From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Jul 2 13:42:41 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:42:41 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Network was temporarily down Message-ID: <20dd85730807021042p4ec78e94hdedf5f0f8c07a9e2@mail.gmail.com> Network Participants, The GHG Experts Network mailing list was temporarily down for a few days apparently, but it is back up and running. My apologies for any inconvenience it may have been. If you had messages bounced or other troubles, please try again. Everything should be back up and working now. Sincerely, Michael -- Michael Gillenwater Executive Director GHG Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org GHG Management Institute www.ghginstitute.org -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080702/6ee7d9a9/attachment.html From sanjay at globalgreenfocus.com Thu Jul 3 17:44:10 2008 From: sanjay at globalgreenfocus.com (Sanjay Dube) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:44:10 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Wanted Consultant or Company for CDM Project In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19f94d690807031444l707d4cccq90ae78608b55ab44@mail.gmail.com> Hello, We are exploring setting up a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project in India. We are currently looking for independent consultants or a company that has experience in this and can suggest some small scale projects that have been deployed or approved for India. If you have experience and can fulfill the following: 1. Experience of working on CDM projects and type of project methodologies. 2. Experience in small scale CDM projects and implementation in india (if any) 3. Number of projects delivered and or received approval from UNFCC. 4. Ability to provide consultancy solutions on a turn-key basis Please feel free to contact us. We are aggressively pursuing these projects and want to start these as soon as possible. Contact: Sanjay email: sanjay at globalgreenfocus.com -- Sanjay Dube CEO Global Green Focus LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080703/7844c8d7/attachment.html From alison05 at ufl.edu Mon Jul 7 12:58:51 2008 From: alison05 at ufl.edu (Alison Erlenbach) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon footprint of lab chemicals Message-ID: <1251201060.238731215449931561.JavaMail.osg@osgjas01.cns.ufl.edu> Hi, I am attempting to calculate the carbon footprint of chemicals used in my university's laboratories. I have recieved data from the vendor of all of the chemicals purchased and the weight or volume. I am not sure where to obtain the GWP (if any) for some chemicals. I am also unsure whether or not the emissions from chemicals depends on how they are used (different reactions, use of a fume hood, etc.). Can anyone provide any insight on calculating emissions from chemicals? In appreciation, Alison Erlenbach University of Florida From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon Jul 7 23:20:29 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon footprint of lab chemicals Message-ID: <20080708032029.AF695C1805C@milkyway.forumone.com> For most chemicals that are carbon based, except CFCs, HCFCs, and PFCs, all you need to do is determine the weight percent carbon and assume these chemicals, if vented to the atmosphere, are oxidized to carbon dioxide. If you have reactions that form CH4 or N2O, then you need to determine how much is formed and vented and apply the GWPs for these GHGs. The only other recognized bad actor is SF6 and I don't know what you would use that for. (I had a torn retina and the doc injected SF6 into my eyeball. The gas presses against the retina and helps it heal) It would not surprise me if you found that your largest sources of GHGs are CH4 and CO2 from bunsen burners (do they still use them? It has been a long time!) and Halons from fire extinguishers. Then, of course, there is all that Swamp Gas emitted every Saturday during the Fall. :-) Let us know what you find. Regards From leticia.ozawa at semarnat.gob.mx Mon Jul 7 22:33:25 2008 From: leticia.ozawa at semarnat.gob.mx (Leticia Ozawa Meida) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:33:25 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon footprint of lab chemicals In-Reply-To: <1251201060.238731215449931561.JavaMail.osg@osgjas01.cns.ufl.edu> References: <1251201060.238731215449931561.JavaMail.osg@osgjas01.cns.ufl.edu> Message-ID: <09053B31D5D5D84F8CE9A08323207AC122115F333D@EXCHANGE2007.dominio.semarnat.gob.mx> Dear Alison, I would recommend you to have a look to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National GHG Inventories regarding to process emissions (IPPU - volume 3) related to the use of non-energy products from fuels and solvents (Chapter 5) (available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_5_Ch5_Non_Energy_Products.pdf), to the emissions of fluorinated substitutes for ozone depleting substances (Chapter 7) (available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_7_Ch7_ODS_Substitutes.pdf) and to the emissions from other product manufacture and use (Chapter 8) (available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_8_Ch8_Other_Product.pdf). These chapters may provide you a guidance of which chemicals you need to account for in the estimations of the carbon footprint of your laboratory (in addition to the energy-related emissions). I would take into account only those chemicals considered in the Kyoto Protocol framework, because some of the chemicals you use in your laboratory could be considered in the Montreal Protocol. However, this issue can be open to discussion. With regard to GWPs of fluroinated compounds, you can find a list at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/downloads/downloads-registration?referred_from=/downloads/calcs/hfc-cfc.pdf/ (pages 3 and 4). I hope that this information helps, otherwise I guess that the calculation of GHG emissions from the reactions must be conducted through stoicheometric analyses. Best regards, Leticia Ozawa ________________________________________ De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] En nombre de Alison Erlenbach [alison05 at ufl.edu] Enviado el: lunes, 07 de julio de 2008 11:58 a.m. Para: Discuss at ghgnetwork.org Asunto: [GHG Network] Carbon footprint of lab chemicals Hi, I am attempting to calculate the carbon footprint of chemicals used in my university's laboratories. I have recieved data from the vendor of all of the chemicals purchased and the weight or volume. I am not sure where to obtain the GWP (if any) for some chemicals. I am also unsure whether or not the emissions from chemicals depends on how they are used (different reactions, use of a fume hood, etc.). Can anyone provide any insight on calculating emissions from chemicals? In appreciation, Alison Erlenbach University of Florida _______________________________________________ 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 r.vandijk at lhc.nl Wed Jul 9 05:22:45 2008 From: r.vandijk at lhc.nl (Richard van Dijk) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Freight network load and emission factors Message-ID: <20080709092245.BD09BC1809B@milkyway.forumone.com> Essential for a correct assessment of the carbon intensity of a future supply chain is the choice of transport mode, e.g. road, air, ocean and rail. However, these modes of transport are often shared by multiple shippers. Where can I find information sources, academic or industry, detailing load factors and emission factors per transport mode? What are valid assumptions that can be made? I'm especially interested in the factors related to Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) and parcel networks. From erik.van.agtmaal at altimedes.com Wed Jul 9 09:02:57 2008 From: erik.van.agtmaal at altimedes.com (Altimedes) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:02:57 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Freight network load and emission factors In-Reply-To: <20080709092245.BD09BC1809B@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080709092245.BD09BC1809B@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <000301c8e1c4$1b92bc20$52b83460$@van.agtmaal@altimedes.com> Richard A good source for emission factors is the EMEP CORINAIR emission inventory guidebook prepared by the UNECE/EMEP Task Force on Emissions Inventories and Projections. This guidebook provides a comprehensive guide to atmospheric emissions data. (see website of the European Environment Agency). Another source for emission data for mobile sources is the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency. There are several organizations working on better data including load factors. 1. The Network for Transport and Environment, NTM, is a Swedish non-profit organisation, set up in 1993 with the aim of establishing a common set of values for calculating the environmental performance for various modes of transport. The members are Swedish companies including Volvo, Ikea, SKF and Arla Foods but also Swedish subsidiaries of foreign companies such as DHL and Kuehne & Nagel. A working group within NTM develops environmental performance data for goods transport. The NTM methodology to measure emissions uses three different levels of detail: . Average emission factors of vehicles/vessels . Specified vehicle/vessel type . Emissions calculations based on vehicle identity and consignment Several aspects are taken into account: . The number of tonnes of freight multiplied by distance (tonne-km). . Type of vehicle / vessel . Fuel type and quality . Load Factor 2. The US Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) is charged with protecting public health by addressing air quality and other environmental concerns related to transportation. The EPA has been initiating government-industry, voluntary initiatives that address environmental concerns associated with transportation. Current government-industry programs are the SmartWay Transport Partnership, The National Clean Diesel Campaign, and Clean Ports USA. Another project is the development of protocols and tools which will help companies to calculate their CO2 and criteria pollutant emission footprint from goods movement across all transportation modes. EPA envisions a model that can be incorporated into existing commercial logistics software. 3. Connekt, a public-private initiative made up of 80 Dutch government bodies, companies and knowledge institutes finances two current projects to develop (i) procedures and guidelines for measuring emissions from logistics sources and (ii) a tool to calculate emissions in supply chains. My company Altimedes Consultancy is leading this project together with the Dutch Shippers Council EVO and CE Delft, a Dutch research institute. This project is financed by the Dutch Ministry of Transport and transport organizations representing the different transport modes are participating in this project. 4. The Green Logistics Consultants Group is a worldwide international collaborative network of researchers and consultants with a proven general or specific expertise in areas where companies and regional or national governments can improve the socio-environmental performance of their supply chains or transport infrastructure. One project of the Green Logistics Consultants Group is to foster cooperation and co-ordination between the organisations and initiatives described and with others with the objective to (i) agree a worldwide accepted framework for the calculation of emissions of goods transport and supply chains and (ii) to create an international database with international and national information on emissions factors and logistics data. Erik van Agtmaal Altimedes Consulting Langeweide 2 1730 Asse Belgium +32 (0)2 460 17 30 Tel +32 (0)2 460 57 20 Fax +32 (0)476 345 117 Mobile www.altimedes.com www.greenlogisticsconsultants.com Please consider the environment before printing this email -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Richard van Dijk Sent: woensdag 9 juli 2008 11:23 To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Freight network load and emission factors Essential for a correct assessment of the carbon intensity of a future supply chain is the choice of transport mode, e.g. road, air, ocean and rail. However, these modes of transport are often shared by multiple shippers. Where can I find information sources, academic or industry, detailing load factors and emission factors per transport mode? What are valid assumptions that can be made? I'm especially interested in the factors related to Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) and parcel networks. _______________________________________________ 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 d.noble at fivewinds.com Wed Jul 9 17:18:51 2008 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:18:51 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Message-ID: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C64043AA3A@fwserver.fw.local> I have a question about Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the UK. What is the appropriate GHG emission factor to use when you purchase renewable electricity from a supplier who also receives a separate financial benefit from "selling" the ROC? In North America, RECs represent the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity generation. Hence if you want to claim that you are using renewable electricity with a zero GHG emission factor, your options would include: self generating renewable electricity, purchasing green power, or purchasing RECs. A supplier can not sell both green power to customer A and then the RECs to customer B, as that would be double counting the environmental benefit. If the RECs are disaggregated from the electricity, there is no green power to sell. The situation with ROCs in the UK appears to be similar, but not quite the same. Can someone from the UK offer some guidance on how ROCs affect GHG emission factors? Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - www.fivewinds.com NEW Tel. for July: +1.867.979.5576 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080709/ec8fabc9/attachment-0001.html From Joanne.AttardBaldacchino at mepa.org.mt Thu Jul 10 02:57:34 2008 From: Joanne.AttardBaldacchino at mepa.org.mt (Joanne Attard Baldacchino) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:34 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] HFC from Metered Dose Inhalers Message-ID: Hello, Are there any available emission factors for Metered Dose Inhalers containing HFC-134a (Norflurane)? Regards, Joanne Attard Baldacchino. ------------------------------------------------------- Malta Environment & Planning Authority St. Francis Ravelin Floriana Malta TEL: +356 2290 0000 FAX: +356 2290 2295 http://www.mepa.org.mt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Any views expressed are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of MEPA. DATA PROTECTION CLAUSE: In terms of the Data Protection Act (Chapter 440 of the Laws of Malta), note that MEPA will process any personal and/or sensitive data supplied to it as detailed in http://www.mepa.org.mt/customercare/data_protection/mainpage.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From doregan at libertyenviro.com Thu Jul 10 09:43:49 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Message-ID: <20080710134349.290C1C180AC@milkyway.forumone.com> I think the emission factor would be zero, assuming there are zero emissions associated with the generated electricity. You are possibly decreasing your annual GHG footprint by offsetting the emissions you might produce directly by self-generation (Scope 1) or produce by electricity purchases (scope 2). The one caveat that I would offer would be for any biogenic emissions associated with the "green" power. You might want to keep track of those by adding them to your footprint calculations and then subtracting them out of the final footprint. I think that helps with transparency in the accounting. Or did I miss something in the question? Dennis From j.norman at bitsaintelligence.com Thu Jul 10 12:29:40 2008 From: j.norman at bitsaintelligence.com (Jason Norman) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] compressed gases Message-ID: <20080710162940.B8D02C18068@milkyway.forumone.com> It's an interesting question and I think it touches on a much bigger area; the industrial gases business. If you do a quick analysis of the compressed gases business, many of the associated emissions are already accounted for: Air separation units to produce the gases use significant amounts of electricity and would normally be associated with scope 2 for the producer. Distribution of compressed gases will have associated Scope 1 emissions from the distributors. When it comes down to use, I'm only aware of limited examples of using the compressed gas for mechanical means. It's too expensive to use cylinder gas for this purpose and as mentioned before, Air and N2 aren't GHG's. I tend to agree with some of the other posts: Scope 3 An interesting aside relates to the scope for compressed CO2 and dry ice.... it's not as straightforward since CO2 is often captured from other industrial processes, purified and distributed. CO2 is used in many areas but one we're all familiar with is carbonated drinks...when you pop the can you effectively release the CO2 taken from an industrial process....it's your emission but you didn't generate the CO2, you just released it...... Should the original process owner account for his emission or pass it on? Should the industrial gas company that is profiting from the sale of the captured CO2 or the beverage company that resells it in their drink product have some responsibility? With the current guidelines, one could argue that it's a good way for the original industrial process to avoid a Scope 1 emission If you really want to push the thinking....who would actually want to own a CO2 sequestration reservoir and how much leakage insurance would they need for such a scope 1 emission liability? Jason Norman GHG Strategy Consultant www.bitsaintelligence.com From MVanPelt at icfi.com Thu Jul 10 11:28:03 2008 From: MVanPelt at icfi.com (Van Pelt, Marian) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:28:03 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] HFC from Metered Dose Inhalers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joanne -- The IPCC 2006 guidelines address emissions of HFCs from MDIs. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_7_Ch7_ODS_Substitutes.pdf. Text is below. So, the emission factor is 100% over a two-year period, and the emission factor you should choose depends on whether you believe a larger fraction is emitted in year 1, and to what extent. The US Inventory, which I help to support for the US EPA, assumes 100% emission in year 1. "Aerosol emissions are considered prompt because all the initial charge escapes within the first year or two after manufacture, typically six months after sale for most sub-applications. Therefore, to estimate emissions it is necessary to know the total amount of aerosol initially charged in product containers prior to sale. Emissions of each individual aerosol in year t can be calculated as follows: Emissionst = St ? EF + St?1 ? (1? EF) Where: Emissionst = emissions in year t, tonnes St = quantity of HFC and PFC contained in aerosol products sold in year t, tonnes St?1 = quantity of HFC and PFC contained in aerosol products sold in year t?1, tonnes EF = emission factor (= fraction of chemical emitted during the first year), fraction Since the lifetime of the product is assumed to be no more than two years, any amount not emitted during the first year must by definition be emitted during the second and final year. In reality, most emissions occur within the first year after product purchase, but the emissions estimation equation rightly accounts for the lag period between the time of manufacture and the time of purchase and use." Best, Marian Martin Van Pelt Principal ICF International 1725 Eye St, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Joanne Attard Baldacchino Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:58 AM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] HFC from Metered Dose Inhalers Hello, Are there any available emission factors for Metered Dose Inhalers containing HFC-134a (Norflurane)? Regards, Joanne Attard Baldacchino. ------------------------------------------------------- Malta Environment & Planning Authority St. Francis Ravelin Floriana Malta TEL: +356 2290 0000 FAX: +356 2290 2295 http://www.mepa.org.mt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Any views expressed are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of MEPA. DATA PROTECTION CLAUSE: In terms of the Data Protection Act (Chapter 440 of the Laws of Malta), note that MEPA will process any personal and/or sensitive data supplied to it as detailed in http://www.mepa.org.mt/customercare/data_protection/mainpage.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 NOTICE: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this e-mail by you is prohibited. From doregan at libertyenviro.com Thu Jul 10 13:49:25 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] HFC from Metered Dose Inhalers Message-ID: <20080710174925.85EC7C180B6@milkyway.forumone.com> You need to look at the inhalers or contact the manufacturers to determine how much R-134a is in each inhaler and how much is expelled on each dose. An inhaler like Serevent (by Glaxo Smith-Kline) usually holds about 120 doses and users take 2 doses per day. R-134a has a GWP (1996 IPCC) of 1,300, so 1g of R-134a is equivalent to the release of 1,300 g of CO2. Since most modern auto air conditioners use R-134a as well, inhaler use should pale in comparison. Regards, Dennis From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Thu Jul 10 13:41:12 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Message-ID: <53428.52144.qm@web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Duncan and Network Participants, Great question. I'm taking off my moderator hat again, and just posting as a Network participant myself. I would also be interested to hear others perspectives on ROCs. I have always treated them essentially the same as RECs here in the United States. I do have to take an exception to Duncan's characterization of RECs. Despite the oft repeated statements of REC marketers, they do not represent the environmental benefits of renewable energy in any practical sense. Most or all of the environmental benefits of renewable energy are indirect to the act of producing renewable energy. A simple way to explain it is that RECs are denoted in mega-watt hours (MWh). Last time I checked, this was not the commonly accepted units for trading in environmental benefits (what ever that means). More seriously, we have to be very careful about how we define and think about environmental commodities, what we say they represent, and what claims we make when we purchase and retire them. Just saying something something represents something does not make it so. Markets do not operate well when based on ambiguously defined commodities and unsubstantiated marketing claims. I won't go on futher, but instead refer you to a couple papers I wrote on this subject. I have circulated them before to the Network, but they seem particularly applicable to this question. If you would like a copy of the published versions just email me. Or you can freely access the prepublication versions at: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgillenw/discussionpapers.htm Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Should consumers buy RECs or emission offsets? After examining this question, the author concludes that RECs are not equivalent to emission offset credits, and as currently defined, the retiring of a REC may have no impact on emissions from electric power generation. Consumers who purchase RECs in voluntary green power markets are providing financial assistance to renewable generators in the form of a production subsidy. Generators that sell RECs are not transferring emission reductions, since they are unlikely to have ownership or the ability to quantify reductions using a commonly accepted standard. More importantly, RECs currently sold in voluntary markets do not pass credible additionality tests and can, at best, be expected to have a market demand effect, which will be less than the supply of RECs on the market. REC definitions that use the term ?environmental attributes? or ?environmental benefits? are almost universally ambiguous, providing the mistaken impression that consumers are purchasing a good instead of subsidizing a public good. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets, Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs). How should emission-trading schemes treat RECs? How can emission mitigation policies provide real incentives for renewable generation? The objective of REC markets should be to promote additional renewable energy investments. The author asserts that defining RECs in terms of attributes, especially off-site attributes, does not further this goal. Ambiguous language such as ?environmental attribute? or ?environmental benefit? creates confusion in the marketplace while failing to address the relevant coordination issues with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance markets, voluntary emission offset markets, or emission cap-and-trade markets. Specifically, defining RECs in terms of off-site attributes creates a number of problems, including that once an emissions cap-and-trade scheme is in place, such definitions of a REC can become indefensible. The author proposes to redefine RECs in terms of on-site attributes, which resolves the aforementioned problems and allows compliance and voluntary renewable energy and emission markets to function without conflicts. Ideally, environmental commodities should be homogeneous, first best measures of the relevant environmental good, as well as easily measured and verified. The author proposes tradable environmental commodities that achieve these characteristics. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org gillenwater at ghgnetwork.org ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Duncan Noble To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 5:18:51 PM Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity I have a question about Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the UK. What is the appropriate GHG emission factor to use when you purchase renewable electricity from a supplier who also receives a separate financial benefit from "selling" the ROC? In North America, RECs represent the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity generation. Hence if you want to claim that you are using renewable electricity with a zero GHG emission factor, your options would include: self generating renewable electricity, purchasing green power, or purchasing RECs. A supplier can not sell both green power to customer A and then the RECs to customer B, as that would be double counting the environmental benefit. If the RECs are disaggregated from the electricity, there is no green power to sell. The situation with ROCs in the UK appears to be similar, but not quite the same. Can someone from the UK offer some guidance on how ROCs affect GHG emission factors? Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - www.fivewinds.com NEW Tel. for July: +1.867.979.5576 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080710/a57ad7fe/attachment.html From DBroekhoff at wri.org Thu Jul 10 15:43:45 2008 From: DBroekhoff at wri.org (Derik Broekhoff) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:43:45 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity References: <53428.52144.qm@web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C02296736@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Questions of environmental attributes and emissions accounting aside, it sounds like the real issue is double-selling the green power. Selling a renewable-sourced MWh to retail customers under a green power contract, while also selling off a ROC associated with the same MWh, is a bit dodgy (as folks in the UK might say) - essentially no different from selling multiple ROCs for the same MWh. This sounds like an issue for whichever government agency in charge of regulating false marketing claims, rather than a GHG accounting issue. Strictly speaking, the ROCs should be sold or retired in conjunction with the green power contract - otherwise you potentially have more than one party claiming to have purchased renewable power for the same MWh. The fact that the emissions accounting is confusing simply points to the underlying problem. Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Program 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 729-7628 dbroekhoff at wri.org ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gillenwater [moderator] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:41 PM To: Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Duncan and Network Participants, Great question. I'm taking off my moderator hat again, and just posting as a Network participant myself. I would also be interested to hear others perspectives on ROCs. I have always treated them essentially the same as RECs here in the United States. I do have to take an exception to Duncan's characterization of RECs. Despite the oft repeated statements of REC marketers, they do not represent the environmental benefits of renewable energy in any practical sense. Most or all of the environmental benefits of renewable energy are indirect to the act of producing renewable energy. A simple way to explain it is that RECs are denoted in mega-watt hours (MWh). Last time I checked, this was not the commonly accepted units for trading in environmental benefits (what ever that means). More seriously, we have to be very careful about how we define and think about environmental commodities, what we say they represent, and what claims we make when we purchase and retire them. Just saying something something represents something does not make it so. Markets do not operate well when based on ambiguously defined commodities and unsubstantiated marketing claims. I won't go on futher, but instead refer you to a couple papers I wrote on this subject. I have circulated them before to the Network, but they seem particularly applicable to this question. If you would like a copy of the published versions just email me. Or you can freely access the prepublication versions at: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgillenw/discussionpapers.htm Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Should consumers buy RECs or emission offsets? After examining this question, the author concludes that RECs are not equivalent to emission offset credits, and as currently defined, the retiring of a REC may have no impact on emissions from electric power generation. Consumers who purchase RECs in voluntary green power markets are providing financial assistance to renewable generators in the form of a production subsidy. Generators that sell RECs are not transferring emission reductions, since they are unlikely to have ownership or the ability to quantify reductions using a commonly accepted standard. More importantly, RECs currently sold in voluntary markets do not pass credible additionality tests and can, at best, be expected to have a market demand effect, which will be less than the supply of RECs on the market. REC definitions that use the term "environmental attributes" or "environmental benefits" are almost universally ambiguous, providing the mistaken impression that consumers are purchasing a good instead of subsidizing a public good. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs). How should emission-trading schemes treat RECs? How can emission mitigation policies provide real incentives for renewable generation? The objective of REC markets should be to promote additional renewable energy investments. The author asserts that defining RECs in terms of attributes, especially off-site attributes, does not further this goal. Ambiguous language such as "environmental attribute" or "environmental benefit" creates confusion in the marketplace while failing to address the relevant coordination issues with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance markets, voluntary emission offset markets, or emission cap-and-trade markets. Specifically, defining RECs in terms of off-site attributes creates a number of problems, including that once an emissions cap-and-trade scheme is in place, such definitions of a REC can become indefensible. The author proposes to redefine RECs in terms of on-site attributes, which resolves the aforementioned problems and allows compliance and voluntary renewable energy and emission markets to function without conflicts. Ideally, environmental commodities should be homogeneous, first best measures of the relevant environmental good, as well as easily measured and verified. The author proposes tradable environmental commodities that achieve these characteristics. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org gillenwater at ghgnetwork.org ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Duncan Noble To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 5:18:51 PM Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity I have a question about Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the UK. What is the appropriate GHG emission factor to use when you purchase renewable electricity from a supplier who also receives a separate financial benefit from "selling" the ROC? In North America, RECs represent the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity generation. Hence if you want to claim that you are using renewable electricity with a zero GHG emission factor, your options would include: self generating renewable electricity, purchasing green power, or purchasing RECs. A supplier can not sell both green power to customer A and then the RECs to customer B, as that would be double counting the environmental benefit. If the RECs are disaggregated from the electricity, there is no green power to sell. The situation with ROCs in the UK appears to be similar, but not quite the same. Can someone from the UK offer some guidance on how ROCs affect GHG emission factors? Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - www.fivewinds.com NEW Tel. for July: +1.867.979.5576 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080710/a90196aa/attachment.html From david.hodge2 at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 17:34:39 2008 From: david.hodge2 at gmail.com (David Hodge) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] UK Woodland Carbon Sequestration Message-ID: <20080710213439.CE382C18068@milkyway.forumone.com> Hi All, I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist me in estimating the max carbon that could be sequested by one hectare of broadleaf woodland forest in the United Kingdom. Currently, the only way that I am aware of how to estimate this is to use crude IPCC Tier 1 defaults for worldwide temperate broadleaf forests from the IPCC NGGI Guidelines. Kind Regards, David Hodge From michele.grossman at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 15:28:19 2008 From: michele.grossman at gmail.com (Michele Grossman) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:28:19 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] compressed gases In-Reply-To: <20080710162940.B8D02C18068@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080710162940.B8D02C18068@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <253716980807101228t72adc3a3t4e543021b81b19e8@mail.gmail.com> I've worked on verifications for beverage companies' GHG inventories reported to the California Climate Action Registry, and carbon dioxide from beverages is being accounted for by the companies that produce the beverage. Michele Grossman michele.grossman at gmail.com On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason Norman < j.norman at bitsaintelligence.com> wrote: > It's an interesting question and I think it touches on a much bigger area; > the industrial gases business. > If you do a quick analysis of the compressed gases business, many of the > associated emissions are already accounted for: > Air separation units to produce the gases use significant amounts of > electricity and would normally be associated with scope 2 for the producer. > Distribution of compressed gases will have associated Scope 1 emissions > from the distributors. > > When it comes down to use, I'm only aware of limited examples of using the > compressed gas for mechanical means. It's too expensive to use cylinder gas > for this purpose and as mentioned before, Air and N2 aren't GHG's. I tend > to agree with some of the other posts: Scope 3 > > An interesting aside relates to the scope for compressed CO2 and dry > ice.... it's not as straightforward since CO2 is often captured from other > industrial processes, purified and distributed. CO2 is used in many areas > but one we're all familiar with is carbonated drinks...when you pop the can > you effectively release the CO2 taken from an industrial process....it's > your emission but you didn't generate the CO2, you just released it...... > > Should the original process owner account for his emission or pass it on? > Should the industrial gas company that is profiting from the sale of the > captured CO2 or the beverage company that resells it in their drink product > have some responsibility? > > With the current guidelines, one could argue that it's a good way for the > original industrial process to avoid a Scope 1 emission > If you really want to push the thinking....who would actually want to own a > CO2 sequestration reservoir and how much leakage insurance would they need > for such a scope 1 emission liability? > > > Jason Norman > GHG Strategy Consultant > www.bitsaintelligence.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/20080710/5574744b/attachment-0001.html From kimberlyrobertson at xtra.co.nz Fri Jul 11 01:15:47 2008 From: kimberlyrobertson at xtra.co.nz (Kimberly Robertson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:15:47 +1200 Subject: [GHG Network] UK Woodland Carbon Sequestration References: Message-ID: <002b01c8e315$2e86e570$0501010a@PCOffice> Hi David I suggest you take a look at the UK national forest carbon modelling (C Flow) and the following papers. a tier 3 IPCC methodology is used by the UK to estimate forest carbon Cannell, M. G. R. and Dewar, R. C. (1995). The Carbon Sink Provided by Plantation Forests and Their Products in Britain. Forestry, 68, 35-48. Cannell, M. G. R., Milne, R., Hargreaves, K. J., et al. (1999). National inventories of terrestrial carbon sources and sinks: The UK experience. Climatic Change, 42, 505-530. Dewar, R. C. and Cannell, M. G. R. (1992). Carbon Sequestration in the Trees, Products and Soils of Forest Plantations - an Analysis Using UK Examples. Tree Physiology, 11, 49-71. Milne, R. and Brown, T. A. (1997). Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 49, 413-433. Milne, R. and Brown, T. A. W. (1999). Methods and data for Land Use Change and Forestry Sector in the 1997 IPCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory. In: Carbon Sequestration in Vegetation and Soils (ed Milne, R.). you can download the Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks due to LandUse, Land Use Change and Forestry Activities Report, April 2006 from the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/GA01088/GA01088_6982_ANN.pdf best regards kimberly robertson Kimberly Robertson FORCE Consulting 444 Pukehangi Rd Rotorua New Zealand Ph +64 7 343 9559 Fax +64 7 343 9557 E-mail: kimberlyrobertson at xtra.co.nz Specialising in Forest Carbon Accounting Greenhouse Gas and Forestry Energy from Sustainble Resources The message contained in this E-mail is CONFIDENTIAL and intended only for the recipient named above. If you receive this message and attachments in error, please notify sender and destroy the original message. Think before you print > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:39 -0400 (EDT) > From: David Hodge > Subject: [GHG Network] UK Woodland Carbon Sequestration > To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Message-ID: <20080710213439.CE382C18068 at milkyway.forumone.com> > > Hi All, > > I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist me in estimating the max carbon that could be sequested by one hectare of broadleaf woodland forest in the United Kingdom. > > Currently, the only way that I am aware of how to estimate this is to use crude IPCC Tier 1 defaults for worldwide temperate broadleaf forests from the IPCC NGGI Guidelines. > > Kind Regards, > David Hodge > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:28:19 -0700 > From: "Michele Grossman" > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] compressed gases > To: "Jason Norman" > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Message-ID: > <253716980807101228t72adc3a3t4e543021b81b19e8 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I've worked on verifications for beverage companies' GHG inventories > reported to the California Climate Action Registry, and carbon dioxide from > beverages is being accounted for by the companies that produce the beverage. > > Michele Grossman > michele.grossman at gmail.com > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason Norman < > j.norman at bitsaintelligence.com> wrote: > >> It's an interesting question and I think it touches on a much bigger area; >> the industrial gases business. >> If you do a quick analysis of the compressed gases business, many of the >> associated emissions are already accounted for: >> Air separation units to produce the gases use significant amounts of >> electricity and would normally be associated with scope 2 for the producer. >> Distribution of compressed gases will have associated Scope 1 emissions >> from the distributors. >> >> When it comes down to use, I'm only aware of limited examples of using the >> compressed gas for mechanical means. It's too expensive to use cylinder gas >> for this purpose and as mentioned before, Air and N2 aren't GHG's. I tend >> to agree with some of the other posts: Scope 3 >> >> An interesting aside relates to the scope for compressed CO2 and dry >> ice.... it's not as straightforward since CO2 is often captured from other >> industrial processes, purified and distributed. CO2 is used in many areas >> but one we're all familiar with is carbonated drinks...when you pop the can >> you effectively release the CO2 taken from an industrial process....it's >> your emission but you didn't generate the CO2, you just released it...... >> >> Should the original process owner account for his emission or pass it on? >> Should the industrial gas company that is profiting from the sale of the >> captured CO2 or the beverage company that resells it in their drink product >> have some responsibility? >> >> With the current guidelines, one could argue that it's a good way for the >> original industrial process to avoid a Scope 1 emission >> If you really want to push the thinking....who would actually want to own a >> CO2 sequestration reservoir and how much leakage insurance would they need >> for such a scope 1 emission liability? >> >> >> Jason Norman >> GHG Strategy Consultant >> www.bitsaintelligence.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/20080710/5574744b/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network > www.ghgnetwork.org > > To post message: > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > To unsubscribe or edit subscription settings: > http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > End of Discuss Digest, Vol 27, Issue 2 > ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080711/cb991836/attachment.html From arturgv at yahoo.com Fri Jul 11 01:59:38 2008 From: arturgv at yahoo.com (Artur Gevorgyan) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] UK Woodland Carbon Sequestration In-Reply-To: <20080710213439.CE382C18068@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <983491.11807.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Mr. David Hodge May I suggest looking through the paper attached ?The carbon pool in a British semi-natural woodland? written by G. Patenaude and others in response to your enquiry about the forest carbon sequestration studies in UK. It has also good references, which can be helpful for you. Hope you find it useful. Best regards, Artur Gevorgyan ****************************** Artur Gevorgyan Expert on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Enabling Activities for the Preparation of Armenia's Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, UNDP/GEF Tel: (+374 93) 30-56-26 Fax: (+374 10) 58-39-33 E-mail: arturgv at yahoo.com --- On Thu, 7/10/08, David Hodge wrote: > From: David Hodge > Subject: [GHG Network] UK Woodland Carbon Sequestration > To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 2:34 PM > Hi All, > > I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist me in > estimating the max carbon that could be sequested by one > hectare of broadleaf woodland forest in the United Kingdom. > > > Currently, the only way that I am aware of how to estimate > this is to use crude IPCC Tier 1 defaults for worldwide > temperate broadleaf forests from the IPCC NGGI Guidelines. > > Kind Regards, > David Hodge > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Patenaudeetal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124944 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080710/a894d286/attachment-0001.pdf From andrea.smith at cdproject.net Fri Jul 11 06:39:24 2008 From: andrea.smith at cdproject.net (Andrea Smith) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:39:24 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] compressed gases Message-ID: The scenario that prompted me to raise this question was a real-life situation whereby a company purchases compressed air, compressed nitrogen and steam from the owners of the site on which they have a facility. If the site owner's only act is to compress the air than is that not analogous to an indirect energy input under ISO 14064-1 which although it does mention compression does include the purchase of steam? If it is an indirect energy input, then would not the emissions be logged under scope 2 of the GHGP? Andrea Smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080711/8a959ea4/attachment.html From andrea.smith at cdproject.net Fri Jul 11 06:28:27 2008 From: andrea.smith at cdproject.net (Andrea Smith) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:28:27 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] ROCS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Firstly, can I recommend Michael's papers on RECs which are well worth a read. As I understand it, the situation in the UK has been that renewably generated electricity supplied via the grid is often being counted more than once by companies. They may buy part of their electricity under a renewable tariff arrangement and part under a normal tariff arrangement. The emissions from the latter arrangement would be calculated using the grid average, yet that would already factor in the renewably generated electricity, so to then claim a zero emissions factor for the electricity bought under a special tariff arrangement would double-count this electricity. Additionally ROCS are sometimes being sold unbundled from the electricity - effectively as offsets - to reduce companies' scope 2 figures. Yet, as Michael explains in his papers, they may not pass the additionality tests and are claiming ownership of emissions reductions that took place at another party's site (the fossil fuel power station) and may not be quantified according to a generally accepted standard either. Again zero emissions may be claimed by the electricity purchaser even if they do not have the ROCs. I believe that in some instances, another type of certificate called a LEC can also be claimed with the electricity, giving that the potential that a LEC, a ROC and the electricity itself can all be marketed separately, but laying claim to the same environmental benefits attached. The UK government's environment depart (Defra) issued this position on June 16 2008 "... we [Defra] will change the voluntary corporate reporting guidelines to bring them into line with current best practice and provide coherent carbon accounting. This will mean that for the reporting year 2008-9, best practice is expected to be for businesses to use a grid average rate - average rate of carbon emissions associated with electricity transmitted on the national grid - unless their supplier can prove the carbon benefits are additional. This is to reflect the existing evidence that the additional carbon benefit of green tariffs is not transparent. However, we do recognise that some existing and future green tariffs may well deliver broader environmental benefits and we will consult on how these benefits should be treated." My question is how does one ask a supplier to demonstrate that the carbon benefits are additional? Would this wording work? "Electricity sourced from a zero emissions electricity generator (such as a renewable electricity generator) can be assigned a zero emissions factor as long as any environmental benefits claimed for this electricity remain packaged with the electricity purchased and the electricity is not counted in estimating the grid average emissions factor." Would it work for all these situations: a company generates renewable electricity for itself (some of which may be sold on via the grid)/ a company purchases electricity directly ie not via the national grid from a renewable electricity generator and a company has a contractual arrangement with a renewable electricity generator to buy via the national grid? Andrea Smith From jking at mwcog.org Fri Jul 11 12:05:19 2008 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeff King) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] 80% Test Case? Message-ID: <20080711160519.E05E6C18054@milkyway.forumone.com> First, I'd like to thank all who responded to my various inventory requests over the last year. You can see that the inventory was incorporated into a Climate Report for the DC region at the following committee site: http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/default.asp?COMMITTEE_ID=217 Second, while briefing one of our development committees about the report, one of our elected officials was concerned that the 80% reduction commitment by 2050 wasn't based on sound science. In his belief the 80% figure was originally developed from some test case/sensitivity run and therefore didn't have a sound basis for action. I have never heard of such a "test case", just wondering if his assertion has any merit. I would appreciate any feedback you could provide. Thanks. Jeff jking at mwcog.org From ralberto at gelnex.com.br Fri Jul 11 13:42:37 2008 From: ralberto at gelnex.com.br (Rodrigo Alberto - Gelnex) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:42:37 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] Forest plantation References: <20080711160519.E05E6C18054@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <000801c8e37d$82221cf0$ce00a8c0@alberto> Dear all I'm working at GHG Inventory at my company, and we plant trees in a area near our plant, for reforestation. How can we count this CO2 removal from atmosphere? Can this removal be counted for our inventory, discounting GHG emissions due to our process production? Thanks Rodrigo Alberto Zierth Gelnex Gelatins ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: [GHG Network] 80% Test Case? > First, I'd like to thank all who responded to my various inventory > requests over the last year. You can see that the inventory was > incorporated into a Climate Report for the DC region at the following > committee site: > > http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/default.asp?COMMITTEE_ID=217 > > Second, while briefing one of our development committees about the report, > one of our elected officials was concerned that the 80% reduction > commitment by 2050 wasn't based on sound science. In his belief the 80% > figure was originally developed from some test case/sensitivity run and > therefore didn't have a sound basis for action. I have never heard of > such a "test case", just wondering if his assertion has any merit. I > would appreciate any feedback you could provide. > > Thanks. > > Jeff > jking at mwcog.org > _______________________________________________ > 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. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1546 - Release Date: 11/7/2008 > 06:47 > > From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Fri Jul 11 18:09:44 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Invitation to OQI briefing and reception Message-ID: <543276.67099.qm@web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Network Participants, The following briefing is being offered by a non-profit coalition that the GHG Experts Network is a member of. You are welcome to attend, and feel free to forward to those in California that would be interested. Sincerely, Michael The Offset Quality Initiative (OQI) cordially invites Western Climate Initiative stakeholders to a pre-release briefing on OQI's forthcoming white paper titled "Integrating High Quality Offsets into North American Cap-and-Trade Policy." Please join us for a reception with cocktails and hors d'oeuvres that will immediately follow. Monday, July 28th 3:30-5:15 p.m. Pre-release Briefing, Mission Hills Room 5:15-7:00 p.m. Reception, Del Mar Room San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina 333 W. Harbor Drive, San Diego , CA 92101; 619-234-1500 Please RSVP to krobinson at climatetrust.org or 503-238-1915 ext.209 Issues the forum will address include: ? Ensuring greenhouse gas offset quality in regulatory systems ? Key regulatory offset policy design principles and recommendations ? Greenhouse gas reduction project categories best suited for regulatory offset systems Presenters will include: ? Mike Burnett, Executive Director, The Climate Trust ? Gary Gero, President, California Climate Action Registry ? Janet Peace, Director of Markets and Business Strategy, Pew Center on Global Climate Change For additional information or questions, please visit www.offsetqualityinitiative.org or contact Alexia Kelly at akelly at climatetrust.org or 503-238-1915 ext. 208. The work of the Offset Quality Initiative is supported by the Energy Foundation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080711/79c3325b/attachment.html From d.noble at fivewinds.com Sun Jul 13 20:03:26 2008 From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:03:26 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity References: <53428.52144.qm@web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C02296736@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Message-ID: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C640424296@fwserver.fw.local> Derik, Michael et al.: Thanks for all of your responses. Michael: I take your point. I accept that a REC/ROC is not the same as an offset, and my characterization of RECs was not accurate. However, I'm not sure how I can use this information to answer my question of what is the appropriate emission factor to use for Scope 2 emissions from renewable electricity purchases where the supplier receives additional financial benefits (apparently in some cases higher than the value of the electricity) from the ROC. Can I assume, based on your response, that you would suggest something along the lines of what DEFRA has proposed (per the email from Andrea Smith) that some demonstration of additionality by the renewable supplier would be required? Is anyone on this list aware of what approaches UK based renewable suppliers are currently taking in this area? (e.g., what documentation they are supplying to support zero emission factors, etc.) ... Duncan ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Derik Broekhoff Sent: July 10, 2008 3:44 PM To: Michael Gillenwater [moderator]; Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Questions of environmental attributes and emissions accounting aside, it sounds like the real issue is double-selling the green power. Selling a renewable-sourced MWh to retail customers under a green power contract, while also selling off a ROC associated with the same MWh, is a bit dodgy (as folks in the UK might say) - essentially no different from selling multiple ROCs for the same MWh. This sounds like an issue for whichever government agency in charge of regulating false marketing claims, rather than a GHG accounting issue. Strictly speaking, the ROCs should be sold or retired in conjunction with the green power contract - otherwise you potentially have more than one party claiming to have purchased renewable power for the same MWh. The fact that the emissions accounting is confusing simply points to the underlying problem. Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Program 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 729-7628 dbroekhoff at wri.org ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gillenwater [moderator] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:41 PM To: Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Duncan and Network Participants, Great question. I'm taking off my moderator hat again, and just posting as a Network participant myself. I would also be interested to hear others perspectives on ROCs. I have always treated them essentially the same as RECs here in the United States. I do have to take an exception to Duncan's characterization of RECs. Despite the oft repeated statements of REC marketers, they do not represent the environmental benefits of renewable energy in any practical sense. Most or all of the environmental benefits of renewable energy are indirect to the act of producing renewable energy. A simple way to explain it is that RECs are denoted in mega-watt hours (MWh). Last time I checked, this was not the commonly accepted units for trading in environmental benefits (what ever that means). More seriously, we have to be very careful about how we define and think about environmental commodities, what we say they represent, and what claims we make when we purchase and retire them. Just saying something something represents something does not make it so. Markets do not operate well when based on ambiguously defined commodities and unsubstantiated marketing claims. I won't go on futher, but instead refer you to a couple papers I wrote on this subject. I have circulated them before to the Network, but they seem particularly applicable to this question. If you would like a copy of the published versions just email me. Or you can freely access the prepublication versions at: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgillenw/discussionpapers.htm Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Should consumers buy RECs or emission offsets? After examining this question, the author concludes that RECs are not equivalent to emission offset credits, and as currently defined, the retiring of a REC may have no impact on emissions from electric power generation. Consumers who purchase RECs in voluntary green power markets are providing financial assistance to renewable generators in the form of a production subsidy. Generators that sell RECs are not transferring emission reductions, since they are unlikely to have ownership or the ability to quantify reductions using a commonly accepted standard. More importantly, RECs currently sold in voluntary markets do not pass credible additionality tests and can, at best, be expected to have a market demand effect, which will be less than the supply of RECs on the market. REC definitions that use the term "environmental attributes" or "environmental benefits" are almost universally ambiguous, providing the mistaken impression that consumers are purchasing a good instead of subsidizing a public good. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs). How should emission-trading schemes treat RECs? How can emission mitigation policies provide real incentives for renewable generation? The objective of REC markets should be to promote additional renewable energy investments. The author asserts that defining RECs in terms of attributes, especially off-site attributes, does not further this goal. Ambiguous language such as "environmental attribute" or "environmental benefit" creates confusion in the marketplace while failing to address the relevant coordination issues with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance markets, voluntary emission offset markets, or emission cap-and-trade markets. Specifically, defining RECs in terms of off-site attributes creates a number of problems, including that once an emissions cap-and-trade scheme is in place, such definitions of a REC can become indefensible. The author proposes to redefine RECs in terms of on-site attributes, which resolves the aforementioned problems and allows compliance and voluntary renewable energy and emission markets to function without conflicts. Ideally, environmental commodities should be homogeneous, first best measures of the relevant environmental good, as well as easily measured and verified. The author proposes tradable environmental commodities that achieve these characteristics. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org gillenwater at ghgnetwork.org ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Duncan Noble To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 5:18:51 PM Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity I have a question about Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the UK. What is the appropriate GHG emission factor to use when you purchase renewable electricity from a supplier who also receives a separate financial benefit from "selling" the ROC? In North America, RECs represent the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity generation. Hence if you want to claim that you are using renewable electricity with a zero GHG emission factor, your options would include: self generating renewable electricity, purchasing green power, or purchasing RECs. A supplier can not sell both green power to customer A and then the RECs to customer B, as that would be double counting the environmental benefit. If the RECs are disaggregated from the electricity, there is no green power to sell. The situation with ROCs in the UK appears to be similar, but not quite the same. Can someone from the UK offer some guidance on how ROCs affect GHG emission factors? Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - www.fivewinds.com NEW Tel. for July: +1.867.979.5576 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080713/5ac21acf/attachment-0001.html From Marco.Ratton at dnv.com Mon Jul 14 17:49:30 2008 From: Marco.Ratton at dnv.com (Marco.Ratton at dnv.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:49:30 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity In-Reply-To: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C640424296@fwserver.fw.local> References: <53428.52144.qm@web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com><46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C02296736@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C640424296@fwserver.fw.local> Message-ID: <1C0B6A95CD1B644D884F2D230C4D7D44052F6947@RIO007.verit.dnv.com> Hi Ducan, I have actually raised this issue before in the GHG Network: How far is considering the consumption of grid green electricity in Scope 2 of an corporate GHG inventory as carbon nule? My perception is that if it is a previously existent plant, it is not fair to consider such electricity consumption as zero in terms of GHG emission! The reason is that when you start consuming green electricity, there will be less green electricity to other consumers connected to the grid. Note that this is a quite confusing issue. Last year a major Swedish bus and truck manufactor has anounced "carbon-neutrality" of a production plant in Sweden by mentioning inter-alia that they has signed a conctrate to purchase green electricity from an existent grid connected hydro power! We must alway keep in mind the long term benefitis of the society consuming more and more grid electricity. Williness to pay more for green electricity (by the use of economical incentives such as RECs or green certificates) represents strong incentives for making new green electricitity generation sources take off the ground (by making them more economically feasible), However, this should never be regarded as a ponctual GHG emission reduction initiative! It is not fair! Atenciosamente/Best regards, Marco A. Ratton -------------------------------------- Email: marco.ratton at dnv.com Direct Phone: +55 21 3722 7540 Mobile: +55 21 8124 1944 ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Duncan Noble Sent: domingo, 13 de julho de 2008 21:03 To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Derik, Michael et al.: Thanks for all of your responses. Michael: I take your point. I accept that a REC/ROC is not the same as an offset, and my characterization of RECs was not accurate. However, I'm not sure how I can use this information to answer my question of what is the appropriate emission factor to use for Scope 2 emissions from renewable electricity purchases where the supplier receives additional financial benefits (apparently in some cases higher than the value of the electricity) from the ROC. Can I assume, based on your response, that you would suggest something along the lines of what DEFRA has proposed (per the email from Andrea Smith) that some demonstration of additionality by the renewable supplier would be required? Is anyone on this list aware of what approaches UK based renewable suppliers are currently taking in this area? (e.g., what documentation they are supplying to support zero emission factors, etc.) ... Duncan ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Derik Broekhoff Sent: July 10, 2008 3:44 PM To: Michael Gillenwater [moderator]; Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Questions of environmental attributes and emissions accounting aside, it sounds like the real issue is double-selling the green power. Selling a renewable-sourced MWh to retail customers under a green power contract, while also selling off a ROC associated with the same MWh, is a bit dodgy (as folks in the UK might say) - essentially no different from selling multiple ROCs for the same MWh. This sounds like an issue for whichever government agency in charge of regulating false marketing claims, rather than a GHG accounting issue. Strictly speaking, the ROCs should be sold or retired in conjunction with the green power contract - otherwise you potentially have more than one party claiming to have purchased renewable power for the same MWh. The fact that the emissions accounting is confusing simply points to the underlying problem. Derik Broekhoff Senior Associate World Resources Institute Climate and Energy Program 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 729-7628 dbroekhoff at wri.org ________________________________ From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gillenwater [moderator] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:41 PM To: Duncan Noble; discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity Duncan and Network Participants, Great question. I'm taking off my moderator hat again, and just posting as a Network participant myself. I would also be interested to hear others perspectives on ROCs. I have always treated them essentially the same as RECs here in the United States. I do have to take an exception to Duncan's characterization of RECs. Despite the oft repeated statements of REC marketers, they do not represent the environmental benefits of renewable energy in any practical sense. Most or all of the environmental benefits of renewable energy are indirect to the act of producing renewable energy. A simple way to explain it is that RECs are denoted in mega-watt hours (MWh). Last time I checked, this was not the commonly accepted units for trading in environmental benefits (what ever that means). More seriously, we have to be very careful about how we define and think about environmental commodities, what we say they represent, and what claims we make when we purchase and retire them. Just saying something something represents something does not make it so. Markets do not operate well when based on ambiguously defined commodities and unsubstantiated marketing claims. I won't go on futher, but instead refer you to a couple papers I wrote on this subject. I have circulated them before to the Network, but they seem particularly applicable to this question. If you would like a copy of the published versions just email me. Or you can freely access the prepublication versions at: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgillenw/discussionpapers.htm Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2109-2119. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Should consumers buy RECs or emission offsets? After examining this question, the author concludes that RECs are not equivalent to emission offset credits, and as currently defined, the retiring of a REC may have no impact on emissions from electric power generation. Consumers who purchase RECs in voluntary green power markets are providing financial assistance to renewable generators in the form of a production subsidy. Generators that sell RECs are not transferring emission reductions, since they are unlikely to have ownership or the ability to quantify reductions using a commonly accepted standard. More importantly, RECs currently sold in voluntary markets do not pass credible additionality tests and can, at best, be expected to have a market demand effect, which will be less than the supply of RECs on the market. REC definitions that use the term "environmental attributes" or "environmental benefits" are almost universally ambiguous, providing the mistaken impression that consumers are purchasing a good instead of subsidizing a public good. Gillenwater, M., Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets , Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs). How should emission-trading schemes treat RECs? How can emission mitigation policies provide real incentives for renewable generation? The objective of REC markets should be to promote additional renewable energy investments. The author asserts that defining RECs in terms of attributes, especially off-site attributes, does not further this goal. Ambiguous language such as "environmental attribute" or "environmental benefit" creates confusion in the marketplace while failing to address the relevant coordination issues with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance markets, voluntary emission offset markets, or emission cap-and-trade markets. Specifically, defining RECs in terms of off-site attributes creates a number of problems, including that once an emissions cap-and-trade scheme is in place, such definitions of a REC can become indefensible. The author proposes to redefine RECs in terms of on-site attributes, which resolves the aforementioned problems and allows compliance and voluntary renewable energy and emission markets to function without conflicts. Ideally, environmental commodities should be homogeneous, first best measures of the relevant environmental good, as well as easily measured and verified. The author proposes tradable environmental commodities that achieve these characteristics. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* michael.gillenwater at ghginstitute.org gillenwater at ghgnetwork.org ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Duncan Noble To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 5:18:51 PM Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for UK Renewable Electricity I have a question about Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the UK. What is the appropriate GHG emission factor to use when you purchase renewable electricity from a supplier who also receives a separate financial benefit from "selling" the ROC? In North America, RECs represent the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity generation. Hence if you want to claim that you are using renewable electricity with a zero GHG emission factor, your options would include: self generating renewable electricity, purchasing green power, or purchasing RECs. A supplier can not sell both green power to customer A and then the RECs to customer B, as that would be double counting the environmental benefit. If the RECs are disaggregated from the electricity, there is no green power to sell. The situation with ROCs in the UK appears to be similar, but not quite the same. Can someone from the UK offer some guidance on how ROCs affect GHG emission factors? Cheers ... Duncan Duncan Noble Five Winds International - Value without Burden - www.fivewinds.com NEW Tel. for July: +1.867.979.5576 Five Winds is a Carbon Neutral Company and follows a Sustainable Purchasing Policy ************************************************************** The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and its attachments. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this transmission is prohibited. Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be vouched for following transmission on the Internet. ************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080714/ea2e307f/attachment.html From Melissa.Jackson at hydro.com.au Tue Jul 15 01:35:40 2008 From: Melissa.Jackson at hydro.com.au (Melissa Jackson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:35:40 +1000 Subject: [GHG Network] Bacteria absorbing CO2 Message-ID: <37ECFA4EB48DD840AE137AB433AB7E5FE9CC13@swhexprod2.hydrotasmania.com.au> Dear All, Is anyone aware of any work to develop bacteria which would absorb/fix CO2 ? The starting point for the query was the ability of marine bacteria to absorb CO2. And am interested on whether this is being looked at to be cultured in lab prototypes or even with a view to industrial scale production. Any guidance or references would be appreciated. Kind regards, Melissa Jackson Industry Policy Analyst Hydro Tasmania 4 Elizabeth St HOBART TAS 7000 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 (0)3 6230 5709 Email: melissa.jackson at hydro.com.au Web: www.hydrotasmania.com.au P Please consider the environment before printing my email This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and are intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Hydro Tasmania immediately via > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080715/f96a1776/attachment.html From steveb at foresthealth.org Wed Jul 16 12:05:00 2008 From: steveb at foresthealth.org (Steven Brink) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Sintering Silicone Carbide Message-ID: <20080716160500.98329C18005@milkyway.forumone.com> I'm interested if anyone knows and has a source for the energy consumption of sintering silicone carbide. Silicone carbide is used in diesel particulate filters (about 20 kg of sintered silicone carbide per filter). From arran at carbonfreeme.com.au Tue Jul 15 19:47:14 2008 From: arran at carbonfreeme.com.au (Arran Haydon-Clark) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:47:14 +1000 Subject: [GHG Network] Bacteria absorbing CO2 In-Reply-To: <37ECFA4EB48DD840AE137AB433AB7E5FE9CC13@swhexprod2.hydrotasmania.com.au> References: <37ECFA4EB48DD840AE137AB433AB7E5FE9CC13@swhexprod2.hydrotasmania.com.au> Message-ID: <000601c8e6d5$1f760570$5e621050$@com.au> Hi Melissa; While I expect there are multiple agencies working on the same angle, the one I am most familiar with is Craig Venter in the US. Here are some links to articles discussing his activities. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/engineering_bacteria_hydrocarbons.ph p http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/craig-venter-interview.php http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/craig-venter-fuel-co2-ted-conference .php His approach is more concerned with creating fuels via bacterial action, while this Canadian concern is more directly targeting sequestration of CO2 via bacterial mechanisms. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/canadian_compan.php Cheers, Arran From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Melissa Jackson Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2008 3:36 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Bacteria absorbing CO2 Dear All, Is anyone aware of any work to develop bacteria which would absorb/fix CO2 ? The starting point for the query was the ability of marine bacteria to absorb CO2. And am interested on whether this is being looked at to be cultured in lab prototypes or even with a view to industrial scale production. Any guidance or references would be appreciated. Kind regards, Melissa Jackson Industry Policy Analyst Hydro Tasmania 4 Elizabeth St HOBART TAS 7000 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 (0)3 6230 5709 Email: melissa.jackson at hydro.com.au Web: www.hydrotasmania.com.au P Please consider the environment before printing my email This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and are intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Hydro Tasmania immediately via < mailto:webmaster at hydro.com.au> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080716/d396664a/attachment.html From Greg.Monty at us.ul.com Wed Jul 16 13:38:04 2008 From: Greg.Monty at us.ul.com (Greg.Monty at us.ul.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:38:04 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Bacteria absorbing CO2 In-Reply-To: <37ECFA4EB48DD840AE137AB433AB7E5FE9CC13@swhexprod2.hydrotasmania.com.au> Message-ID: I found a related article in another 'green' eNews distribuition I read. don't know if this is what you are looking for, but they are planning to use bacteria to eat up the CO2, and then use the biomass produced to make fuel (ethanol or biodiesel).....maybe you could track them down??? Sequesco to turn Waste CO2 into Biofuel using Bacteria (New Prod. & Tech) Sequesco has joined a growing list of startups that are using biology to produce biofuels, but the company name suggests the difference; Sequesco will be using waste carbon dioxide as its primary feedstock. The idea is to cull CO2 from large emitters, including fossil-fuel plants, to create a nutrient broth that would encourage large colonies of bacteria to flourish. In the process, the bacteria produce ethanol or biodiesel, as well as protein-rich byproducts that could be use as fertilizer or animal feed, among other things. And because bacteria don't need sunlight to grow, the process can occur around-the-clock. One of the technology's main benefits, CEO Lisa Dyson says, is that it makes biofuel production a two-step process: CO2 to biomass and then to ethanol or biodiesel. This cuts costs and accelerates the process, and that could be speed the transition from start-up to commercial production, when the time comes. Although the company was only created this year, they hope to have a demonstration plant in operation by 2010. Sequesco is currently looking for seed money, and is already in talks with several private investors. (Source: Venture Beat, July 7, 2008). Contact: Sequesco, information at sequesco.com, www.sequesco.com. Greg Monty, Ph.D. Underwriter's Laboratories Director of Technology, RSCS 847-664-1420 phone 847-274-7017 cell greg.monty at us.ul.com "Melissa Jackson" Sent by: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org 07/15/2008 09:13 AM To cc Subject [GHG Network] Bacteria absorbing CO2 Dear All, Is anyone aware of any work to develop bacteria which would absorb/fix CO2 ? The starting point for the query was the ability of marine bacteria to absorb CO2. And am interested on whether this is being looked at to be cultured in lab prototypes or even with a view to industrial scale production. Any guidance or references would be appreciated. Kind regards, Melissa Jackson Industry Policy Analyst Hydro Tasmania 4 Elizabeth St HOBART TAS 7000 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 (0)3 6230 5709 Email: melissa.jackson at hydro.com.au Web: www.hydrotasmania.com.au P Please consider the environment before printing my email This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and are intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Hydro Tasmania immediately via < mailto:webmaster at hydro.com.au> _______________________________________________ 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 - For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. -- ********* Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ********** This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. UL and its affiliates do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments. ***************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080716/c6346642/attachment-0001.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Jul 16 18:52:47 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Message-ID: <20080716225247.E741DC1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> I am doing some research that involves GHGs due to propane production and use. I have been trying to find information on the possible radiative forcing of propane emissions, not unlike the radiative forcing of CH4, but so far I have not found any information. I know that propane is not one of the six IPCC families of gases and its oxidation simply yields CO2. But the IPCC being silent on it does not answer the question. A couple of questions: (1) has there been any research on establishing a GWP for propane?; (2) since propane is widely used (at least in the USA), fugitive emissions would seem to be a logical concern and, in turn, what happens to these emissions in the atmosphere? Any leads or insights would be appreciated. Regards, Dennis From heede at climatemitigation.com Wed Jul 16 14:59:54 2008 From: heede at climatemitigation.com (Rick Heede) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:59:54 -0600 Subject: [GHG Network] Regulated emissions vs fuel and CO2 Message-ID: Colleagues: Projects seeking state approval typically have to submit an Environmental Impact Report, which, if relevant, must estimate daily and annual emissions of regulated pollutants such as NOx, CO, and particulates. Even in cases where GHG emissions are a concern, the emission estimates often exclude estimates from trucking, construction, and commuting. However, emissions of regulated pollutants from fuel used in trucks and construction equipment does have to be reported. Of course, engines and fuel types have variable emission factors. The question is: are there any acceptable factors to estimate fuel consumption from NOx and/or CO estimates? That is, assuming dump trucks, for example, for each tonne of NOx (or CO, or PM-10), what is a reasonable estimate of fuel combusted or CO2 emitted? Ditto for engines in cranes and hoists and other construction equipment, and ditto for light vehicles. I can probably calculate this from NOx and CO emission rates by vehicle and fuel types, but I would rather access the noosphere and experience in the collected wisdom of GGIEN colleagues. I appreciate any guidance on methodology or leads to reports or experts. Many thanks, -Rick-= ****************@******************* Richard Heede Climate Mitigation Services www.climatemitigation.com 1626 Gateway Road Snowmass, CO 81654-9214 USA 1-970-927-9511 office 1-970-343-0707 mobile < < < From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Wed Jul 16 19:57:44 2008 From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:57:44 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs In-Reply-To: <20080716225247.E741DC1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080716225247.E741DC1806B@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Dennis, Offhand, I don't know of any estimates of the radiative forcing of propane, but they might be out there. I suspect that the so-called "indirect" effects of propane -- which should be analogous to the indirect effects of CH4 -- will be larger than any direct radiative forcing effects. In my lifecycle emissions model I estimate some of the indirect climate effects of propane emissions: the effect on O3, the effect on CH4, and the effect on SO4. The effect on O3 is estimated on the basis of the ozone-forming potential of propane. I also include, of course, the effect of the final oxidation to CO2. All of my estimates are very simple. Best, Mark Delucchi Research Scientist Institute of Transportation Studies University of California Davis, CA 95616 www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi madelucchi at ucdavis.edu On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: > > I am doing some research that involves GHGs due to propane > production and use. I have been trying to find information on the > possible radiative forcing of propane emissions, not unlike the > radiative forcing of CH4, but so far I have not found any > information. I know that propane is not one of the six IPCC > families of gases and its oxidation simply yields CO2. But the > IPCC being silent on it does not answer the question. > > A couple of questions: (1) has there been any research on > establishing a GWP for propane?; (2) since propane is widely used > (at least in the USA), fugitive emissions would seem to be a > logical concern and, in turn, what happens to these emissions in > the atmosphere? Any leads or insights would be appreciated. > Regards, > Dennis > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080716/a369c9be/attachment.html From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Jul 16 22:16:00 2008 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Message-ID: <117494.8105.qm@web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dennis, I would have to dust off my old atmospheric chemistry textbooks, but I would guess that the atmospheric lifetime of propane is pretty short relative to long-lived GHGs, such as those covered under the Kyoto Protocol. Typically for GWPs we focus on the direct radiative forcing effect, which is of the propane molecule itself. I think it is safe to assume that propane has a short atmospheric life-time, as I do not hear anyone talking about propane accumulating in the atmophere. I checked at old reference, and even in dirty LA air, the mixing ratio of propane is only about 18 ppb. Even if propane had a powerful instantaneous radiative forcing effect (with is probably doesn't), it is not around long enough to do much. Now, propane could have some indirect radiative forcing effects, such as its impact on ozone formation, as a sink for OH (which would cause methane to say around longer), and by oxidation to CO2, as noted by Mark below. However, the GWPs we use for GHG accounting under most conventions, almost exclusively rely on direct GWP values. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark A. Delucchi To: Dennis O'Regan Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:57:44 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Dennis, Offhand, I don't know of any estimates of the radiative forcing of propane, but they might be out there. I suspect that the so-called "indirect" effects of propane -- which should be analogous to the indirect effects of CH4 -- will be larger than any direct radiative forcing effects. In my lifecycle emissions model I estimate some of the indirect climate effects of propane emissions: the effect on O3, the effect on CH4, and the effect on SO4. The effect on O3 is estimated on the basis of the ozone-forming potential of propane. I also include, of course, the effect of the final oxidation to CO2. All of my estimates are very simple. Best, Mark Delucchi Research Scientist Institute of Transportation Studies University of California Davis, CA 95616 www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi madelucchi at ucdavis.edu On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: I am doing some research that involves GHGs due to propane production and use. I have been trying to find information on the possible radiative forcing of propane emissions, not unlike the radiative forcing of CH4, but so far I have not found any information. I know that propane is not one of the six IPCC families of gases and its oxidation simply yields CO2. But the IPCC being silent on it does not answer the question. A couple of questions: (1) has there been any research on establishing a GWP for propane?; (2) since propane is widely used (at least in the USA), fugitive emissions would seem to be a logical concern and, in turn, what happens to these emissions in the atmosphere? Any leads or insights would be appreciated. Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ 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/20080716/317c3a2c/attachment.html From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 17 00:45:35 2008 From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:45:35 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs In-Reply-To: <117494.8105.qm@web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <117494.8105.qm@web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7E18F670-A86F-4A11-A2D6-E7C1B0D59043@ucdavis.edu> Hi Michael, A few follow-on comments: 1) Propane does have a relatively short lifetime, but that by itself doesn't necessarily mean that it can't have a significant radiative forcing effect. Aerosols have a short lifetime, and several of them -- black carbon in particular -- have a very high overall radiative forcing effect, relative to CO2, even after proper accounting for the lifetime. 2) The GWP for CH4 estimated by the IPCC and (I think) used in most accounting conventions does include several "indirect" effects: on tropospheric ozone, on stratospheric water vapor, and on the lifetime of CH4 itself. 3) In my view, the IPCC GWPs are in any case inadequate representations of what really happens. If you wish to use a CO2 equivalency factor that reflects physical and economic reality better than do the IPCC GWPs, you will have to estimate your own. 4) I have made very simple estimates of the CO2-equivalent climate- change impact of non-methane organic compounds, including propane. These estimates consider only "indirect" effects. Right now I estimate a CO2-equivalency factor of 11 for propane relative to CO2, on a mass basis. This is based partly on assumption that propane is less "reactive" in ozone chemistry than are the typical hydrocarbons from gasoline combustion. My estimate of course is uncertain but probably right within an order of magnitude. Best, Mark D. On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:16 PM, Michael Gillenwater [[moderator]] wrote: > Dennis, > > I would have to dust off my old atmospheric chemistry textbooks, > but I would guess that the atmospheric lifetime of propane is > pretty short relative to long-lived GHGs, such as those covered > under the Kyoto Protocol. Typically for GWPs we focus on the > direct radiative forcing effect, which is of the propane molecule > itself. I think it is safe to assume that propane has a short > atmospheric life-time, as I do not hear anyone talking about > propane accumulating in the atmophere. I checked at old reference, > and even in dirty LA air, the mixing ratio of propane is only about > 18 ppb. > > Even if propane had a powerful instantaneous radiative forcing > effect (with is probably doesn't), it is not around long enough to > do much. > > Now, propane could have some indirect radiative forcing effects, > such as its impact on ozone formation, as a sink for OH (which > would cause methane to say around longer), and by oxidation to CO2, > as noted by Mark below. However, the GWPs we use for GHG > accounting under most conventions, almost exclusively rely on > direct GWP values. > > michael > > > Michael Gillenwater > Princeton University > Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program > > GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* > GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* > * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated > with Princeton University. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mark A. Delucchi > To: Dennis O'Regan > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:57:44 PM > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs > > Dennis, > > Offhand, I don't know of any estimates of the radiative forcing of > propane, but they might be out there. I suspect that the so-called > "indirect" effects of propane -- which should be analogous to the > indirect effects of CH4 -- will be larger than any direct radiative > forcing effects. > > In my lifecycle emissions model I estimate some of the indirect > climate effects of propane emissions: the effect on O3, the effect > on CH4, and the effect on SO4. The effect on O3 is estimated on the > basis of the ozone-forming potential of propane. I also include, of > course, the effect of the final oxidation to CO2. All of my > estimates are very simple. > > Best, > > Mark Delucchi > Research Scientist > Institute of Transportation Studies > University of California > Davis, CA 95616 > > www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi > madelucchi at ucdavis.edu > > > > > On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: > >> >> I am doing some research that involves GHGs due to propane >> production and use. I have been trying to find information on the >> possible radiative forcing of propane emissions, not unlike the >> radiative forcing of CH4, but so far I have not found any >> information. I know that propane is not one of the six IPCC >> families of gases and its oxidation simply yields CO2. But the >> IPCC being silent on it does not answer the question. >> >> A couple of questions: (1) has there been any research on >> establishing a GWP for propane?; (2) since propane is widely used >> (at least in the USA), fugitive emissions would seem to be a >> logical concern and, in turn, what happens to these emissions in >> the atmosphere? Any leads or insights would be appreciated. >> Regards, >> Dennis >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20080716/7f89e88a/attachment.html From othmar.schwank at infras.ch Thu Jul 17 01:24:33 2008 From: othmar.schwank at infras.ch (othmar.schwank at infras.ch) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:24:33 +0200 Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs In-Reply-To: <117494.8105.qm@web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <117494.8105.qm@web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6F49D949D6F62945BABEBD14950D54BC012A507D@MAIL-ZH.infras.ch> Dear Dennis, I think you will find your anwswer in a IPCC-TEAP report on HCFCs (2004?) where I remember a list with GWPs of all refrigerants was included. The CDM Executive Board has in additon mandated the Meth Panel to investigate on upstream impacts Climate of Propane use related to NM0247. Best regards Othmar ________________________________ Othmar Schwank Managing Director/Member of the Executive Board INFRAS Consulting, Analysis & Research Binzstrasse 23, Postfach CH-8045 Zurich, Switzerland ________________________________ Tel +41 44 205 95 20 Fax +41 44 205 95 99 Mobile +41 79 620 00 59 othmar.schwank at infras.ch http://www.infras.ch ________________________________ Von: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] Im Auftrag von Michael Gillenwater [moderator] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2008 04:16 An: Mark A. Delucchi; Dennis O'Regan Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Betreff: Re: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Dennis, I would have to dust off my old atmospheric chemistry textbooks, but I would guess that the atmospheric lifetime of propane is pretty short relative to long-lived GHGs, such as those covered under the Kyoto Protocol. Typically for GWPs we focus on the direct radiative forcing effect, which is of the propane molecule itself. I think it is safe to assume that propane has a short atmospheric life-time, as I do not hear anyone talking about propane accumulating in the atmophere. I checked at old reference, and even in dirty LA air, the mixing ratio of propane is only about 18 ppb. Even if propane had a powerful instantaneous radiative forcing effect (with is probably doesn't), it is not around long enough to do much. Now, propane could have some indirect radiative forcing effects, such as its impact on ozone formation, as a sink for OH (which would cause methane to say around longer), and by oxidation to CO2, as noted by Mark below. However, the GWPs we use for GHG accounting under most conventions, almost exclusively rely on direct GWP values. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater Princeton University Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)* GHG Experts Network (Executive Director)* ________________________________ * Organizations are independent non-profits and are not associated with Princeton University. ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark A. Delucchi To: Dennis O'Regan Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:57:44 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Dennis, Offhand, I don't know of any estimates of the radiative forcing of propane, but they might be out there. I suspect that the so-called "indirect" effects of propane -- which should be analogous to the indirect effects of CH4 -- will be larger than any direct radiative forcing effects. In my lifecycle emissions model I estimate some of the indirect climate effects of propane emissions: the effect on O3, the effect on CH4, and the effect on SO4. The effect on O3 is estimated on the basis of the ozone-forming potential of propane. I also include, of course, the effect of the final oxidation to CO2. All of my estimates are very simple. Best, Mark Delucchi Research Scientist Institute of Transportation Studies University of California Davis, CA 95616 www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi madelucchi at ucdavis.edu On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: I am doing some research that involves GHGs due to propane production and use. I have been trying to find information on the possible radiative forcing of propane emissions, not unlike the radiative forcing of CH4, but so far I have not found any information. I know that propane is not one of the six IPCC families of gases and its oxidation simply yields CO2. But the IPCC being silent on it does not answer the question. A couple of questions: (1) has there been any research on establishing a GWP for propane?; (2) since propane is widely used (at least in the USA), fugitive emissions would seem to be a logical concern and, in turn, what happens to these emissions in the atmosphere? Any leads or insights would be appreciated. Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ 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/20080717/37adf269/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Thu Jul 17 10:11:36 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs Message-ID: <20080717141136.78444C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> Thank you to those who have responded with information and insights on a GWP for propane. I was able to determine that an appropriate GWP for propane is "about 20." This figure comes from the secondary sources listed below. My search for this information has been qiute informative: propane (R-290; HC-290) is a good substitute for HCFC-22, except for its flammability. There are a number of CDM projects based on this concept. Here are two links that reference the GWP for propane: http://www.icarma.org/green/documents/GreenReportFinal-030404.pdf http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/RTOC2002.pdf Regards, Dennis From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 17 14:21:17 2008 From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:21:17 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Propane and GWPs In-Reply-To: <20080717141136.78444C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20080717141136.78444C18008@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Thanks Dennis -- but... The first reference refers to the second. The second refers to the third IPCC assessment report (TAR). I could not find a value for propane in the TAR, although that does not mean it is not in there. However, the most recent report, the 4th assessment report, does have estimates of two of the indirect effects of propane, on CH4 and O3; you can find them on page 215 of volume 1. I believe their estimates are more consistent with mine than would appear at first glance (I used some of the same studies to make my estimates). At this point, it would be interesting to see if someone could track down the source of the ~20 estimate. Best, Mark D. On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Dennis O'Regan wrote: > > Thank you to those who have responded with information and insights > on a GWP for propane. > > I was able to determine that an appropriate GWP for propane is > "about 20." This figure comes from the secondary sources listed > below. > > My search for this information has been qiute informative: propane > (R-290; HC-290) is a good substitute for HCFC-22, except for its > flammability. There are a number of CDM projects based on this > concept. > > Here are two links that reference the GWP for propane: http:// > www.icarma.org/green/documents/GreenReportFinal-030404.pdf > http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/RTOC2002.pdf > > Regards, > Dennis > _______________________________________________ > 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 dzmitry.halubouski at undp.org Tue Jul 22 02:16:08 2008 From: dzmitry.halubouski at undp.org (Dzmitry Halubouski) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:16:08 +0300 Subject: [GHG Network] consultancy for GHG monitoring in natural gas compressor stations Message-ID: <002b01c8ebc2$86047140$920d53c0$%halubouski@undp.org> Dear colleagues, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is currently developing a CDM project on reducing leakage of natural gas from compressor stations in Uzbekistan. As part of the preparatory process and project startup, an advanced leak detection and monitoring system needs to be put in place and piloted at one compressor station, for subsequent replication across other compressor stations in Uzbekistan. We are therefore looking for a qualified company that could provide consultancy services in design and rollout of a comprehensive system for detection and monitoring of gas leakages at compressor stations in Uzbekistan. Please refer to the attached terms of reference for further details on the assignment. The relevant procurement notice with all the information has been published at http://www.ungm.org/Pages/ProcurementNotice/ProcurementNotice.aspx?noticeID= 2222 and at http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/tenders/. We would very much appreciate if the notification be forwarded to eligible companies interested in the assignment. Best regards. Dmitry Goloubovsky UNDP Regional Carbon Finance Specialist for Central Asia a.i. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080722/3c341259/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CAll_TOR-1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1406464 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080722/3c341259/attachment-0001.doc From greg.monty at us.ul.com Thu Jul 24 12:11:20 2008 From: greg.monty at us.ul.com (Greg Monty) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:11:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw Message-ID: <20080724161120.77D04C180D6@milkyway.forumone.com> I just read that a company will produce electricity by burning straw. The claim is: "straw will be burned to power a steam turbine that generates electricity. The process is almost carbon-neutral because the amount of CO2 generated will equal the CO2 absorbed by the straw when it was growing." Is this really true? An extension of this argument would be that we should cut down the forests and burn the wood...afterall, it will be carbon neutral as the amount of CO2 generate will equal the CO2 absorbed by the trees when they were growing! I guess this argument only would be true for trees when the forest has been fully replanted and the trees have grown to the same exact size (probably 30-60 years in the future). For straw, it may be an easier argument since the growing cycled is less than one year.....as long as they continue to plant more straw year after year.? From ralberto at gelnex.com.br Thu Jul 24 12:54:26 2008 From: ralberto at gelnex.com.br (Rodrigo Alberto - Gelnex) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:54:26 -0300 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw References: <20080724161120.77D04C180D6@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <001401c8edad$eed12c30$ce00a8c0@alberto> Dear Greg Biomass burn is considered part of carbon natural cycle. In fact, all CO2 you generate burning tress was really absorved from atmosphere before, but CH4 and N2O emmissions must be counted, because they wouldn't be emmited in case the biomass were not burned. In Brazil we have many Eucalyptus plantations, which takes 5 years to grow, planted for steam generation. Regards Rodrigo Alberto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Monty" To: Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:11 PM Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw >I just read that a company will produce electricity by burning straw. The >claim is: "straw will be burned to power a steam turbine that generates >electricity. The process is almost carbon-neutral because the amount of CO2 >generated will equal the CO2 absorbed by the straw when it was growing." > > Is this really true? An extension of this argument would be that we > should cut down the forests and burn the wood...afterall, it will be > carbon neutral as the amount of CO2 generate will equal the CO2 absorbed > by the trees when they were growing! I guess this argument only would be > true for trees when the forest has been fully replanted and the trees have > grown to the same exact size (probably 30-60 years in the future). For > straw, it may be an easier argument since the growing cycled is less than > one year.....as long as they continue to plant more straw year after > year.? > _______________________________________________ > 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 doregan at libertyenviro.com Thu Jul 24 13:56:05 2008 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw Message-ID: <20080724175605.06A0FC1805B@milkyway.forumone.com> Yes, it is "true" that "the process is almost carbon-neutral because the amount of CO2 generated will equal the CO2 absorbed by the straw when it was growing." Almost is the operative term: there are additional emissions that are anthropogenic due to growing the straw, construction of the power plant, transport of the fuel, lubrication of the turbine generator and pumps, etc. It is hard to imagine any source of energy, especially electricity, that does not have some amount of anthropogenic CO2-e emissions. The way the quote is worded creates an arithmetic problem: the emissions from burning the straw are only offset AFTER the straw grows back. The carbon stock needs to be replaced for the statement to become close to being truthful. CO2-e life cycle assessment seems to be gaining more interest as entrepreneurs come up with more schemes to take advantage climatic change. My sense is the next area of serious interest will be the claims of carbon neutrality of biofuels. If it is not being done sustainably, it surely isn't neutral. There are some woody biomass crops that have the potential to sequester more C than would be liberated upon burning. Plants such as Salix can be copiced periodically and their roots continue to grow, thereby adding C mass to the soil. So in such cases one may actually achieve a true, 100% offset. Regards, Dennis From rsobin at deq.virginia.gov Thu Jul 24 13:13:53 2008 From: rsobin at deq.virginia.gov (Sobin,Rodney) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:13:53 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw Message-ID: <6C097DA58429B743A67070F98BE73A3702FE8FF9@deqex01.deq.local> Greg- It should be roughly true if what is burned is replaced by what is grown. A full accounting (on which others on the list are more expert) would also account for GHG emissions (and other impacts) associated with processing and transportation. The nice thing about straw and hay is that they require little energy and chemical input compared with crops. They don't need replanting and roots remain intact, protecting the soil. And they usually need little or no fertilizer or pesticide. The downside is that the energy density is modest. So costs, fuel usage, and emissions associated with transportation are significant. This limits the distance at which straw or hay as fuel is cost-effective or GHG beneficial. Regarding trees for biomass energy, my understanding is that efforts on dedicated energy crop trees focus on quick growing coppicing (grows back after being cut down) trees like willow and poplar (I'm sure there are other species being investigated). They can be harvested after several years rather than several decades. Rodney Sobin Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Postal: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218-1105 Street: 629 E. Main St., Richmond, VA 23219-2429 Tel. 804-698-4382 fax 804-698-4264 rsobin at deq.virginia.gov ________________________________________________________ DEQ Innovative Technology http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech DEQ Distributed Energy Resources http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech/der1.html Meeting the Climate Change Challenge September 17-19, 2008, Richmond, Virginia www.vsbn.org/coves2008 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Greg Monty Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:11 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw I just read that a company will produce electricity by burning straw. The claim is: "straw will be burned to power a steam turbine that generates electricity. The process is almost carbon-neutral because the amount of CO2 generated will equal the CO2 absorbed by the straw when it was growing." Is this really true? An extension of this argument would be that we should cut down the forests and burn the wood...afterall, it will be carbon neutral as the amount of CO2 generate will equal the CO2 absorbed by the trees when they were growing! I guess this argument only would be true for trees when the forest has been fully replanted and the trees have grown to the same exact size (probably 30-60 years in the future). For straw, it may be an easier argument since the growing cycled is less than one year.....as long as they continue to plant more straw year after year.? _______________________________________________ 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/20080724/2e41f47a/attachment.html From oecos at earthlink.net Thu Jul 24 21:32:13 2008 From: oecos at earthlink.net (Jeffrey Creque) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:32:13 -0700 Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw Message-ID: <380-22008752513213484@earthlink.net> Also key here is how the straw is being grown; If producing and removing straw from the system in order to burn it results in a loss of soil carbon, the process is not sustainable and will not be carbon neutral. Jeff Creque Marin Carbon Project ----- Original Message ----- From: Sobin,Rodney To: Greg Monty;discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: 7/24/2008 5:30:48 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw Greg? It should be roughly true if what is burned is replaced by what is grown. A full accounting (on which others on the list are more expert) would also account for GHG emissions (and other impacts) associated with processing and transportation. The nice thing about straw and hay is that they require little energy and chemical input compared with crops. They don?t need replanting and roots remain intact, protecting the soil. And they usually need little or no fertilizer or pesticide. The downside is that the energy density is modest. So costs, fuel usage, and emissions associated with transportation are significant. This limits the distance at which straw or hay as fuel is cost-effective or GHG beneficial. Regarding trees for biomass energy, my understanding is that efforts on dedicated energy crop trees focus on quick growing coppicing (grows back after being cut down) trees like willow and poplar (I?m sure there are other species being investigated). They can be harvested after several years rather than several decades. Rodney Sobin Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Postal: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218-1105 Street: 629 E. Main St., Richmond, VA 23219-2429 Tel. 804-698-4382 fax 804-698-4264 rsobin at deq.virginia.gov ________________________________________________________ DEQ Innovative Technology http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech DEQ Distributed Energy Resources http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech/der1.html Meeting the Climate Change Challenge September 17-19, 2008, Richmond, Virginia www.vsbn.org/coves2008 -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Greg Monty Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:11 PM To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Neutrality from burning Straw I just read that a company will produce electricity by burning straw. The claim is: "straw will be burned to power a steam turbine that generates electricity. The process is almost carbon-neutral because the amount of CO2 generated will equal the CO2 absorbed