From miriarte at adeptgroup.net Mon Feb 2 20:13:22 2009
From: miriarte at adeptgroup.net (Michael Iriarte)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
Message-ID: <0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
Hello, Peter:
Thank you for the reply. From reading the US magazines that cater to the LP
Gas distribution industry in the US I learned that there's significant
growth in LP Gas use in automotive applications in Australia. No doubt that
will help reduce air pollution in the cities where it will replace diesel or
gasoline powered vehicles.
What will it take for propane and propylene to be given a GWP?
I've been told that relatively speaking, the amounts of CO2-e that can be
eliminated from implementing a few simple cost-effective changes in
refueling LP Gas tanks and cylinders is not that significant vs. the CO2-e
that could be saved from shutting down a coal fired mega power plant. It's
difficult to be satisfied with such an answer knowing that the elimination
of wasted LP Gas while refueling is a much more of a low hanging fruit than
closing down a power plant. Further, it does not seem appropriate to compare
a measure that is a win-win on all facets (nobody gets hurt and most
everyone is better off from restricting or eliminating outage gauge
emissions while refueling) vs. the close-down of a power plant where needed
electricity is no longer generated and where the plant close down also
brings about a loss of jobs.
Your thoughts and/or suggestions on this matter are appreciated.
All the best,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Haenke, Peter [mailto:Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Michael Iriarte; DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Michael
My understanding is that LPG is acknowledged as a GHG but is not reported in
GHG accounts due to the fact that no GWP has been determined for its
constituent gases and hence emissions cannot be expressed in terms of CO2-e.
Regards
Peter Haenke
Carbon Business Development Manager
Energy Risk Management
Australian Operations
Origin Energy
p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198
GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street
Sydney NSW
P 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 Michael Iriarte
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 9:45 AM
To: 'DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Luis,
Thank you for your reply. I presume you work in Spain. I work in the US. The
refueling practices in Spain (or wherever you are) appear to be more
environmentally conscientious than what I have observed here. In the US,
whenever a tank or a cylinder is re-filled the fixed liquid level maximum
level gauge (or outage gauge, or "spitter" valve) is opened; usually before
the pump is turned or (or shortly thereafter) and it stays open until the
operator observes a white cloud coming out of the outage gauge. That white
cloud is made up of liquid LP Gas and frozen water from the air. These
releases are significant. The measured mass flow release rates for gaseous
phase and liquid phase were ~ 3 grams/sec and ~10 grams/sec respectively
when the refilling is conducted with the help of a pump. When a fork lift
cylinder is "gravity" refilled the measured mass flow release rates were ~
2.5 grams/sec and ~ 10 grams/sec.
For instance, depending on which fork lift population report one chooses to
believe, LP Gas losses to ambient from while fork lift cylinders being
refilled in CA are estimated at between 7,200 to 11,000 tons per year (this
is in CA alone.) For the entire US, we're looking at 60,000 to 93,000 tons
per year only to refill fork lift cylinders.
No matter the size of the tank or its use, the outage gauge restriction is
identical (#54 drill size) until we're talking about LP Gas rail cars -
which have larger throughput outage gauges.
Again, based on statistics published by PERC and NPGA, it is estimated that
annual LP Gas losses through outage gauges for all tanks that are filled in
the US are between 450,000 and 700,000 tons/year. The average of these two
limits is 575,000 tons, or 575,000,000 kg, or 1,265,000,000 lbs, or
301,190,047 LP Gas gallons - which at $2.50 per gallon - translates to a
loss to end-users of $752,976,000 each year. In most cases, the end user is
billed for this wasted propane - yet he does not get to use it.
LP Gas can and does contain varying amounts of propylene, depending on the
standard under it is being sold (e.g. commercial grade, HD-5 or automotive
grade (note: "-5" means that the propylene content cannot exceed 5%, etc.) I
recall that one commercial grade allows propylene to be as much as 50% by
volume of the LP gas mix. GSA keeps the specifications for the various
grades of LP Gas. In California, automotive LP gas can have as much as 10%
propylene. It's a good guess that the average content of propylene in LP Gas
sold throughout the US exceeds ~ 5%. If it is conservatively estimated that
there's only 5% propylene in LP Gas that means that ~ 28,750 tons of
propylene is released to ambient each year. This is NOT an insignificant
amount.
What's amazing is that only recently the US and CA regulatory entities
charged to monitor and maintain air quality have partially awaken to this
on-going pollution and waste.
Can somebody please explain to me why propane (C3H8) is not a GHG when CH4
(methane) is considered to be a green house gas?
Regards,
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
-----Original Message-----
From: DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO [mailto:LADELATORREV at repsol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Michael Iriarte
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello Michael
About your comment, LPG comes from oil refining and natural gas liquids,
today mostly is coming more from NG, so that propylene is in less amount, in
the other hand the delivery of LPG has very little leakage, so that I found
very difficult to pint out it as a problem as GHG. My company is in LPG
delivery and our losses due to leakage are extremely or zero, it is
basically a matter of safety.
regards
Luis
________________________________
De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org en nombre de Michael Iriarte Enviado el:
mi? 28/01/2009 16:17
Para: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Asunto: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Colleagues,
Small quantities of Propylene (typically less than 10%) are found in LP Gas.
Still, every day in the US and abroad, thousands of tons of propylene are
vented through the outage gauge of tanks being filled with LP Gas;
contributing to the overall GHG effects. LP Gas is mostly Propane.
Upon reading the Kyoto Protocol, it looks like Propylene is not listed as a
GHG gas. Yet when looking at the Canadian NPRI (National Pollutant Release
Inventory), one finds Propylene listed under case Number 115-07-1 (and
propane under case number 74-98-6).
Could anyone help me understand why Propylene (which is a highly reactive
low level ozone precursor) is not listed as a GHG?
Your comments are much appreciated! Thank you.
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3807 (20090128) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
AVISO LEGAL:
Esta informaci?n es privada y confidencial y est? dirigida ?nicamente a su
destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario original de este mensaje y por
este medio pudo acceder a dicha informaci?n por favor elimine el mensaje. La
distribuci?n o copia de este mensaje est? estrictamente prohibida. Esta
comunicaci?n es s?lo para prop?sitos de informaci?n y no debe ser
considerada como propuesta, aceptaci?n ni como una declaraci?n de voluntad
oficial de REPSOL YPF S.A. y/o subsidiarias y/o afiliadas. La transmisi?n de
e-mails no garantiza que el correo electr?nico sea seguro o libre de error.
Por consiguiente, no manifestamos que esta informaci?n sea completa o
precisa. Toda informaci?n est? sujeta a alterarse sin previo aviso.
This information is private and confidential and intended for the recipient
only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information
purposes only and shall not be regarded neither as a proposal, acceptance
nor as a statement of will or official statement from REPSOL YPF S.A. and/or
subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this
information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as
such. All information is subject to change without notice.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you have received this email in error, please advise the
sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3819 (20090202) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
From lperrin at siaustralia.com Tue Feb 3 01:09:53 2009
From: lperrin at siaustralia.com (Louisa Perrin)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 01:09:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculating
corporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
Message-ID: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hello
I am wanting to calculate the corporate Scope 2 emissions from organisations which exist in the following cities/countries:
Manila, Philippines
Vancouver, Canada
Montreal, Qu??bec, Canada
Lima, Peru
Bangkok, Thailand
Johannesburg, South Africa
Atlanta, GA, USA
Grass Valley, California, USA
Burlington, California, USA
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
San Isidro, Argentina
Chile
Bruma, Johannesburg, South Africa
Mumbai, India
Can anybody direct me to/send me the correct emission factor please.
Louisa
From Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au Mon Feb 2 22:44:41 2009
From: Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au (Haenke, Peter)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:44:41 +1100
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B0E@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
Michael,
I understand your frustration on that response: yes, reducing or eliminating waste should be a win/win if it can be achieved simply and cost-effectively. I'm afraid I have no idea what is involved in determining a GWP for the constituent gases - sounds like a job for the science boffins at IPCC!
In the meantime, I'd be interested in any practical suggestions on minimising these losses.
Regards
Peter
Peter Haenke
Carbon Business Development Manager
Energy Risk Management
Australian Operations
Origin Energy
p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198
GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street Sydney NSW
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Iriarte [mailto:miriarte at adeptgroup.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 12:13 PM
To: Haenke, Peter
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello, Peter:
Thank you for the reply. From reading the US magazines that cater to the LP Gas distribution industry in the US I learned that there's significant growth in LP Gas use in automotive applications in Australia. No doubt that will help reduce air pollution in the cities where it will replace diesel or gasoline powered vehicles.
What will it take for propane and propylene to be given a GWP?
I've been told that relatively speaking, the amounts of CO2-e that can be eliminated from implementing a few simple cost-effective changes in refueling LP Gas tanks and cylinders is not that significant vs. the CO2-e that could be saved from shutting down a coal fired mega power plant. It's difficult to be satisfied with such an answer knowing that the elimination of wasted LP Gas while refueling is a much more of a low hanging fruit than closing down a power plant. Further, it does not seem appropriate to compare a measure that is a win-win on all facets (nobody gets hurt and most everyone is better off from restricting or eliminating outage gauge emissions while refueling) vs. the close-down of a power plant where needed electricity is no longer generated and where the plant close down also brings about a loss of jobs.
Your thoughts and/or suggestions on this matter are appreciated.
All the best,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Haenke, Peter [mailto:Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Michael Iriarte; DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Michael
My understanding is that LPG is acknowledged as a GHG but is not reported in GHG accounts due to the fact that no GWP has been determined for its constituent gases and hence emissions cannot be expressed in terms of CO2-e.
Regards
Peter Haenke
Carbon Business Development Manager
Energy Risk Management
Australian Operations
Origin Energy
p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198
GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street Sydney NSW
P 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 Michael Iriarte
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 9:45 AM
To: 'DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Luis,
Thank you for your reply. I presume you work in Spain. I work in the US. The refueling practices in Spain (or wherever you are) appear to be more environmentally conscientious than what I have observed here. In the US, whenever a tank or a cylinder is re-filled the fixed liquid level maximum level gauge (or outage gauge, or "spitter" valve) is opened; usually before the pump is turned or (or shortly thereafter) and it stays open until the operator observes a white cloud coming out of the outage gauge. That white cloud is made up of liquid LP Gas and frozen water from the air. These releases are significant. The measured mass flow release rates for gaseous phase and liquid phase were ~ 3 grams/sec and ~10 grams/sec respectively when the refilling is conducted with the help of a pump. When a fork lift cylinder is "gravity" refilled the measured mass flow release rates were ~ 2.5 grams/sec and ~ 10 grams/sec.
For instance, depending on which fork lift population report one chooses to believe, LP Gas losses to ambient from while fork lift cylinders being refilled in CA are estimated at between 7,200 to 11,000 tons per year (this is in CA alone.) For the entire US, we're looking at 60,000 to 93,000 tons per year only to refill fork lift cylinders.
No matter the size of the tank or its use, the outage gauge restriction is identical (#54 drill size) until we're talking about LP Gas rail cars - which have larger throughput outage gauges.
Again, based on statistics published by PERC and NPGA, it is estimated that annual LP Gas losses through outage gauges for all tanks that are filled in the US are between 450,000 and 700,000 tons/year. The average of these two limits is 575,000 tons, or 575,000,000 kg, or 1,265,000,000 lbs, or 301,190,047 LP Gas gallons - which at $2.50 per gallon - translates to a loss to end-users of $752,976,000 each year. In most cases, the end user is billed for this wasted propane - yet he does not get to use it.
LP Gas can and does contain varying amounts of propylene, depending on the standard under it is being sold (e.g. commercial grade, HD-5 or automotive grade (note: "-5" means that the propylene content cannot exceed 5%, etc.) I recall that one commercial grade allows propylene to be as much as 50% by volume of the LP gas mix. GSA keeps the specifications for the various grades of LP Gas. In California, automotive LP gas can have as much as 10% propylene. It's a good guess that the average content of propylene in LP Gas sold throughout the US exceeds ~ 5%. If it is conservatively estimated that there's only 5% propylene in LP Gas that means that ~ 28,750 tons of propylene is released to ambient each year. This is NOT an insignificant amount.
What's amazing is that only recently the US and CA regulatory entities charged to monitor and maintain air quality have partially awaken to this on-going pollution and waste.
Can somebody please explain to me why propane (C3H8) is not a GHG when CH4
(methane) is considered to be a green house gas?
Regards,
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
-----Original Message-----
From: DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO [mailto:LADELATORREV at repsol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Michael Iriarte
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello Michael
About your comment, LPG comes from oil refining and natural gas liquids, today mostly is coming more from NG, so that propylene is in less amount, in the other hand the delivery of LPG has very little leakage, so that I found very difficult to pint out it as a problem as GHG. My company is in LPG delivery and our losses due to leakage are extremely or zero, it is basically a matter of safety.
regards
Luis
________________________________
De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org en nombre de Michael Iriarte Enviado el: mi? 28/01/2009 16:17
Para: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Asunto: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Colleagues,
Small quantities of Propylene (typically less than 10%) are found in LP Gas. Still, every day in the US and abroad, thousands of tons of propylene are vented through the outage gauge of tanks being filled with LP Gas; contributing to the overall GHG effects. LP Gas is mostly Propane.
Upon reading the Kyoto Protocol, it looks like Propylene is not listed as a GHG gas. Yet when looking at the Canadian NPRI (National Pollutant Release Inventory), one finds Propylene listed under case Number 115-07-1 (and propane under case number 74-98-6).
Could anyone help me understand why Propylene (which is a highly reactive low level ozone precursor) is not listed as a GHG?
Your comments are much appreciated! Thank you.
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3807 (20090128) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
AVISO LEGAL:
Esta informaci?n es privada y confidencial y est? dirigida ?nicamente a su destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario original de este mensaje y por este medio pudo acceder a dicha informaci?n por favor elimine el mensaje. La distribuci?n o copia de este mensaje est? estrictamente prohibida. Esta comunicaci?n es s?lo para prop?sitos de informaci?n y no debe ser considerada como propuesta, aceptaci?n ni como una declaraci?n de voluntad oficial de REPSOL YPF S.A. y/o subsidiarias y/o afiliadas. La transmisi?n de e-mails no garantiza que el correo electr?nico sea seguro o libre de error. Por consiguiente, no manifestamos que esta informaci?n sea completa o precisa. Toda informaci?n est? sujeta a alterarse sin previo aviso.
This information is private and confidential and intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and shall not be regarded neither as a proposal, acceptance nor as a statement of will or official statement from REPSOL YPF S.A. and/or subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you have received this email in error, please advise the
sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3819 (20090202) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you have received this email in error, please advise the
sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone.
From ralberto at gelnex.com.br Tue Feb 3 07:15:33 2009
From: ralberto at gelnex.com.br (Rodrigo Alberto - Gelnex)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:15:33 -0200
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for
calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
References: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <003101c985f9$1d19f0c0$ce00a8c0@alberto>
Louisa
For eletric energy consumption in Brazil, follow the link:
http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/75293.html#
These emission factors are provided by Brazillian government, and they are used for eletric energy consumption, for corporate reports, wherever your company is in Brazil.
The emission factors are provided monthly.
For CDM projects, there are another emission factors to be considered.
Best Regards
Rodrigo Alberto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louisa Perrin"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:09 AM
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
> Hello
>
> I am wanting to calculate the corporate Scope 2 emissions from organisations which exist in the following cities/countries:
> Manila, Philippines
> Vancouver, Canada
> Montreal, Qu??bec, Canada
> Lima, Peru
> Bangkok, Thailand
> Johannesburg, South Africa
> Atlanta, GA, USA
> Grass Valley, California, USA
> Burlington, California, USA
> Belo Horizonte, Brazil
> San Isidro, Argentina
> Chile
> Bruma, Johannesburg, South Africa
> Mumbai, India
>
> Can anybody direct me to/send me the correct emission factor please.
>
> Louisa
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nenhum v?rus encontrado nessa mensagem recebida.
Verificado por AVG - www.avgbrasil.com.br
Vers?o: 8.0.233 / Banco de dados de v?rus: 270.10.17/1932 - Data de Lan?amento: 02/02/09 07:51:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090203/3feab7f9/attachment.html
From Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca Tue Feb 3 07:36:28 2009
From: Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca (Pierre Boileau)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:36:28 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for
calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
In-Reply-To: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
References: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E05442DAE@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org>
Hello Louisa,
The average emission intensities for the provincial electricity grids in Canada can be obtained from:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006_report/a9_eng.cfm
Regards,
Pierre
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Louisa Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:10 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
Hello
I am wanting to calculate the corporate Scope 2 emissions from organisations which exist in the following cities/countries:
Manila, Philippines
Vancouver, Canada
Montreal, Qu??bec, Canada
Lima, Peru
Bangkok, Thailand
Johannesburg, South Africa
Atlanta, GA, USA
Grass Valley, California, USA
Burlington, California, USA
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
San Isidro, Argentina
Chile
Bruma, Johannesburg, South Africa
Mumbai, India
Can anybody direct me to/send me the correct emission factor please.
Louisa
This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you.
From d.noble at fivewinds.com Tue Feb 3 10:24:42 2009
From: d.noble at fivewinds.com (Duncan Noble)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:24:42 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for
calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
In-Reply-To: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
References: <20090203060953.E43B0C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <01CE0D85287E7A42968FB5C46568C6406A8225@fwserver.fw.local>
US regional grid GHG emissions rates are available from eGRID http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html
You can determine your eGRID subregion using the EPA Power Profiler http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html
Canadian provincial grid GHG emission rates are available from Environment Canada, Annex 9 in
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006_report/tdm-toc_eng.cfm
Outside of North America, national electricity emission rates are available from the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Electricity Purchase Tool (derived from IEA data). Note the usual caveats around using national or other average emission factors.
Cheers ... Duncan
Duncan Noble
Five Winds International
- Value without Burden -
_______________________________________________
www.fivewinds.com
Ottawa, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Louisa Perrin
Sent: February 3, 2009 1:10 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculatingcorporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
Hello
I am wanting to calculate the corporate Scope 2 emissions from organisations which exist in the following cities/countries:
Manila, Philippines
Vancouver, Canada
Montreal, Qu??bec, Canada
Lima, Peru
Bangkok, Thailand
Johannesburg, South Africa
Atlanta, GA, USA
Grass Valley, California, USA
Burlington, California, USA
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
San Isidro, Argentina
Chile
Bruma, Johannesburg, South Africa
Mumbai, India
Can anybody direct me to/send me the correct emission factor please.
Louisa
From miriarte at adeptgroup.net Tue Feb 3 14:43:45 2009
From: miriarte at adeptgroup.net (Michael Iriarte)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:43:45 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
Message-ID: <0KEI00GRA9HCS101@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net>
Hello, Peter:
Thank you for understanding my frustration. Who are the leading scientists
at IPCC?
Our firm has a sister company based in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This firm
conducts R&D and designs and sells acoustic instruments. Under a grant from
the California Air Resources Board, it recently designed a system to detect
when the liquid level in a pressurized tank (e.g. LP Gas or Anhydrous
Ammonia) reaches a predetermined level (80%, 85%, 87.5%, etc.) from outside
the tank. This instrument is called the Stop Fill Instrument (SFI). The SFI
is non-invasive and non-intrusive. When using this instrument, LP Gas
bobtail drivers do not have to open and keep open the outage gauge on the
tanks they are refilling. It is undergoing trials now in the hands of LP Gas
bobtail drivers in California and New Mexico.
The same company also designed a system to recover and meter the recovered
LP Gas while refueling fork lift cylinders (or any other tank).
Meanwhile, over the last two years, our firm conducted two studies in
cooperation with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to
measure the mass flow rate through outage gauges while tanks are being
refilled. Such measurements were completed for tanks being "gravity" filled
as well as for tanks being re-filled w/the aid of a pump.
Thus, we're close to this issue and we're quite surprised at the quantities
unnecessarily wasted each day - and much of it AFTER the meter (meaning that
the user pays for it but never gets to use it.) Thus is explained our
growing frustration level.
I hope this answers your question.
Best Regards,
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Brunelli, Peter [mailto:Peter.Brunelli at ct.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:31 AM
To: Michael Iriarte; Haenke, Peter
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Importance: Low
Michael,
While I appreciate your sense of urgency on this issue, I am not sure that
you have your ducks in a row. Your analysis of leakage seems to imply that
there is a domestic trade of several trillion dollars per year in propane.
If 753 billion dollars worth of propane are leaking out at fillup (a
fraction of a percent leakage), then what remains in the tanks is valued at
nearly the GDP of China? I'm not sure I'm buying that. My desire to see a
complete and peer-reviewed accounting of this issue aside, it isn't like
propane is totally off the radar screen. It just happens to be a minor
player in the bigger picture of GHG emissions at large.
One area where the GWP of propane and propylene are of concern is in HFC
replacement materials in refrigeration. While HFC refrigerants have taken
over for Ozone Depleting Substances (fluorocarbons, etc...) those same HFC
refrigerants are now targeted for their high GWP's. One type of potential
HFC replacement is hydrocarbon refrigerants, and specifically to your
question R432A or R433A, both azeotropes of propane and propylene with
listed GWP's in the single digits. Whether these GWP ratings would hold up
under extensive independent evaluation is something that I cannot predict.
Your best bet might be approaching the issue from a traditional "fugitive
emissions" perspective, whether the outage gauge emissions are an issue from
a GHG perspective or not. A discussion with your state air pollution
regulators, or your regional EPA office, might help put the issue in
perspective. Even with the IPCC "big six" GHGs, the tools for control are
still rooted in regulation of specific activities in concert with public
stakeholders.
Pete Brunelli
Climate and Energy Programs
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
USA
peter.brunelli at ct.gov
phone (860) 424-3536
fax (860) 424-4063
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Iriarte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:13 PM
To: 'Haenke, Peter'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello, Peter:
Thank you for the reply. From reading the US magazines that cater to the LP
Gas distribution industry in the US I learned that there's significant
growth in LP Gas use in automotive applications in Australia. No doubt that
will help reduce air pollution in the cities where it will replace diesel or
gasoline powered vehicles.
What will it take for propane and propylene to be given a GWP?
I've been told that relatively speaking, the amounts of CO2-e that can be
eliminated from implementing a few simple cost-effective changes in
refueling LP Gas tanks and cylinders is not that significant vs. the CO2-e
that could be saved from shutting down a coal fired mega power plant. It's
difficult to be satisfied with such an answer knowing that the elimination
of wasted LP Gas while refueling is a much more of a low hanging fruit than
closing down a power plant. Further, it does not seem appropriate to compare
a measure that is a win-win on all facets (nobody gets hurt and most
everyone is better off from restricting or eliminating outage gauge
emissions while refueling) vs. the close-down of a power plant where needed
electricity is no longer generated and where the plant close down also
brings about a loss of jobs.
Your thoughts and/or suggestions on this matter are appreciated.
All the best,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Haenke, Peter [mailto:Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Michael Iriarte; DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Michael
My understanding is that LPG is acknowledged as a GHG but is not reported in
GHG accounts due to the fact that no GWP has been determined for its
constituent gases and hence emissions cannot be expressed in terms of CO2-e.
Regards
Peter Haenke
Carbon Business Development Manager
Energy Risk Management
Australian Operations
Origin Energy
p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198
GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street
Sydney NSW
P 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 Michael Iriarte
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 9:45 AM
To: 'DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Luis,
Thank you for your reply. I presume you work in Spain. I work in the US. The
refueling practices in Spain (or wherever you are) appear to be more
environmentally conscientious than what I have observed here. In the US,
whenever a tank or a cylinder is re-filled the fixed liquid level maximum
level gauge (or outage gauge, or "spitter" valve) is opened; usually before
the pump is turned or (or shortly thereafter) and it stays open until the
operator observes a white cloud coming out of the outage gauge. That white
cloud is made up of liquid LP Gas and frozen water from the air. These
releases are significant. The measured mass flow release rates for gaseous
phase and liquid phase were ~ 3 grams/sec and ~10 grams/sec respectively
when the refilling is conducted with the help of a pump. When a fork lift
cylinder is "gravity" refilled the measured mass flow release rates were ~
2.5 grams/sec and ~ 10 grams/sec.
For instance, depending on which fork lift population report one chooses to
believe, LP Gas losses to ambient from while fork lift cylinders being
refilled in CA are estimated at between 7,200 to 11,000 tons per year (this
is in CA alone.) For the entire US, we're looking at 60,000 to 93,000 tons
per year only to refill fork lift cylinders.
No matter the size of the tank or its use, the outage gauge restriction is
identical (#54 drill size) until we're talking about LP Gas rail cars -
which have larger throughput outage gauges.
Again, based on statistics published by PERC and NPGA, it is estimated that
annual LP Gas losses through outage gauges for all tanks that are filled in
the US are between 450,000 and 700,000 tons/year. The average of these two
limits is 575,000 tons, or 575,000,000 kg, or 1,265,000,000 lbs, or
301,190,047 LP Gas gallons - which at $2.50 per gallon - translates to a
loss to end-users of $752,976,000 each year. In most cases, the end user is
billed for this wasted propane - yet he does not get to use it.
LP Gas can and does contain varying amounts of propylene, depending on the
standard under it is being sold (e.g. commercial grade, HD-5 or automotive
grade (note: "-5" means that the propylene content cannot exceed 5%, etc.) I
recall that one commercial grade allows propylene to be as much as 50% by
volume of the LP gas mix. GSA keeps the specifications for the various
grades of LP Gas. In California, automotive LP gas can have as much as 10%
propylene. It's a good guess that the average content of propylene in LP Gas
sold throughout the US exceeds ~ 5%. If it is conservatively estimated that
there's only 5% propylene in LP Gas that means that ~ 28,750 tons of
propylene is released to ambient each year. This is NOT an insignificant
amount.
What's amazing is that only recently the US and CA regulatory entities
charged to monitor and maintain air quality have partially awaken to this
on-going pollution and waste.
Can somebody please explain to me why propane (C3H8) is not a GHG when CH4
(methane) is considered to be a green house gas?
Regards,
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
-----Original Message-----
From: DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO [mailto:LADELATORREV at repsol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Michael Iriarte
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello Michael
About your comment, LPG comes from oil refining and natural gas liquids,
today mostly is coming more from NG, so that propylene is in less amount, in
the other hand the delivery of LPG has very little leakage, so that I found
very difficult to pint out it as a problem as GHG. My company is in LPG
delivery and our losses due to leakage are extremely or zero, it is
basically a matter of safety.
regards
Luis
________________________________
De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org en nombre de Michael Iriarte Enviado el:
mi? 28/01/2009 16:17
Para: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Asunto: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Colleagues,
Small quantities of Propylene (typically less than 10%) are found in LP Gas.
Still, every day in the US and abroad, thousands of tons of propylene are
vented through the outage gauge of tanks being filled with LP Gas;
contributing to the overall GHG effects. LP Gas is mostly Propane.
Upon reading the Kyoto Protocol, it looks like Propylene is not listed as a
GHG gas. Yet when looking at the Canadian NPRI (National Pollutant Release
Inventory), one finds Propylene listed under case Number 115-07-1 (and
propane under case number 74-98-6).
Could anyone help me understand why Propylene (which is a highly reactive
low level ozone precursor) is not listed as a GHG?
Your comments are much appreciated! Thank you.
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3807 (20090128) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
AVISO LEGAL:
Esta informaci?n es privada y confidencial y est? dirigida ?nicamente a su
destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario original de este mensaje y por
este medio pudo acceder a dicha informaci?n por favor elimine el mensaje. La
distribuci?n o copia de este mensaje est? estrictamente prohibida. Esta
comunicaci?n es s?lo para prop?sitos de informaci?n y no debe ser
considerada como propuesta, aceptaci?n ni como una declaraci?n de voluntad
oficial de REPSOL YPF S.A. y/o subsidiarias y/o afiliadas. La transmisi?n de
e-mails no garantiza que el correo electr?nico sea seguro o libre de error.
Por consiguiente, no manifestamos que esta informaci?n sea completa o
precisa. Toda informaci?n est? sujeta a alterarse sin previo aviso.
This information is private and confidential and intended for the recipient
only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information
purposes only and shall not be regarded neither as a proposal, acceptance
nor as a statement of will or official statement from REPSOL YPF S.A. and/or
subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this
information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as
such. All information is subject to change without notice.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you have received this email in error, please advise the
sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3819 (20090202) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3821 (20090203) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3822 (20090203) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
From hkrupinsky at ene.com Tue Feb 3 14:11:27 2009
From: hkrupinsky at ene.com (H. Dru Krupinsky)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculating
corporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
Message-ID: <20090203191127.95DDFC18077@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hi Louisa,
I would recommend using the guidance from www.ghgprotocol.org for your international emissions factors.
You may need to dig a bit, but there is a reference document called " GHG Protocol.org GUIDANCE EF ElectricityPurchase_ServiceSector_v3.0.xls" which containes grid emissions factors for many countries.
For consistency, you should note that most countries emissions factors are calculated only for CO2 related emissions. If you are using eGrid, or another detailed regional emissions factor for the US, UK, Canada, etc., these values are likely calculated to include all 6 kyoto gasses. Depending on what standard you are trying to build your inventory according to, this may or may not be an issue for you...but regardless, you should note this in your emissions declaration.
thanks and good luck,
Dru Krupinsky
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
130 Battery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
ofc: 415-981-2811
cel: 415-271-3747
HKrupinsky at ene.com
From manish.salhotra at pechan.com Tue Feb 3 17:45:34 2009
From: manish.salhotra at pechan.com (Manish Salhotra)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:45:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] International Emissions Factors for calculating
corporate Scope 2 electricity emissions
Message-ID: <20090203224534.D01E3C18086@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hi Louisa,
The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in the United States. The latest edition, eGRID2007 year 2005 data is available on EPA's eGRID website, http://www.epa.gov/egrid, along with the previous years (1996-2000, and 2004) of eGRID data.
eGRID data include emissions and different types of emission rates for CO2, NOx, SO2, and Hg; electricity generation, heat input and resource mix; and plant identification, location, and structural information.
eGRID is unique in that it links air emissions data with electric generation data for United States power plants. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) has developed eGRID2007 and the previous five editions of eGRID for EPA since 1997.
US EPA, The Climate Registry, and California Climate Action Registry recommends GHG emission factors for electricity (Scope 2) from eGRID.
Manish
http://www.epa.gov/egrid
From miriarte at adeptgroup.net Mon Feb 9 13:20:53 2009
From: miriarte at adeptgroup.net (Michael Iriarte)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
References: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
<0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
<8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
Message-ID:
Dear Mr. Brunelli:
Thank you for the reply of February 3, 2008. I regret any misunderstanding
regarding the amount of LP Gas wasted through current tank and cylinder
refilling practices in the US. This is also an effort to make sure that "the
ducks are in a row".
Two items are presented in this email: (1) A calculation of LP Gas losses
due to the refilling of LP Gas fork lift cylinders and to the refilling of
LP gas stationary tanks, and (2) An attempt at calculating the CO2
equivalent of all such losses in the US.
The calculations for what is known to be lost from stationary tanks and from
fork lift cylinder are based on: (a) statistics published by US LP Gas
distribution industry associations or organizations, and (b) data collected
through year-long field studies.
Of note is that besides the LP Gas losses calculated below there are other
significant losses from the refilling of other tanks and cylinders (e.g.
automotive on-board cylinders, off-road vehicles, bobtails and tankers, bbq
tanks, rail cars, etc.) The losses from these other tanks and cylinders are
not included in the below calculations - but this does not decrease their
contribution to air pollution, waste and loss of useful energy and money.
The 2nd item in this email deals with a preliminary calculation of the CO2
equivalent [or "CO2-e") of the released LP Gas even if neither propane nor
propylene is now considered to be a Green House Gas. This second item merits
further discussion and your comments are much appreciated.
I. LP Gas Releases to Ambient from Refilling of Fork Lift cylinders and
Stationary Tanks.
A. LP Gas releases from refilling of fork lift cylinders.
According to the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), there are ~
600,000,000 gallons of LP Gas used per year in fork lift trucks in the US.
About 8 gallons of LP Gas per cylinder refill is about right. That means
that there are 75,000,000 refills/year in the US. (600,000,000/8).
It has been observed that two thirds of these refills are "gravity" refills
(50,000,000 refills) and one third is pump assisted (25,000,000 refills).
The amount of LP Gas released per "gravity refill" of a fork lift cylinder
is 705 grams. The amount of LP Gas released per pump assisted refill of a
fork lift cylinder is 108 grams.
The amount of LP Gas released per year in the US from gravity refills of
fork lift cylinders is ~ 35,250,000,000 grams (50,000,000 x 705), or
35,250,000 kg, or 35,250 tons of VOC's.
The amount of LP Gas released per year in the US from pump assisted refills
of forklift cylinders is ~ 2,700,000,000 grams (25,000,000 x 108), or
2,700,000 kg, or 2,700 tons of VOC's.
Thus, the total amount of LP Gas released to ambient per year in the US from
fork lift cylinders alone is 37,950 tons, or 103.97 tons per day.
B. LP Gas releases from refilling of Stationary Tanks
There are ~ 16,500,000 active stationary tanks in the US. It is also
estimated that the average stationary LP Gas tank is filled four times per
year w/150 gallons per refill. The average pumping rate is generously taken
to be 25 gal/min. This leads to two key numbers: (a) the average refill
takes 6 minutes, or 360 seconds, to complete, and (b) there are 66,000,000
refills of stationary tanks in the US per year.
>From field observations it takes ~ 3 seconds for the bobtail operator to
shut off the outage gauge after liquid starts to be emitted. Thus, the
amount emitted per refill of each stationary tank is 360 seconds x 3
grams/sec for gas phase emissions and 3 seconds x 10 grams/sec for liquid
phase emissions. This adds up to 1,110 grams per stationary tank refill.
66,000,000 refills release 73,260,000 kg of LP Gas, or 73,260 tons of LP Gas
per year, or 200.7 Tons/day in the US.
Thus, the total LP Gas emitted each year from the refilling of fork lift
cylinders and from the refilling of stationary tanks adds up to 111,120
tons.
Based on preliminary information on the number of vehicles refilled w/LP Gas
in the US, on the number of BBQ tanks being refilled in the US, the number
of bobtails in the US, the number of transports in the US, etc. - it is
preliminarily estimated that there are ~ 210,000 tons of LP Gas vented per
year due to current wasteful tank and cylinder refilling practices. This
initial estimate requires further verification. The Propane Education and
Research Council (PERC) commissioned its own study on this subject. I have
been told that this report has not been released outside the LP Gas
industry.
II. Calculation of potential carbon credits from eliminating the release of
LP Gas while fork lift cylinders and stationary tanks are being refilled.
The basic theory here is that the hydrocarbons that make up LP Gas, once
released to ambient, eventually oxidize into CO2.
There is no GWP (Global Warming Protocol) yet for propane or propylene (the
two main components of LP Gas). For each compound listed by the UNFCCC,
there's an assigned GWP value and CO2 is always unity. For a Kyoto signators
the convention is to use the GWPs from the UNFCCC Second Assessment Report
(SAR 1996).
I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3 to 20
GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been identified.
Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete oxidation
of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for propane is C3H8,
and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the atomic weight of Hydrogen
is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the
weight percentage of Carbon out of Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a
gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F) weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm
taking the liberty to equate 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas -
which is a rough approximation as experience indicates that in the US
there's ~ 87.5% propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight
of Carbon in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon that
later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of Carbon to CO2,
or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
something of interest at this junction?
Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
Michael
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 205; Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456; Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
The information in this message is confidential and legally privileged. It
is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else
is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
on it, is prohibited and unlawful.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brunelli, Peter [mailto:Peter.Brunelli at ct.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:31 AM
To: Michael Iriarte; Haenke, Peter
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Importance: Low
Michael,
While I appreciate your sense of urgency on this issue, I am not sure that
you have your ducks in a row. Your analysis of leakage seems to imply that
there is a domestic trade of several trillion dollars per year in propane.
If 753 billion dollars worth of propane are leaking out at fillup (a
fraction of a percent leakage), then what remains in the tanks is valued at
nearly the GDP of China? I'm not sure I'm buying that. My desire to see a
complete and peer-reviewed accounting of this issue aside, it isn't like
propane is totally off the radar screen. It just happens to be a minor
player in the bigger picture of GHG emissions at large.
One area where the GWP of propane and propylene are of concern is in HFC
replacement materials in refrigeration. While HFC refrigerants have taken
over for Ozone Depleting Substances (fluorocarbons, etc...) those same HFC
refrigerants are now targeted for their high GWP's. One type of potential
HFC replacement is hydrocarbon refrigerants, and specifically to your
question R432A or R433A, both azeotropes of propane and propylene with
listed GWP's in the single digits. Whether these GWP ratings would hold up
under extensive independent evaluation is something that I cannot predict.
Your best bet might be approaching the issue from a traditional "fugitive
emissions" perspective, whether the outage gauge emissions are an issue from
a GHG perspective or not. A discussion with your state air pollution
regulators, or your regional EPA office, might help put the issue in
perspective. Even with the IPCC "big six" GHGs, the tools for control are
still rooted in regulation of specific activities in concert with public
stakeholders.
Pete Brunelli
Climate and Energy Programs
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
USA
peter.brunelli at ct.gov
phone (860) 424-3536
fax (860) 424-4063
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Iriarte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:13 PM
To: 'Haenke, Peter'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello, Peter:
Thank you for the reply. From reading the US magazines that cater to the LP
Gas distribution industry in the US I learned that there's significant
growth in LP Gas use in automotive applications in Australia. No doubt that
will help reduce air pollution in the cities where it will replace diesel or
gasoline powered vehicles.
What will it take for propane and propylene to be given a GWP?
I've been told that relatively speaking, the amounts of CO2-e that can be
eliminated from implementing a few simple cost-effective changes in
refueling LP Gas tanks and cylinders is not that significant vs. the CO2-e
that could be saved from shutting down a coal fired mega power plant. It's
difficult to be satisfied with such an answer knowing that the elimination
of wasted LP Gas while refueling is a much more of a low hanging fruit than
closing down a power plant. Further, it does not seem appropriate to compare
a measure that is a win-win on all facets (nobody gets hurt and most
everyone is better off from restricting or eliminating outage gauge
emissions while refueling) vs. the close-down of a power plant where needed
electricity is no longer generated and where the plant close down also
brings about a loss of jobs.
Your thoughts and/or suggestions on this matter are appreciated.
All the best,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Haenke, Peter [mailto:Peter.Haenke at originenergy.com.au]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Michael Iriarte; DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Michael
My understanding is that LPG is acknowledged as a GHG but is not reported in
GHG accounts due to the fact that no GWP has been determined for its
constituent gases and hence emissions cannot be expressed in terms of CO2-e.
Regards
Peter Haenke
Carbon Business Development Manager
Energy Risk Management
Australian Operations
Origin Energy
p 02 8345 5549 m 0409 657 198
GPO Box 5376 Sydney NSW 2001 L45 Australia Square 264-278 George Street
Sydney NSW
P 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 Michael Iriarte
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 9:45 AM
To: 'DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO'
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Luis,
Thank you for your reply. I presume you work in Spain. I work in the US. The
refueling practices in Spain (or wherever you are) appear to be more
environmentally conscientious than what I have observed here. In the US,
whenever a tank or a cylinder is re-filled the fixed liquid level maximum
level gauge (or outage gauge, or "spitter" valve) is opened; usually before
the pump is turned or (or shortly thereafter) and it stays open until the
operator observes a white cloud coming out of the outage gauge. That white
cloud is made up of liquid LP Gas and frozen water from the air. These
releases are significant. The measured mass flow release rates for gaseous
phase and liquid phase were ~ 3 grams/sec and ~10 grams/sec respectively
when the refilling is conducted with the help of a pump. When a fork lift
cylinder is "gravity" refilled the measured mass flow release rates were ~
2.5 grams/sec and ~ 10 grams/sec.
For instance, depending on which fork lift population report one chooses to
believe, LP Gas losses to ambient from while fork lift cylinders being
refilled in CA are estimated at between 7,200 to 11,000 tons per year (this
is in CA alone.) For the entire US, we're looking at 60,000 to 93,000 tons
per year only to refill fork lift cylinders.
No matter the size of the tank or its use, the outage gauge restriction is
identical (#54 drill size) until we're talking about LP Gas rail cars -
which have larger throughput outage gauges.
Again, based on statistics published by PERC and NPGA, it is estimated that
annual LP Gas losses through outage gauges for all tanks that are filled in
the US are between 450,000 and 700,000 tons/year. The average of these two
limits is 575,000 tons, or 575,000,000 kg, or 1,265,000,000 lbs, or
301,190,047 LP Gas gallons - which at $2.50 per gallon - translates to a
loss to end-users of $752,976,000 each year. In most cases, the end user is
billed for this wasted propane - yet he does not get to use it.
LP Gas can and does contain varying amounts of propylene, depending on the
standard under it is being sold (e.g. commercial grade, HD-5 or automotive
grade (note: "-5" means that the propylene content cannot exceed 5%, etc.) I
recall that one commercial grade allows propylene to be as much as 50% by
volume of the LP gas mix. GSA keeps the specifications for the various
grades of LP Gas. In California, automotive LP gas can have as much as 10%
propylene. It's a good guess that the average content of propylene in LP Gas
sold throughout the US exceeds ~ 5%. If it is conservatively estimated that
there's only 5% propylene in LP Gas that means that ~ 28,750 tons of
propylene is released to ambient each year. This is NOT an insignificant
amount.
What's amazing is that only recently the US and CA regulatory entities
charged to monitor and maintain air quality have partially awaken to this
on-going pollution and waste.
Can somebody please explain to me why propane (C3H8) is not a GHG when CH4
(methane) is considered to be a green house gas?
Regards,
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
-----Original Message-----
From: DE LA TORRE VIVAR, LUIS ALBERTO [mailto:LADELATORREV at repsol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Michael Iriarte
Subject: RE: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hello Michael
About your comment, LPG comes from oil refining and natural gas liquids,
today mostly is coming more from NG, so that propylene is in less amount, in
the other hand the delivery of LPG has very little leakage, so that I found
very difficult to pint out it as a problem as GHG. My company is in LPG
delivery and our losses due to leakage are extremely or zero, it is
basically a matter of safety.
regards
Luis
________________________________
De: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org en nombre de Michael Iriarte Enviado el:
mi? 28/01/2009 16:17
Para: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Asunto: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Dear Colleagues,
Small quantities of Propylene (typically less than 10%) are found in LP Gas.
Still, every day in the US and abroad, thousands of tons of propylene are
vented through the outage gauge of tanks being filled with LP Gas;
contributing to the overall GHG effects. LP Gas is mostly Propane.
Upon reading the Kyoto Protocol, it looks like Propylene is not listed as a
GHG gas. Yet when looking at the Canadian NPRI (National Pollutant Release
Inventory), one finds Propylene listed under case Number 115-07-1 (and
propane under case number 74-98-6).
Could anyone help me understand why Propylene (which is a highly reactive
low level ozone precursor) is not listed as a GHG?
Your comments are much appreciated! Thank you.
Michael Iriarte
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3807 (20090128) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
AVISO LEGAL:
Esta informaci?n es privada y confidencial y est? dirigida ?nicamente a su
destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario original de este mensaje y por
este medio pudo acceder a dicha informaci?n por favor elimine el mensaje. La
distribuci?n o copia de este mensaje est? estrictamente prohibida. Esta
comunicaci?n es s?lo para prop?sitos de informaci?n y no debe ser
considerada como propuesta, aceptaci?n ni como una declaraci?n de voluntad
oficial de REPSOL YPF S.A. y/o subsidiarias y/o afiliadas. La transmisi?n de
e-mails no garantiza que el correo electr?nico sea seguro o libre de error.
Por consiguiente, no manifestamos que esta informaci?n sea completa o
precisa. Toda informaci?n est? sujeta a alterarse sin previo aviso.
This information is private and confidential and intended for the recipient
only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information
purposes only and shall not be regarded neither as a proposal, acceptance
nor as a statement of will or official statement from REPSOL YPF S.A. and/or
subsidiaries and/or affiliates. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this
information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as
such. All information is subject to change without notice.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you have received this email in error, please advise the
sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3819 (20090202) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3821 (20090203) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3838 (20090209) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
From keith.j.forbes at saic.com Tue Feb 10 09:25:44 2009
From: keith.j.forbes at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:25:44 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To:
References: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
<0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
<8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
Message-ID: <20090210092544.12e88bf7@Catedral>
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
problem with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given
gas by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
infrared radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it
stays in the atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO and CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course,
the leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Tue Feb 10 11:32:40 2009
From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator])
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
References: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
<0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
<8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
<20090210092544.12e88bf7@Catedral>
Message-ID: <911521.31368.qm@web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Actually, there is some truth in the concept that you can convert the amount of carbon in the emission to CO2. If the carbon in the propylene is of fossil origin (same assumption) and that this gas will oxidize in the atmosphere (also safe assumption). then it will be converted to CO2.
More discussion of this topic can be found in the following paper. If you would like a full copy I am happy to send you one.
Gillenwater, Michael, ?Forgotten carbon: Indirect CO2 in greenhouse gas emission inventories,? Environmental Science and Policy , volume 11, issue 3, May 2008, Pages 195-203.
michael
________________________________
Michael Gillenwater
GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute)*
Princeton University
Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program
________________________________
* An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton University.
________________________________
From: Keith J. Forbes
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:25:44 AM
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
problem with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given
gas by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
infrared radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it
stays in the atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO and CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course,
the leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
_______________________________________________
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/20090210/d9d62b4d/attachment.html
From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Tue Feb 10 19:19:18 2009
From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator])
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [GHG Network] 2009 Greenhouse Gas / Climate Change Workforce Needs
Assessment Report
Message-ID: <148789.59714.qm@web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
The GHG Management Institute and Sequence Staffing are proud to present the 2009 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Workforce Needs Assessment Report.
The survey gathers the opinion of more than 700 key international
industry professionals, scientists, and organizational leaders from
across the globe.
The report identifies the workforce needs that are necessary to the
success of climate change policies and carbon markets globally. It
identifies seven key findings, some of which are:
1. Greenhouse gas accounting is critical to any climate change response;
2. Most believe there is a shortage of experts who have the skills that
are necessary to address climate change, including measuring and
mitigating greenhouse gases;
3. Majority foresee that more "green" jobs will be welcomed in the years to come, and
4. Universities and other educational organizations need to provide
adequate training for greenhouse gas accounting and management skills.
Click here to download the 2009 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Workforce Needs Assessment Survey.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090210/25835a5d/attachment.html
From aspataru at adeptgroup.net Wed Feb 11 00:07:23 2009
From: aspataru at adeptgroup.net (Alex Spataru)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:07:23 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
Message-ID: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
Hello, Keith:
Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We 100%
agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply multiplying the
mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the value obtained through
this multiplication is the lowest figure for a GWP for propane. Michael and
I agree that other factors (as appropriately listed in your email) add to
this lowest limit GWP index. Sources on the net (from suggestions made by
several GHG Network participants - whom we thank) list the GWP of propane,
butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have not located the lab work on
which this "~20" figure is based.
The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes released
every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is very much open
to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the literature for propane,
propylene or butane are exactly that: estimates. We understand that formal
sanctioning from UNFCCC is necessary if there's to be trading in CO2 credits
from the elimination of LP Gas releases due to wasteful refilling practices
of tanks and cylinders.
BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it allows for
market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that otherwise would be
difficult to control via regulatory mandate? Comments on this understanding
(Did I get it or did I blow it?) are welcomed.
>From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important consideration
in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not take into account the
relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or eliminate the offending compounds
from the atmosphere. Priority (understandably) is given to the largest
volume compounds. Yet, the relative amount of resources needed to eliminate
the offending compounds is apparently ignored by the decision makers at
UNFCCC when selecting which compounds deserve an official GWP. This apparent
short-coming seems a bit ironic when one realizes that the cost/unit of
offending compound eliminated is the actual mechanism that the system relies
on once an offending compound is deemed worthy by UNFCCC to receive a formal
GWP rating. Thoughts and comments on this observation are welcomed.
Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where data could
be found on:
(1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
(2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared radiation?
(3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the atmosphere?
Thank you.
I look forward to your comments.
Alex Spataru
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical problem
with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given gas
by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb infrared
radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it stays in the
atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO and
CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course, the
leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact information will
be:
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
From keith.j.forbes at saic.com Wed Feb 11 10:13:40 2009
From: keith.j.forbes at saic.com (Keith J. Forbes)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:13:40 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
In-Reply-To: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
References: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <20090211101340.4809e43f@Catedral>
Hi Alex,
Glad that I encouraged some reflection. I would also see Matt Antes'
statements re the complex atmospheric chemistry of propane. I'd be
careful being overly cavalier about the term "estimates." I have not
seen the literature you refer to but one would assume that if it were
peer reviewed, there would be some method to the madness, and not just
numbers plucked out of the air.
Re. credits, we have no single, national cap and trade system in the
U.S. for GHG, just a few regional and state initiatives, some
registries, etc. None of them as far as I know, include propane
and/or propylene.
Re. your comments on UNFCCC, I think you mean IPCC, and I would suggest
contacting the IPCC directly. There are mechanisms for that. I don't
think though that the absence of a GWP indicates any willy nilly
decision on their part, but rather, as a serious, scientific body, the
complexity of developing a defensible number (see Matt Antes' email re
chemistry of propane), relative to resources and importance of GHG.
The end game is stopping/slowing climate change, so it makes perfect
sense to me to go after the significant GHGs first.
Keith
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:07:23 -0800
"Alex Spataru" wrote:
> Hello, Keith:
>
> Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We
> 100% agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply
> multiplying the mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the
> value obtained through this multiplication is the lowest figure for a
> GWP for propane. Michael and I agree that other factors (as
> appropriately listed in your email) add to this lowest limit GWP
> index. Sources on the net (from suggestions made by several GHG
> Network participants - whom we thank) list the GWP of propane,
> butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have not located the lab
> work on which this "~20" figure is based.
>
> The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes
> released every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is
> very much open to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the
> literature for propane, propylene or butane are exactly that:
> estimates. We understand that formal sanctioning from UNFCCC is
> necessary if there's to be trading in CO2 credits from the
> elimination of LP Gas releases due to wasteful refilling practices of
> tanks and cylinders.
>
> BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it
> allows for market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that
> otherwise would be difficult to control via regulatory mandate?
> Comments on this understanding (Did I get it or did I blow it?) are
> welcomed.
>
> From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
> existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important
> consideration in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not
> take into account the relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or
> eliminate the offending compounds from the atmosphere. Priority
> (understandably) is given to the largest volume compounds. Yet, the
> relative amount of resources needed to eliminate the offending
> compounds is apparently ignored by the decision makers at UNFCCC when
> selecting which compounds deserve an official GWP. This apparent
> short-coming seems a bit ironic when one realizes that the cost/unit
> of offending compound eliminated is the actual mechanism that the
> system relies on once an offending compound is deemed worthy by
> UNFCCC to receive a formal GWP rating. Thoughts and comments on this
> observation are welcomed.
>
> Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where
> data could be found on:
> (1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
> (2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared
> radiation? (3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the
> atmosphere? Thank you.
>
> I look forward to your comments.
>
> Alex Spataru
> The ADEPT Group, Inc.
> Los Angeles, CA
> Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
> To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
> Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
>
> Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
> problem with your calculation.
>
> You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a
> given gas by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to
> absorb infrared radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and
> how long it stays in the atmosphere. If it were merely the number of
> C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO and CO2 would be the same.
>
> So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
> equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course,
> the leaked gas is immediately burned.
>
> Keith
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
> "Michael Iriarte" wrote:
>
> > I have been told that there are several references that assign from
> > 3 to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not
> > been identified.
> >
> > Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> > oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> > propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> > atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> > propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out
> > of Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C
> > (60F) weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty
> > to equate 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a
> > rough approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's
> > ~ 87.5% propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight
> > of Carbon in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57
> > kg.
> >
> > It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP
> > Gas unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current
> > refilling practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801
> > tons of Carbon that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the
> > oxidation of Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
> >
> > It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> > remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every
> > year something of interest at this junction?
> >
> > Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
>
> --
> Keith J. Forbes
> SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
>
> ** please print only if necessary **
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3844 (20090211) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact
> information will be:
>
> The ADEPT Group, Inc.
> 1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
> Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
> Phone: (310) 478-3456
> Fax: (310) 478-6335
> Website: www.adeptgroup.net
>
> The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
> or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
> unlawful.
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3844 (20090211) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.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
>
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
From Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca Wed Feb 11 20:18:50 2009
From: Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca (Pierre Boileau)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:18:50 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
In-Reply-To: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
References: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E0549CAAB@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org>
Hello all,
It would likely be important to communicate with the Hadley Centre on
climate modelling (Dick Derwent is likely the right contact) to obtain
the rationale for why propane's GWP hasn't been calculated or provided
in any IPCC assessment reports.
My understanding is that GWPs are modelled by the Hadley Centre's global
circulation models and incorporate consideration of the infrared
absorption characteristics of a particular gas, the atmospheric lifetime
and the atmospheric chemistry of that gas. This means that a simple
mathematical conversion is not appropriate. The radiative forcing of
the gas is integrated over a particular time horizon (say 100 years) to
produce the appropiate GWP.
My understanding of propane's radiative forcing is that since it is a
non-methane volatile organic compound (NMVOC), it's contribution would
be mainly through the formation of ground level ozone (an important
GHG), but that this effect would be a secondary radiative forcing effect
and therefore incredibly difficult to quantify. I don't believe any
GWPs have been quantified for ozone precursors, because these depend on
whether appropriate climatic conditions exist for the formation of
ozone. I'm not sure this is the only atmospheric chemistry pathway for
propane, but it might be the main one leading to an impact on the
climate.
It is also likely that NMVOCs are not included in the Kyoto Protocol
because they are normally governed by local air quality regulations.
This means that they wouldn't be eligible for credits under any of the
Protocol's flexibility mechanisms.
Again, the researchers at the Hadley Centre are likely the most
authoritative source of information on this, so I would encourage
contacting them directly.
I hope this is helpful. With best regards,
Pierre
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Alex Spataru
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:07 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Cc: Michael Iriarte
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
Hello, Keith:
Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We 100%
agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply multiplying the
mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the value obtained
through this multiplication is the lowest figure for a GWP for propane.
Michael and I agree that other factors (as appropriately listed in your
email) add to this lowest limit GWP index. Sources on the net (from
suggestions made by several GHG Network participants - whom we thank)
list the GWP of propane, butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have
not located the lab work on which this "~20" figure is based.
The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes released
every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is very much
open to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the literature for
propane, propylene or butane are exactly that: estimates. We understand
that formal sanctioning from UNFCCC is necessary if there's to be
trading in CO2 credits from the elimination of LP Gas releases due to
wasteful refilling practices of tanks and cylinders.
BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it allows
for market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that otherwise
would be difficult to control via regulatory mandate? Comments on this
understanding (Did I get it or did I blow it?) are welcomed.
>From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important
consideration in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not take
into account the relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or eliminate
the offending compounds from the atmosphere. Priority (understandably)
is given to the largest volume compounds. Yet, the relative amount of
resources needed to eliminate the offending compounds is apparently
ignored by the decision makers at UNFCCC when selecting which compounds
deserve an official GWP. This apparent short-coming seems a bit ironic
when one realizes that the cost/unit of offending compound eliminated is
the actual mechanism that the system relies on once an offending
compound is deemed worthy by UNFCCC to receive a formal GWP rating.
Thoughts and comments on this observation are welcomed.
Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where data
could be found on:
(1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
(2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared
radiation?
(3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the atmosphere?
Thank you.
I look forward to your comments.
Alex Spataru
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
problem with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given
gas by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
infrared radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it
stays in the atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the
GWP of CH4, CO and
CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course, the
leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact information
will
be:
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you.
From madelucchi at ucdavis.edu Wed Feb 11 13:06:14 2009
From: madelucchi at ucdavis.edu (Mark A. Delucchi)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:06:14 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
In-Reply-To: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
References: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <40429488-FD4C-4A54-8098-DF7ACE09F8E8@ucdavis.edu>
Hi All,
Actually, this whole business is even more complicated. There is in
principle a direct radiative forcing effect of HCs, to be calculated,
as you indicated, on the basis of the lifetime of the gas and the
radiative forcing relative to CO2, but I believe this effect is small
(except for CH4). What's complicated is the indirect effect, about
which I've written:
The CEF (CO2-equivalency factor) for NMOCs (non-methane organic
compounds) also is similar to that for CO, in that it consists of a
straightforward component that accounts for oxidation of the carbon
to CO2 and other, more complex components that account for the
indirect effects of NMOCs on the production of O3 and sulfate and on
the lifetime of CH4. In addition, anthropogenic NMOCs can form
secondary organic aerosols (SOAs). Thus:
i) NMOCs react with OH and hence reduce the OH available to oxidize
methane, thereby increasing the lifetime and concentration of CH4.
ii) Via their effects on OH, NMOCs affect the oxidation of SO2 and
ultimately the production of sulfate aerosol, which has negative
radiative forcing (Unger et al., 2006).
iii) Via their effects on OH, NMOCs affect the production of O3,
which has a positive radiative forcing.
iv) NMOCs can form SOAs (secondary organic aerosols), which as
indicated above have a negative radiative forcing.
v) Finally, NMOCs end up oxidized to H2O and CO2.
The relationship between emissions of NMOCs and the formation of
ozone and the slowed destruction of methane depends in part on what
is known as the ?ozone creation potential? of the NMOC. The amount of
CO2 formed from oxidation depends of course on the carbon content of
the fuel. Both of these parameters -- the ozone creation potential,
and the carbon content -- vary from one NMOC compound to the next.
For example, alcohols have a lower carbon content and a lower ozone-
forming potential -- and hence a considerably lower CEF -- than have
some hydrocarbon compounds. Because emissions of the various NMOCs
can vary considerably from one fuelcycle to the next, an equitable
analysis of the climate-change impact of fuelcycles will distinguish
the carbon content and ozone forming-potential of different compounds
or classes of compounds.
Consequently, we estimate CO2-equivalent emissions separately for
each NMOC source S (e.g., ethanol combustion), on the basis of the
carbon content and the ozone-forming potential relative to that of
gasoline (which is my arbitrary referent). The carbon content is
multiplied by the ratio of the molecular mass of CO2 to the molar
mass of carbon, and the ozone-forming potential relative to that of
NMOCs from gasoline is multiplied by the CEF for the effect of
gasoline NMOCs on O3 and CH4.
We also include the effect of SOAs, although it turns out to be
relatively minor. The IPCC (2001, p. 3000) states that the formation
of SOA from NMOCs is related to the aromatic content of the NMOC. We
use gasoline-combustion NMOCs as a baseline, and then assume that the
aromatic content of any NMOC relative to that of gasoline is the same
as the compound?s ozone forming potential relative to gasoline
(ROFP). We use ROFP as a proxy for relative aromatic content because
ROFPs are readily available, there is some correlation between ROFP
and relative aromatic content, and the SOA CEF effect is too minor to
warrant further specific elaboration.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Alex Spataru wrote:
> Hello, Keith:
>
> Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We
> 100%
> agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply
> multiplying the
> mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the value
> obtained through
> this multiplication is the lowest figure for a GWP for propane.
> Michael and
> I agree that other factors (as appropriately listed in your email)
> add to
> this lowest limit GWP index. Sources on the net (from suggestions
> made by
> several GHG Network participants - whom we thank) list the GWP of
> propane,
> butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have not located the lab
> work on
> which this "~20" figure is based.
>
> The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes
> released
> every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is very
> much open
> to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the literature for propane,
> propylene or butane are exactly that: estimates. We understand that
> formal
> sanctioning from UNFCCC is necessary if there's to be trading in
> CO2 credits
> from the elimination of LP Gas releases due to wasteful refilling
> practices
> of tanks and cylinders.
>
> BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it
> allows for
> market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that otherwise
> would be
> difficult to control via regulatory mandate? Comments on this
> understanding
> (Did I get it or did I blow it?) are welcomed.
>
>> From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
> existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important
> consideration
> in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not take into
> account the
> relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or eliminate the offending
> compounds
> from the atmosphere. Priority (understandably) is given to the largest
> volume compounds. Yet, the relative amount of resources needed to
> eliminate
> the offending compounds is apparently ignored by the decision
> makers at
> UNFCCC when selecting which compounds deserve an official GWP. This
> apparent
> short-coming seems a bit ironic when one realizes that the cost/
> unit of
> offending compound eliminated is the actual mechanism that the
> system relies
> on once an offending compound is deemed worthy by UNFCCC to receive
> a formal
> GWP rating. Thoughts and comments on this observation are welcomed.
>
> Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where
> data could
> be found on:
> (1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
> (2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared
> radiation?
> (3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the atmosphere?
> Thank you.
>
> I look forward to your comments.
>
> Alex Spataru
> The ADEPT Group, Inc.
> Los Angeles, CA
> Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
> On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
> To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
> Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
>
> Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
> problem
> with your calculation.
>
> You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a
> given gas
> by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
> infrared
> radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it
> stays in the
> atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of
> CH4, CO and
> CO2 would be the same.
>
> So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
> equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of
> course, the
> leaked gas is immediately burned.
>
> Keith
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
> "Michael Iriarte" wrote:
>
>> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
>> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
>> identified.
>>
>> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
>> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
>> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
>> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
>> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
>> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
>> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
>> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
>> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
>> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
>> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>>
>> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
>> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
>> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
>> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
>> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>>
>> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
>> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every
>> year
>> something of interest at this junction?
>>
>> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
>
> --
> Keith J. Forbes
> SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
>
> ** please print only if necessary **
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3844 (20090211) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact
> information will
> be:
>
> The ADEPT Group, Inc.
> 1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
> Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
> Phone: (310) 478-3456
> Fax: (310) 478-6335
> Website: www.adeptgroup.net
>
> The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
> taken or
> omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
> unlawful.
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 3844 (20090211) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.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/20090211/7ff2c916/attachment.html
From itorrens at earthlink.net Wed Feb 11 17:08:08 2009
From: itorrens at earthlink.net (Ian M. Torrens)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:08:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] CO emissions from coal cleaning/beneficiation
Message-ID: <20090211220808.73B9EC1800E@milkyway.forumone.com>
Can anyone suggest where I can get quantitative information (not necessarily very detailed) on how much CO2 is emitted from a fairly standard hard coal preparation/coal washing plant? I'm looking at the benefits of coal cleaning for emissions at the combustion stage via efficiency improvement, and I would like to have this information to illustrate the fact that the increase in emissions due to the cleaning process is small compared to the decrease further down the fuel cycle.
Many thanks.
Ian
From Greg.Monty at us.ul.com Wed Feb 11 14:23:17 2009
From: Greg.Monty at us.ul.com (Greg.Monty at us.ul.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:23:17 -0600
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
In-Reply-To: <0KEV00BDSY6BXV22@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID:
agree.
Risk analysis suggests the important factors are (to identify the major
risk factors):
1. Magnitude of impact if something happens (release of carbon from gas)
2. Probability of incident
Then mitigation of risk would involve, as suggested below:
3. Cost of mitigation
Taking all three into consideration should be the method of prioritization
for the globe to tackle the issues. Very simple indeed.....???
thx. greg
Greg Monty, Ph.D.
Underwriter's Laboratories
Director of Technology
847-274-7017 cell
greg.monty at us.ul.com
"Alex Spataru"
Sent by: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
02/11/2009 08:53 AM
To
cc
Michael Iriarte
Subject
[GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
Hello, Keith:
Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We 100%
agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply multiplying the
mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the value obtained
through
this multiplication is the lowest figure for a GWP for propane. Michael
and
I agree that other factors (as appropriately listed in your email) add to
this lowest limit GWP index. Sources on the net (from suggestions made by
several GHG Network participants - whom we thank) list the GWP of propane,
butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have not located the lab work
on
which this "~20" figure is based.
The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes released
every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is very much open
to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the literature for propane,
propylene or butane are exactly that: estimates. We understand that formal
sanctioning from UNFCCC is necessary if there's to be trading in CO2
credits
from the elimination of LP Gas releases due to wasteful refilling
practices
of tanks and cylinders.
BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it allows for
market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that otherwise would
be
difficult to control via regulatory mandate? Comments on this
understanding
(Did I get it or did I blow it?) are welcomed.
>From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important
consideration
in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not take into account
the
relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or eliminate the offending
compounds
from the atmosphere. Priority (understandably) is given to the largest
volume compounds. Yet, the relative amount of resources needed to
eliminate
the offending compounds is apparently ignored by the decision makers at
UNFCCC when selecting which compounds deserve an official GWP. This
apparent
short-coming seems a bit ironic when one realizes that the cost/unit of
offending compound eliminated is the actual mechanism that the system
relies
on once an offending compound is deemed worthy by UNFCCC to receive a
formal
GWP rating. Thoughts and comments on this observation are welcomed.
Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where data
could
be found on:
(1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
(2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared radiation?
(3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the atmosphere?
Thank you.
I look forward to your comments.
Alex Spataru
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical problem
with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given
gas
by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
infrared
radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it stays in
the
atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO
and
CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course, the
leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact information
will
be:
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
- 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/20090211/b3d5ec4b/attachment.html
From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Tue Feb 17 21:47:38 2009
From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator])
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:47:38 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <49931F6D.3090101@oregonwild.org>
References: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au>
<0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>
<8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
<20090210092544.12e88bf7@Catedral>
<911521.31368.qm@web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<49931F6D.3090101@oregonwild.org>
Message-ID: <20dd85730902171847i6bc407fdo248c193a0a4a5ce9@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, certainly. There is probably no correlation between a compound's full
GWP value and the number of carbon atoms it contains (e.g., CO2 and CF4).
But for compounds that do oxidize in the atmosphere (e.g., not those
containing fluorine) and are of fossil origin, then the indirect CO2 from
the atmospheric oxidation of the compound does have an additional radiative
forcing effect that is not captured by the original compound's GWP value.
mg
Michael Gillenwater
Executive Director
GHG Experts Network*
www.ghgnetwork.org
--
* Organization is an independent non-profit and not affiliated with
Princeton University.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Doug Heiken wrote:
> Yes, CH4 oxidizes to CO2, but there is still powerful truth in the
> earlier assertion that methane and carbon dioxide both have one carbon atom
> but CH4 has a global warming potential 23X that of CO2. "Counting carbon
> atoms" is not a very accurate way of accounting for GW potential.
>
> Michael Gillenwater [moderator] wrote:
>
> Actually, there is some truth in the concept that you can convert the
> amount of carbon in the emission to CO2. If the carbon in the propylene is
> of fossil origin (same assumption) and that this gas will oxidize in the
> atmosphere (also safe assumption). then it will be converted to CO2.
>
> More discussion of this topic can be found in the following paper. If you
> would like a full copy I am happy to send you one.
>
> Gillenwater, Michael, "Forgotten carbon: Indirect CO2 in greenhouse gas
> emission inventories ," *Environmental
> Science and Policy ,* volume 11, issue 3, May 2008, Pages 195-203.
>
> michael
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Michael Gillenwater
> GHG Management Institute (Dean of
> Institute)*
>
> Princeton University
> Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program
> ------------------------------
> * An independent non-profit organization not associated with Princeton
> University.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Keith J. Forbes
> *To:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:25:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
>
> Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical
> problem with your calculation.
>
> You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given
> gas by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb
> infrared radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it
> stays in the atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP
> of CH4, CO and CO2 would be the same.
>
> So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
> equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course,
> the leaked gas is immediately burned.
>
> Keith
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
> "Michael Iriarte" wrote:
>
> > I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> > to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> > identified.
> >
> > Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> > oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> > propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> > atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> > propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> > Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> > weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> > 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> > approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> > propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> > in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
> >
> > It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> > unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> > practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> > that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> > Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
> >
> > It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> > remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> > something of interest at this junction?
> >
> > Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
>
> --
> Keith J. Forbes
> SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
>
> ** please print only if necessary **
> _______________________________________________
> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network
> www.ghgnetwork.org
>
> To post message:
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at ghgnetwork.org
>
> To unsubscribe:
> http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Networkwww.ghgnetwork.org
>
> To post message:
> Discuss mailing listDiscuss at ghgnetwork.org
>
> To unsubscribe:http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> Doug Heiken
> Conservation and Restoration Coordinator
> Oregon Wild formerly Oregon Natural Resources
> Council (ONRC)
> Protecting Oregon's wildlands, wildlife and waters since 1974.
> PO Box 11648 | Eugene OR 97440
> 541-344-0675
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090217/fb98b465/attachment-0001.html
From dh at oregonwild.org Wed Feb 11 13:56:45 2009
From: dh at oregonwild.org (Doug Heiken)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:56:45 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
In-Reply-To: <911521.31368.qm@web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <49D39F73934F41428B19C7B98EA6224C265B01@sydnm301.originenergy.com.au> <0KEG0060LU00SCU0@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> <8F429E4C9E18BC43B0FF53FD9244307D49612F@DOIT-EX401.exec.ds.state.ct.us> <20090210092544.12e88bf7@Catedral>
<911521.31368.qm@web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49931F6D.3090101@oregonwild.org>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090211/6c97530d/attachment.html
From david.hodge2 at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 18:29:43 2009
From: david.hodge2 at gmail.com (David Hodge)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:29:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] SF6
Message-ID: <20090217232943.A23EDC18004@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hi,
I am working on the inventory of a electricity company.
They have measured for the first time an SF6 back-up supply cylinder, and found that there is a significant amount of SF6 unaccounted for that seems to have gone missing.
Given that this SF6 has gone missing over the last say 10 years, should this unaccounted for SF6 be pro-rated in the current year inventory(i.e. one tenth) and base year recalculated? Or should it all be assigned to the current year?
Opinions would be most appreciated.
Thanks
David
From aspataru at adeptgroup.net Wed Feb 11 17:46:23 2009
From: aspataru at adeptgroup.net (Alex Spataru)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:46:23 -0800
Subject: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <0KEX006MDB62Z332@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net>
Hello, Greg:
What you write makes sense.
Below is an attempt to use your risk analysis approach on the challenge
raised by LP Gas releases through outage gauges while LP Gas tanks and
cylinders are being refilled:
1. Magnitude of Impact: Not yet fully understood - but far from
negligible.
2. Probability of Incident: 100%.
3. Cost of Mitigation: Minimal.
>From this perspective, it can be concluded that it's worthwhile to further
pursue this matter.
Question to the Forum: Does anybody know if the risk assessment protocol
used by the decision-makers at UNFCCC is similar to what Greg described? Or
what it might be?
Alex
_____
From: Greg.Monty at us.ul.com [mailto:Greg.Monty at us.ul.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:23 AM
To: Alex Spataru
Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org; discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org; Michael Iriarte
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
agree.:
Risk analysis suggests the important factors are (to identify the major risk
factors):
1. Magnitude of impact if something happens (release of carbon from gas)
2. Probability of incident
Then mitigation of risk would involve, as suggested below:
3. Cost of mitigation
Taking all three into consideration should be the method of prioritization
for the globe to tackle the issues. Very simple indeed.....???
thx. greg
Greg Monty, Ph.D.
Underwriter's Laboratories
Director of Technology
847-274-7017 cell
greg.monty at us.ul.com
"Alex Spataru"
Sent by: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
02/11/2009 08:53 AM
To
cc
Michael Iriarte
Subject
[GHG Network] GWP's for gases that make up LP Gas
Hello, Keith:
Your reply to Michael's email caused intense debate in our shop. We 100%
agree that one cannot develop a definitive GWP by simply multiplying the
mass of C in a given gas by 3.67. We believe that the value obtained through
this multiplication is the lowest figure for a GWP for propane. Michael and
I agree that other factors (as appropriately listed in your email) add to
this lowest limit GWP index. Sources on the net (from suggestions made by
several GHG Network participants - whom we thank) list the GWP of propane,
butane, and propylene at "~20". So far, we have not located the lab work on
which this "~20" figure is based.
The currently prevalent opinion that propane + propylene mixes released
every day in the atmosphere have a negligible GHG effect is very much open
to challenge. The GWP estimates found in the literature for propane,
propylene or butane are exactly that: estimates. We understand that formal
sanctioning from UNFCCC is necessary if there's to be trading in CO2 credits
from the elimination of LP Gas releases due to wasteful refilling practices
of tanks and cylinders.
BTW, isn't the "Cap and Trade" system based on the idea that it allows for
market forces to control, reduce, or eliminate GHG's that otherwise would be
difficult to control via regulatory mandate? Comments on this understanding
(Did I get it or did I blow it?) are welcomed.
>From reading Michael's exchanges within this forum it looks like the
existing system to control or lower GHG's lacks one important consideration
in targeting which compounds to go after: it does not take into account the
relative difficulty (or ease) to reduce or eliminate the offending compounds
from the atmosphere. Priority (understandably) is given to the largest
volume compounds. Yet, the relative amount of resources needed to eliminate
the offending compounds is apparently ignored by the decision makers at
UNFCCC when selecting which compounds deserve an official GWP. This apparent
short-coming seems a bit ironic when one realizes that the cost/unit of
offending compound eliminated is the actual mechanism that the system relies
on once an offending compound is deemed worthy by UNFCCC to receive a formal
GWP rating. Thoughts and comments on this observation are welcomed.
Back to propane and propylene: Can anyone please help as to where data could
be found on:
(1) The absorption spectrums for propane and propylene?
(2) The ability of propane and of propylene to absorb infrared radiation?
(3) How long propane and propylene hang around in the atmosphere?
Thank you.
I look forward to your comments.
Alex Spataru
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Ph:(310) 478-3456; Fax: (310)6335
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org]
On Behalf Of Keith J. Forbes
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:26 AM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: Re: [GHG Network] Propylene & GHG
Hi. I have not fully followed this thread, but there is a critical problem
with your calculation.
You cannot develop a GWP by simply multiplying the mass of C in a given gas
by 3.67. The GWP is a function of the ability of the gas to absorb infrared
radiation, the absorption spectrum of the gas, and how long it stays in the
atmosphere. If it were merely the number of C atoms, the GWP of CH4, CO and
CO2 would be the same.
So, you cannot state that the mitigation you propose for LP gas is
equivalent to a reduction of 630,000 tons of CO2, unless, of course, the
leaked gas is immediately burned.
Keith
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:53 -0800
"Michael Iriarte" wrote:
> I have been told that there are several references that assign from 3
> to 20 GWPs for propane, but the sources for these GWPs have not been
> identified.
>
> Now, returning to developing an emission factor for the complete
> oxidation of propane to CO2, it is known that: (a) the formula for
> propane is C3H8, and (b) the atomic weight for Carbon is 12 and the
> atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1. Thus, the weight of one molecule of
> propane is 44 (36 + 8). Also, the weight percentage of Carbon out of
> Propane is 81.81%. It is known that a gallon of LP Gas at 15C (60F)
> weighs 4.23 lbs., or 1.923 kg. (here I'm taking the liberty to equate
> 1 gallon of propane with 1 gallon of LP Gas - which is a rough
> approximation as experience indicates that in the US there's ~ 87.5%
> propane in the average gallon of LP Gas). Then, the weight of Carbon
> in one gallon of propane is 81.81% of 1.923 kg, or 1.57 kg.
>
> It's my best guess at this time that there is 210,000 Tons of LP Gas
> unnecessarily vented every year in the US due to current refilling
> practices. This becomes 210,000 tons x .8181 = 171,801 tons of Carbon
> that later gets multiplied by 3.67 to represent the oxidation of
> Carbon to CO2, or ~ 630,000 Tons of CO2.
>
> It would take relatively little to avoid such releases. The question
> remains: Is the potential; reduction of 630,000 Tons of CO2 every year
> something of interest at this junction?
>
> Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.
--
Keith J. Forbes
SAIC ~ 518 331 4982 ~ 888 777 2082 (efax) ~ keith.j.forbes at saic.com
** please print only if necessary **
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Please note that effective October 1, 2007 our new contact information will
be:
The ADEPT Group, Inc.
1273 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 203
Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
Phone: (310) 478-3456
Fax: (310) 478-6335
Website: www.adeptgroup.net
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3844 (20090211) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.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
- 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/20090211/511d6b1b/attachment.html
From Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca Wed Feb 18 08:13:02 2009
From: Pierre.Boileau at csa.ca (Pierre Boileau)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:13:02 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] SF6
In-Reply-To: <20090217232943.A23EDC18004@milkyway.forumone.com>
References: <20090217232943.A23EDC18004@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <26544A22D05CD64DA2C3C93AD181C35E055075F2@stdmsxbe1.corp.csa-group.org>
Hello David,
The IPCC principle of GHG accounting is to account for emissions, as
much as possible, where and when they occur. IPCC guidelines don't
always follow this principle, notably for harvested wood products, but
these few exceptions are typically necessary because of complexities in
tracking these emissions over time. For your SF6 situation, this would
mean attempting to figure out when these emissions may have occurred and
accounting for them in that year.
I hope that's helpful. With best regards,
Pierre.
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of David Hodge
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:30 PM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: [GHG Network] SF6
Hi,
I am working on the inventory of a electricity company.
They have measured for the first time an SF6 back-up supply cylinder,
and found that there is a significant amount of SF6 unaccounted for that
seems to have gone missing.
Given that this SF6 has gone missing over the last say 10 years, should
this unaccounted for SF6 be pro-rated in the current year inventory(i.e.
one tenth) and base year recalculated? Or should it all be assigned to
the current year?
Opinions would be most appreciated.
Thanks
David
_______________________________________________
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org
To post message:
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at ghgnetwork.org
To unsubscribe:
http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original message immediately. The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you.
From nici.alexander at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 12:25:12 2009
From: nici.alexander at gmail.com (Nici Alexander)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:25:12 +0200
Subject: [GHG Network] Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and Gas Oil
Message-ID: <499C4478.8010508@gmail.com>
Hi there
I am in the process of calculating the carbon footprint for a company
that has a fleet of vessels. I have been given their fuel as "Marine Gas
Oil". My query is to find out if there is a difference between "Marine
Gas Oil" and "Gas Oil".
I have an emissions factor of 2.674 kg/l for Gas Oil from the DEFRA 2008
guidelines. I have also found an emissions factor for Marine Gas Oil of
2.683 kg/l (SOURCE:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/excel/Fuel%20Emission%20Factors.xls),
although they are fairly similar I am working with large quantities of
fuel so the difference in EF that I use really does have an effect on
their carbon footprint.
Please could you let me know more details about the source of the DEFRA
08 Gas Oil EF and advise as to which EF I should be using.
With thanks,
Nici Alexander
Founding Member of CARBON CALCULATED.
www.carboncalculated.co.za
PS The 2008 EF For electricity in South Africa is 1
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090218/786a0750/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature 3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42578 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090218/786a0750/attachment-0001.jpg
From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Feb 18 16:17:05 2009
From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:17:05 -0500
Subject: [GHG Network] CO emissions from coal cleaning/beneficiation
References: <20090211220808.73B9EC1800E@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID:
Ian:
See the USDOE Section 1605(b) Technical Guidelines for voluntary GHG
reporting. That document provides a method and emission factors for
estimating post-mining activities, such as coal cleaning.
Regards,
Dennis O'Regan
Liberty Environmental, Inc.
Direct: (610) 463-3327 or
(610) 375-9301, X-210
FAX: (610) 375-9302
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Ian M. Torrens
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:08 PM
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: [GHG Network] CO emissions from coal cleaning/beneficiation
Can anyone suggest where I can get quantitative information (not
necessarily very detailed) on how much CO2 is emitted from a fairly
standard hard coal preparation/coal washing plant? I'm looking at the
benefits of coal cleaning for emissions at the combustion stage via
efficiency improvement, and I would like to have this information to
illustrate the fact that the increase in emissions due to the cleaning
process is small compared to the decrease further down the fuel cycle.
Many thanks.
Ian
_______________________________________________
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 Wed Feb 18 17:19:10 2009
From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis M. O'Regan)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:19:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] "The Great Propane Debate"
Message-ID: <20090218221910.49467C1805E@milkyway.forumone.com>
I have exchanged correspondence with one of the Network's participants on how to calculate CO2 emissions from propane combustion (or fugitives) and offered my insight on why propane does not have its own GWP.
Without putting words in the IPCC's collective mouths, the absence of a GWP at this time seems to be, in part, that propane, at least in the United States, does not constitute a particularly large source of emissions. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb1203.xls for the energy sector alone.
In 2006 LPG energy consumption contributed 92.4 MMTCO2 to a total of 5,890.3 MMTCO2 (about 1.6 percent). LPG fugitives should be a fraction of the 92.4 MMTCO2 emitted.
I can't say how much of the LPG was propane versus other natural gas petroleum liquids. The footnote in the referenced table explains that some of the manufactured gases are counted under their parent fuel.
A little research on the USDOE/EIA WWW site could allow one to determine the significance of propane combustion in other nations. It is likely to be a much lower percentage of total emissions.
Dennis
From tumaschpitsch at hotmail.com Wed Feb 18 09:40:55 2009
From: tumaschpitsch at hotmail.com (Tumasch Pitsch)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:40:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] Resource rent solar energy
Message-ID: <20090218144055.D20F7C1805E@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hello everybody,
For my master thesis (University of Z??rich) I have to calculate the actual resource rent of solar energy technology (photovoltaic). I???m going to start my work in the next days and I don???t have relevant material yet.
I have the following questions:
???Does anybody of you know a methodology to calculate the costs of a photovoltaic system?
???Which variables are relevant for the productivity and the costs of solar energy?
???Do you know a study where the resource rent of solar energy has been calculated?
???And what about the future trends of the photovoltaic technology?
Your answers would be very helpful, thank you to all of you!
Regards,
Tumasch
From ralberto at gelnex.com.br Thu Feb 19 06:05:38 2009
From: ralberto at gelnex.com.br (Rodrigo Alberto - Gelnex)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:05:38 -0300
Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emissions from animal fat burning
References: <20090218144055.D20F7C1805E@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <006e01c99282$0038dc60$ce00a8c0@alberto>
Hello
My company has some eletric gelerators burning diesel oil, and we are
testing to burn animal fat instead.
Does anyone know any source for CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions for animal fat
burning in internal combustion engines?
Any source would be helpfull.
Thanks
Rodrigo Alberto
From taschini at isb.uzh.ch Fri Feb 20 15:08:19 2009
From: taschini at isb.uzh.ch (Luca Taschini)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:08:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] New paper on "Environmental Economics and Modeling
Marketable Permits: A Survey"
Message-ID: <20090220200819.D97BDC18054@milkyway.forumone.com>
Dear Colleagues,
The ISB University of Zurich has released a new paper titled "Environmental Economics and Modeling Marketable Permits: A Survey". The paper can be downloaded from this web page:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346352
Abstract:
This paper reviews fundamental concepts in environmental economics and explores theoretical results regarding the choice of the key policy instruments for the control of externalities: taxes, subsidies and marketable permits. The paper explains why today market mechanisms are increasingly being used as a tool for allocating unpriced rights and scarce resources. We survey how significant market imperfections, a pre-existing regulatory environment and concentration in both permit and output markets can impede the proper functioning of a permit system. The main factors that affect the effectiveness of marketable permits are then discussed. Given the importance of understanding the emission permit price formation, we overview recent attempts at developing valid price models for emission permits, taking into account banking and borrowing opportunities, pollution abatement measures, strategic trading interactions and the presence of asymmetric information in the permit market.
Keywords: Dynamic Price Modeling, Emission Permits, Market Imperfections
Best Regards,
Luca Taschini
___________________________________
Luca Taschini
Swiss Banking Institute, University of Z??rich
Plattenstrasse 32 CH - 8032 Z??rich
TEL +41 44 634 52 39 FAX +41 44 634 49 03
New email address: taschini at isb.uzh.ch
My papers are available on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=605723
***
"Before printing please think about the ENVIRONMENT !"
***
From doregan at libertyenviro.com Mon Feb 23 10:40:11 2009
From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:40:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] Battery Charging Emissions & GHG Accounting
Message-ID: <20090223154011.ECC88C18007@milkyway.forumone.com>
How should a lead-acid battery manufacturer account for the electrical energy that is stored in a lead-acid battery since the battery, and its electrical capacity, is sold to a customer? Should the manufacturer net out the indirect emissions associated with charging the battery?
My opinion is that it should NOT net out the emissions associated with the electrical charge in the battery since: (1) the emissions have already occurred by the time the battery is purchased; and (2) if the battery sits long enough without being used, it will eventually lose its charge.
As an energy source, a battery is different from comparable sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Sale of those resources will have some upstream emissions, but the bulk of the emissions associated with the embodied thermal energy is not released until the purchaser uses them. Additionally, the user fossil and biogenic fuels may have the opportunity to control the emissions of GHGs through combustion controls and possibly sequestration of the CO2.
If there is available any formal guidance (IPCC, WRI, USEPA, etc.) on this topic I would appreciate it if you could reference it.
Thanks,
Dennis M. O'Regan
Liberty Environmental, Inc.
Reading, PA, US
From kagang at hariera.com Mon Feb 23 13:11:56 2009
From: kagang at hariera.com (Kal Gangavarapu)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:11:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting
Message-ID: <20090223181156.3788EC18003@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hello,
I am looking for good source on understanding Carbon footprint for Ocean liners.
regards
From tenn003 at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 12:38:20 2009
From: tenn003 at gmail.com (Ryan O'Connell)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:38:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting
Message-ID: <20090225173820.2E8C0C18061@milkyway.forumone.com>
Dear Kal Gangavarapu:
You may have already referenced this resource, but the U.S. EPA's Optional Modules Guidance for Commuting, Business Travel, and Product Transport (http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf) contains Waterborne Craft emissions factors for CO2, CH4, & N2O. I hope this helps.
Ryan O'Connell
From R.vanDijk at LHC.NL Thu Feb 26 04:55:28 2009
From: R.vanDijk at LHC.NL (Richard van Dijk - LHC Consulting)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:55:28 +0100
Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting
In-Reply-To: <20090223181156.3788EC18003@milkyway.forumone.com>
References: <20090223181156.3788EC18003@milkyway.forumone.com>
Message-ID: <0DC8572AF710B6499FFEE0BD322D87782733C6@exfile.lhc.local>
Dear Kal,
SMED (Swedish Environmental Emissions Data) has published a report in
2004 called "Methodology for calculating emissions from ships: 2.
Emission factors for 2004 reporting", which can be found at:
http://www.smed.se/frames/subframes/luft/rapporter/html/summ_emissions_f
rom_ships_2.htm with a download link at the bottom of the page. This
might be helpful to you.
Kind regards,
Richard van Dijk
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Kal Gangavarapu
Sent: 23 February 2009 19:12
To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org
Subject: [GHG Network] Carbon Footprinting
Hello,
I am looking for good source on understanding Carbon footprint for Ocean
liners.
regards
_______________________________________________
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 rajibpramanik at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:45:23 2009
From: rajibpramanik at gmail.com (Rajib Pramanik)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:45:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Inventorization
Message-ID: <20090227094523.764C6C1805B@milkyway.forumone.com>
Hello,
I am looking for good source on understanding Carbon footprint for mines, Copper and Zinc Industries
regards