic and are not included in the GHG inventory. If you are only interested in the CO2 emissions from the flare, then your question has been answered. However, if you are interested in the total CO2 emissions from the landfill and flare system per ton of waste disposed, than the flare emissions alone won't fully account for the CO2 emissions. 1) Landfill gas is generally 50% methane and 50% CO2 by volume. Therefore, you can estimate the mass of direct CO2 emissions from the mass of methane emissions while F=0.5 and the recovery and %oxidized values are set to zero in the IPCC model. Make sure you account for the differences in molecular weight ratio: 44/16. To estimate an emission rate per unit of waste disposed, I would suggest using a constant unit waste disposal rate over a long time-period (or large enough k value) so that the time series assumptions do not influence the results (it would be difficult to do otherwise - the total emissions profile in Year 1 will be very different that Year 10 if you were to base the emissions on the tons emitted in the current calendar year to the tons of waste applied in that calendar year...). 2) The mass of CO2 produced from methane combustion can be calculated from the same methane estimate (i.e., with the recovery and %oxidized values set to zero) and then applying a landfill collection efficiency. Again, make sure you account for the differences in molecular weight ratio. 3) The uncollected gas will percolate through the top soil layer and some of that will oxidize. Percolation gas flow through the soil surface is slower in systems with gas collection systems than without, so the %oxidized value is somewhat higher. Anyway, you can estimate this as: CO2 emissions from Item 1*(1-recovery ratio used in Item 2)*%oxidized/100%. The CO2 emissions/ton waste with then depend on the DOC of the waste, the MCF, the assumed collection efficiency and % oxidized. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Radcliffe, Mike Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:42 AM To: Lanza, Robert; Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill, Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" on this subject, your timing could not have been better. I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC methodology is better practice. However, the World Bank also has a good methodology that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM projects). The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the methodology selected. The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector methodology or protocol. Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were willing to share with us. The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates methane generation in SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC does allow correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by EPA. For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50%. The EPA ignores the continued methane generation in years 40 to 100. Happy to discuss further, if you would like. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Lanza, Robert Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 mradcliffe at brwncald.com Fri May 4 14:23:04 2007 From: mradcliffe at brwncald.com (Radcliffe, Mike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:23:04 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? References: Message-ID: <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA7702@bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com> Jeff, I am sorry that you misread the statements I made, but there is NO mischaracterization of the EPA methodology. Please note that you are correct that EPA uses the IPCC Tier II methodology for the National GHG inventory. They are required to do so under the UNFCC, which specifies IPCC methodology. Also note that ALL Annex I and Annex II countries that report use the same methodology. If you will re-read my notes, you will see that I referred to the EPA LMOP - which uses only Land GEM and NOT the IPCC methodology. Regarding DOC, this has a significant effect on the estimate of K and Lo, which the EPA specifies in their Land GEM model. They do allow for waste characterization under Subsection WWW (40 CFR) under reporting for Air Toxics ONLY for landfills over a certain size and ONLY if the owner/operator collects the required information to characterize the waste materials. However, that does NOT extend to reporting under the LMOP programs. Regarding life cycle analysis and discounting the collection efficiencies. The EPA is sanctioning a GHG reduction. Under GHG accounting practice, such as those used in the EU ETS, a reduction must be "premanent" and not reoccur. Thus, the effectiveness of the reduction due to controls is "instantaneous" and the reduction should be/must be discounted to reflect this. THere is no doubt the the systems are collecting NOW, but in accounting for these they must be discounted since the source is allowed to reoccur later. I advocate ONLY that the accounting be "trued up" and that the EPA is NOT doing this now. Last, the estimate methods I spoke about are for "raw" GHG emissions - NOT after controls. The controls need to demonstrate "excess" reductions - i.e., not required under law or part of "business as usual". The efficiency of flares and others needs to be considered seperately. I stand by my earlier statements. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: Coburn, Jeff B. [mailto:cob at rti.org] Sent: Fri 04-May-07 12:03 PM To: Radcliffe, Mike; Lanza, Robert; Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: RE: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? There appears to be some mischaracterizations regarding EPA's methodology. In the latest U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, EPA has adopted the IPCC model (using a U.S. specific DOC estimate based on methane collection measurements). The DOC estimate was calculated assuming 75% collection efficiency, so that statement is true. On the other hand, the comment regarding ignoring methane generation in years 40 to 100 is false. The 75% efficiency is applied to measurement data from operating landfill gas collection systems, so there is no need to discount the collection efficiency for the purposes of calculating and appropriate DOC. Second, when the flare or energy recovery project is discontinued (in later years of a given landfill), than no collection/destruction efficiency is applied to those systems. Thus, EPA inventory uses more of a step function for gas recovery systems (75% recovery while operating with destruction system and 0% when the system is not operating), rather than a life-cycle average. ************* Back to Jill's question, there are three sources of CO2 emissions: one direct CO2 emissions from the biodegradation of the waste; one from subsequent oxidation of methane as the landfill gas percolates through the soil cover; and one from the subsequent conversion of methane to CO2 in the flare (or other combustion device). These CO2 emissions are generally considered biogenic and are not included in the GHG inventory. If you are only interested in the CO2 emissions from the flare, then your question has been answered. However, if you are interested in the total CO2 emissions from the landfill and flare system per ton of waste disposed, than the flare emissions alone won't fully account for the CO2 emissions. 1) Landfill gas is generally 50% methane and 50% CO2 by volume. Therefore, you can estimate the mass of direct CO2 emissions from the mass of methane emissions while F=0.5 and the recovery and %oxidized values are set to zero in the IPCC model. Make sure you account for the differences in molecular weight ratio: 44/16. To estimate an emission rate per unit of waste disposed, I would suggest using a constant unit waste disposal rate over a long time-period (or large enough k value) so that the time series assumptions do not influence the results (it would be difficult to do otherwise - the total emissions profile in Year 1 will be very different that Year 10 if you were to base the emissions on the tons emitted in the current calendar year to the tons of waste applied in that calendar year...). 2) The mass of CO2 produced from methane combustion can be calculated from the same methane estimate (i.e., with the recovery and %oxidized values set to zero) and then applying a landfill collection efficiency. Again, make sure you account for the differences in molecular weight ratio. 3) The uncollected gas will percolate through the top soil layer and some of that will oxidize. Percolation gas flow through the soil surface is slower in systems with gas collection systems than without, so the %oxidized value is somewhat higher. Anyway, you can estimate this as: CO2 emissions from Item 1*(1-recovery ratio used in Item 2)*%oxidized/100%. The CO2 emissions/ton waste with then depend on the DOC of the waste, the MCF, the assumed collection efficiency and % oxidized. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Radcliffe, Mike Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:42 AM To: Lanza, Robert; Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill, Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" on this subject, your timing could not have been better. I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC methodology is better practice. However, the World Bank also has a good methodology that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM projects). The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the methodology selected. The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector methodology or protocol. Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were willing to share with us. The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates methane generation in SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC does allow correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by EPA. For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% based on some "case studies and discussions with LFG equipment vendors". We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane generation, this figure should probably be more on the order of 35% to 50%. The EPA ignores the continued methane generation in years 40 to 100. Happy to discuss further, if you would like. Mike Radcliffe -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of Lanza, Robert Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology for municipal solid waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, Solid Waste Disposal. There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste landfills, after which you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting the collected methane to the natural gas distribution system or to electric power generation? Or are you flaring all of the methane? Robert Lanza Robert Lanza, P.E. Principal Chemical Engineer ICF International 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20006 202-862-1118 voice 202-862-1144 fax -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Jill Boone Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM To: GHGNetwork Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors for tons of waste to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in a modern landfill with a methane collection and flare system? Any pointers would be appreciated. Jill _______________________________________________ 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 Thu May 10 12:44:08 2007 From: jrogers at arb.ca.gov (Jamesine Rogers) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] 1990 emissions level targets Message-ID: <20070510164408.C63E9C180C3@milkyway.forumone.com> I am trying to discern whether countries use total net or gross GHG emissions (with and without LULUCF/sinks, respectively) when establishing 1990 GHG emissions levels to determine their emission reduction targets. Which is required under the Kyoto Protocol? Which is approach is recommended by IPCC? I'd appreciate any insight. Thanks! From Stanford.Mwakasonda at uct.ac.za Fri May 11 06:59:39 2007 From: Stanford.Mwakasonda at uct.ac.za (Stanford Mwakasonda) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:59:39 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] 1990 emissions level targets In-Reply-To: <20070510164408.C63E9C180C3@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20070510164408.C63E9C180C3@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <464468BA.9352.00E2.0@uct.ac.za> Hi Jamesine, I am not sure whether you are talking of a target, or assigned amount for an Annex A country, but from the sound of your question it must be the assigned amount you are referring to. The assigned amount for each country is calculated without inclusion of the LULUCF sector emissions. However, if a country has net emissions from LULUCF sector in its base year then it is supposed to include the net emissions from the conversion of forests (deforestation) only in the calculation of assigned amount (see Article 3 paragraph 7 of the KP). Incidentally, assigned amount = 5 x Base year emissions x target. Base year emissions, as said above, covers all GHG gases from all sources other than those in the LULUCF sector. The target here is the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment in the annex to the KP, page 28 (if 94% then target factor is 0.94). Hope this helps! Regards, Stanford ///////////\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////\\\\ 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 >>> Jamesine Rogers 5/10/2007 6:44 pm >>> I am trying to discern whether countries use total net or gross GHG emissions (with and without LULUCF/sinks, respectively) when establishing 1990 GHG emissions levels to determine their emission reduction targets. Which is required under the Kyoto Protocol? Which is approach is recommended by IPCC? I'd appreciate any insight. Thanks! _______________________________________________ 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 M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl Sun May 13 16:10:38 2007 From: M.Hekkenberg at rug.nl (M.Hekkenberg) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:10:38 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Data request: F-gases in Asia Message-ID: Dear colleague, This is a repost of an earlier request made on April 23rd. Since I did not receive any response and would very much like some help on finding data or pointers to people to talk to I am hereby posting this again. As a participant of IIASA?s young scientist summer programme this summer, I am looking for data to use in expanding the F-gas Module of the GAINS model to better represent Asia. Any information on issues that influence F-gas emission is welcomed, but I am especially interested in: - Data to establish base line emission levels, energy use, refrigerant use, foam use, refrigeration and air conditioning ownership, etc. - Differences between developments in Western and Asian countries e.g. in - The relation between income, rural developments, and e.g. car ownership - Differences in application?s specifications in different world regions - Developments in the world trade web of new and secondhand applications, e.g. cars with air conditioning Thank you very much in advance Kind regards, Michiel Hekkenberg M.Hekkenberg M.Sc. University of Groningen Center for Energy and Environmental Studies IVEM Nijenborgh 4 9747 AG Groningen tel. +31 (0)50 363 6921 fax +31 (0)50 363 7168 m.hekkenberg at rug.nl From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Mon May 14 11:18:21 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] NYTimes.com: Drive to Cut Emissions Creates Jobs Engine Message-ID: <177329.48067.qm@web38912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Network Members, I am making a small exception for the article in the New York Times the other day. Apparently we are all in a major growth industry. Time to polish those CVs. E-Mail This footer { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000000;} td.footer { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000000;} a.footer { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;color:#000066;} font.emailHeader { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#CC6633;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:4px;} bgc1 { background-color:#F5F4F4;} td.bgc1 { background-color:#F5F4F4;} bgc2 { background-color:#F8F8F8;} td.bgc2 { background-color:#F8F8F8;} bodycopy { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;} td.bodycopy { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;} a.bodycopy { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;color:#000066;} small { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;} td.small { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;} a.small { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:#000066;} advertisement { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#999999;} td.advertisement { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#999999;} a.advertisement { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;color:#000066;} contextadbg { border-top:1px solid #BFBFBF;border-bottom:1px solid #BFBFBF;margin-bottom:3px;} contextadheader { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#98BC61;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;} contextaddisclaimer { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#999999;font-size:10px;padding-bottom:8px;} contextadtext { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#000000;font-size:11px;padding-top:8px;padding-bottom:8px;padding-left:11px;padding-right:11px;margin-bottom:3px;} contextAdMiscText { font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:#000000;font-size:11px;padding-left:11px;padding-right:11px;} BUSINESS / YOUR MONEY | May 13, 2007 Fresh Starts: Drive to Cut Emissions Creates Jobs Engine By BARBARA WHITAKER The job market for climate change experts has evolved as governments, businesses and environmental groups create markets aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. michael [moderator] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070514/e43f3c90/attachment.html From mknauf at trihydro.com Tue May 15 12:22:54 2007 From: mknauf at trihydro.com (Meredith Knauf) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:22:54 -0600 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions from Sugarbeet processing Message-ID: Good Morning! I am currently working on inventorying GHG emissions from a sugarbeet processing plant in the United States. I have found bits and pieces of protocols to use, but was curious if anyone had any suggestions for a good protocol to use specific to agriculture and sugarbeet processing! Thanks for your help in advance! Meredith Knauf Environmental Scientist/Hydrologist mknauf at trihydro.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070515/1dbfc7eb/attachment.html From maletjane at lesmet.org.ls Wed May 16 08:30:51 2007 From: maletjane at lesmet.org.ls (Maletjane Motsomi) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Content for Clinical Waste Message-ID: <20070516123051.D00A4C18101@milkyway.forumone.com> Dear Network Members We are having a problem finding or establishing carbon content from clinical waste. This is mainly because clinical waste composes of a range of materials like cotton bandages, syringes, organic matter, etc... in varrying proportions depending on activity. We would therefore be glad to hear from anyone who has dealt with that and which approach seemed the best. We were looking at an option of getting bandages and syringe purchases as well as other materials from hospitals, and then assume they all get used and burned at the hospital. This is a task that will take longer because of the spread of a range of medical centres and might be laborious and not necessarily accurate. Thank You From kmaazou at yahoo.com Tue May 22 08:21:52 2007 From: kmaazou at yahoo.com (kamaye maazou) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GHG Network] Request for mitigation analysis sofware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <517873.88432.qm@web34808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear all, In Niger, we began mitigation analysis for our Second National Communication. We have some softwares like LEAP, COMAP wich are used only for energy and forestery sectors, but we dont have any software for agriculture and breeding sectors like COPATH (Carbon Pasture Agriculture Total Harvesting),... Can you indicate us how we can obtain those softwares? Is there any contact wich can help us? Are there any other softwares wich can be used. If yes can you sent them for us. Best regards --- discuss-request at ghgnetwork.org a ?crit?: > Send Discuss mailing list submissions to > discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > discuss-request at ghgnetwork.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? > (Lanza, Robert) > 2. Re: tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? > (Radcliffe, Mike) > 3. Re: tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? > (Mauricio Gonzalez) > 4. RE : tons waste conversion factor to tons > CO2? (fasen) > 5. Re: RE : tons waste conversion factor to tons > CO2? > (Radcliffe, Mike) > 6. Re: tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? > (Coburn, Jeff B.) > 7. Re: tons waste conversion factor to tons CO2? > (Radcliffe, Mike) > 8. 1990 emissions level targets (Jamesine Rogers) > 9. Re: 1990 emissions level targets (Stanford > Mwakasonda) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:08:43 -0400 > From: "Lanza, Robert" > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion > factor to tons CO2? > To: "Jill Boone" , > "GHGNetwork" > > Message-ID: > > <539B4DD8AA0519458CEB9BE350EF94C305819B07 at wdcwxch01.icf-hq.icfconsulting.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology > for municipal solid > waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, > Solid Waste Disposal. > There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the > 2006 IPCC Guidelines > to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste > landfills, after which > you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting > the collected methane > to the natural gas distribution system or to > electric power generation? > Or are you flaring all of the methane? > > Robert Lanza > > Robert Lanza, P.E. > Principal Chemical Engineer > ICF International > 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 > Washington DC 20006 > > 202-862-1118 voice > 202-862-1144 fax > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of > Jill Boone > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:32 AM > To: GHGNetwork > Subject: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion factor > to tons CO2? > > Does anyone have a reference for conversion factors > for tons of waste > to tons of CO2 emissions when waste is landfilled in > a modern > landfill with a methane collection and flare system? > > Any pointers would be appreciated. > > Jill > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:41:43 -0500 > From: "Radcliffe, Mike" > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion > factor to tons CO2? > To: "Lanza, Robert" , "Jill Boone" > , "GHGNetwork" > > Message-ID: > > <4B30BAC9385CB545926248975C3781E6DA76F6 at bcstp03.bc.brwncald.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Jill, > > Since I JUST completed an exhaustive "white paper" > on this subject, > your timing could not have been better. > > I agree with Robert, on the whole, that the IPCC > methodology is > better practice. However, the World Bank also has a > good methodology > that is worth reviewing (the latter is used in CDM > projects). > > The purpose of the reporting is crucial to the > methodology selected. > The CAlifornia CAR does not have a sector > methodology or protocol. > Nor does the CCX - at least not one they were > willing to share with us. > The EPA likes to use LandGEM in their Landfill > Methane Outreach Program > (LMOP). We found that this way over estimates > methane generation in > SWLFs that are not 100% Municipal solid waste - IPCC > does allow > correction for this - but MAY NOT be accepted by > EPA. > > For LFG collection efficiencies, the EPA ASSUMES 75% > based on > some "case studies and discussions with LFG > equipment vendors". > We found that when accounting for Life cycle methane > generation, > this figure should probably be more on the order of > 35% to 50%. The > EPA ignores the continued methane generation in > years 40 to 100. > > Happy to discuss further, if you would like. > > Mike Radcliffe > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org on behalf of > Lanza, Robert > Sent: Fri 04-May-07 7:08 AM > To: Jill Boone; GHGNetwork > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] tons waste conversion > factor to tons CO2? > > Jill: The 2006 IPCC Guidelines have a methodology > for municipal solid > waste landfill methane. See Volume 5 Chapter 3, > Solid Waste Disposal. > There is an excel spreadsheet model included in the > 2006 IPCC Guidelines > to estimate the CH4 generation from solid waste > landfills, after which > you can convert the CH4 to CO2. Are you crediting > the collected methane > to the natural gas distribution system or to > electric power generation? > Or are you flaring all of the methane? > > Robert Lanza > > Robert Lanza, P.E. > Principal Chemical Engineer > ICF International > 1725 I Street NW, Suite 1000 > === message truncated === ============================================== Dr KAMAYE Ma?zou, Coordonnateur National du Projet Seconde Communication Nationale sur les Changements Climatiques, Conseil National de l'Environnement pour un D?veloppement Durable (CNEDD) B.P 10193 NIAMEY_NIGER T?l fixe: (227) 72 25 59 poste 209 T?l portable: (227) 96 98 74 70 _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Thu May 24 07:57:03 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions from Sugarbeet processing Message-ID: <205473.96596.qm@web38915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Meredith, You might see the following article. It is not exactly what you are looking for, but it might have some useuful information. I doubt you will find a protocol specific to sugar beet processing. You should look at the methodologies by the GHG Protocol (www.ghgprotocol.org). Some of the cross-cutting tools on combustion and electricity should be useful. michael [moderator] Recommended Articles 1.Prospects of sugarcane milling waste utilization for hydrogen production in India Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 4164-4168 S.P. Singh, R.K. Asthana and A.P. Singh Access the ScienceDirect Info site if you have questions about this message or other features of this service. This email has been sent to you by ScienceDirect, a division of Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel.+31 20 485 3911. ScienceDirect respects your privacy and does not disclose, rent or sell your personal information to any non-affiliated third parties without your consent, except as may be stated in the ScienceDirect online privacy policy. By using email or alert services, you agree to comply with the ScienceDirect Terms and Conditions. ? 2007 ScienceDirect. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, or transfer of this message or its contents, in any medium, is strictly prohibited. ScienceDirect? is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. ----- Original Message ---- From: Meredith Knauf To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:22:54 PM Subject: [GHG Network] GHG emissions from Sugarbeet processing Good Morning! I am currently working on inventorying GHG emissions from a sugarbeet processing plant in the United States . I have found bits and pieces of protocols to use, but was curious if anyone had any suggestions for a good protocol to use specific to agriculture and sugarbeet processing! Thanks for your help in advance! Meredith Knauf Environmental Scientist/Hydrologist mknauf at trihydro.com _______________________________________________ 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/20070524/3033fc48/attachment.html From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Fri May 25 19:46:52 2007 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 16:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Need a lawyer---Non-U.S. Members can ignore this message Message-ID: <349044.79407.qm@web38914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Non-U.S. Members can ignore this message For those members in the United States, The GHG Network is in need of a lawyer that is willing to help (at a reduced rate hopefully) a small NGO arrange some contracting for future funding. If you know a lawyer that is interested in climate change and would be willing to work with us, please give them my email or me theirs. Many thanks, michael [moderator] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070525/96b0e313/attachment.html From cnissim at iprolink.ch Mon May 28 08:03:20 2007 From: cnissim at iprolink.ch (chaim nissim) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:03:20 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] climate change: the solutions are waiting Message-ID: <001201c7a120$2f927020$3601a8c0@acerport> We are trying to build a consensus about options for addressing climate change. We've made a short flash presentation, linked to powerpoint presentations, one for each solution. Please look at: http://www.noe21.org/docs/presentation/index.html In this presentation, we explain and assess various options, including market instruments like ETS or CDM, and controversial ones like CCS or nuclear. Our long term goal is to achieve a consensus not only among the ecologist community, but also with other decision makers, politicians, bankers, and the scientific community. The presentation is not yet finished, some links are missing, some are incomplete, and you may not agree with all that is said there. But we want to discuss these issues thoroughly with all of you, so please send your comments to me and I'll forward them to the members of my group, www.noe21.org cnisism at iprolink.ch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070528/efac4198/attachment.html From ralph.strebel at mac.com Mon May 28 16:14:08 2007 From: ralph.strebel at mac.com (Ralph J. Strebel) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Need a lawyer---Non-U.S. Members can ignore this message Message-ID: <20070528201408.08889C18128@milkyway.forumone.com> Hello Michael, I am a US lawyer (licensed AZ & CO) currently in Austria. I would be interested in perhaps helping you. I have in the last year shifted my practice to focus completely on climate change issues. I recently attended the Carbon Expo in Cologne, SBSTA 26 in Bonn (I am counsel for an accredited NGO observer) and was recently at a Joint Implementation workshop in Budapest that Joanneum Institute in Graz Austria partly hosted. Although I am not an expert at inventories, I do have good general framework of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocols. I would also consider working for a discounted NGO rate. Please contact me via email ralph.strebel at mac.com if you might be interested. Thank you, Ralph J. Strebel Attorney at Law