From james_davley at yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 3 09:51:04 2009 From: james_davley at yahoo.co.uk (DANIELS JAMES) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:51:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators Message-ID: <925167.39167.qm@web26707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear All, ? Do anyone have idea of emission factor for diesel generators. ? I am working on a project which requires changing of diesel generator with solar PV power system. I need to calculate the amount of emission saved from displacing diesel generators. ? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090303/314ccc1f/attachment.html From doregan at libertyenviro.com Tue Mar 3 14:07:22 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:07:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators Message-ID: <20090303190722.CF89DC18094@milkyway.forumone.com> The emissions are directly related to the fuel used. How much fuel is used in an hour depends on the MW capacity of the generator. So you need the engineering spec for the particular generator and that SHOULD give you a gallons per hour rating at full load. In the US, most diesel generators are installed for emergency use and may run only a few hours per year, primarily to exercise them for routine testing. You can take a shortcut if you know the actual fuel use from a tank inventory. Just use a default factor to convert the diesel fuel liquid measure to tonnes CO2. Dennis From JEElliott at bahamaselectricity.com Wed Mar 4 07:21:09 2009 From: JEElliott at bahamaselectricity.com (JEElliott at bahamaselectricity.com) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:21:09 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators In-Reply-To: <925167.39167.qm@web26707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi James can you be more specific with regard to the type of diesel that these generators burn? Jerome Elliott [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators DANIELS JAMES to: discuss 03/03/2009 01:30 PM Sent by: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org Please respond to james_davley Dear All, Do anyone have idea of emission factor for diesel generators. I am working on a project which requires changing of diesel generator with solar PV power system. I need to calculate the amount of emission saved from displacing diesel generators. Thanks _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090304/d0f24a9c/attachment.html From nzerem_frances at yahoo.co.uk Wed Mar 4 03:20:23 2009 From: nzerem_frances at yahoo.co.uk (FRANCES NZEREM) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:20:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators In-Reply-To: <925167.39167.qm@web26707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <235282.64141.qm@web24603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Diesel generators combust diesel. ? Every 1 litre of diesel releases 2.63kg of CO2. ? If you? 4 example ur generator consume 3.6litres of diesel in one hour. ? Then annual emission factor = 3.6x24x360x2.63= 81803.52kgCO2/LITRE ? http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/business/envrp/pdf/conversion-factors.pdf- Refer to Defra 4 emission factor for diesel. Note these are emission factors for the UK. you need to confirm if they are the same for ur country. Regards Frances Nzerem --- On Tue, 3/3/09, DANIELS JAMES wrote: From: DANIELS JAMES Subject: [GHG Network] Emission Factor for Diesel Generators To: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Date: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009, 2:51 PM Dear All, ? Do anyone have idea of emission factor for diesel generators. ? I am working on a project which requires changing of diesel generator with solar PV power system. I need to calculate the amount of emission saved from displacing diesel generators. ? Thanks _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090304/451e6c09/attachment.html From Melissa.Ritter at Paceglobal.com Mon Mar 9 10:02:06 2009 From: Melissa.Ritter at Paceglobal.com (Melissa Ritter) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:02:06 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emissions by Industrial Sub-Process Message-ID: <948DAEEA14506B4096CE95600129DE85029DED18@monroe.corporate.paceglobal.com> I am looking for reputable data sources on GHG emissions by industrial processes in the U.S. and hoping that someone in this network may be able to help. Is anyone aware of data source(s) that have GHG emissions broken down by industrial sub processes, i.e. NAICS classes, or generally something more granular than that presented in the EPA's Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks? I appreciate your direction & thoughts. Best, Melissa Melissa A. Ritter Manager Environmental Markets and Policy 4401 Fair Lakes Ct Ste 400 Fairfax, VA 22033 USA Phone: 703.818.9100 Direct: 703.227.8793 Email: melissa.ritter at paceglobal.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient and contain confidential and proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any reading, distribution, disclosure, copying, printing or taking action in reliance upon this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090309/dc68c2d4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1995 bytes Desc: image001.gif Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090309/dc68c2d4/attachment.gif From tom.kirkpatrick at yahoo.com Fri Mar 6 15:50:45 2009 From: tom.kirkpatrick at yahoo.com (Tom Kirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:50:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [GHG Network] Handling E85 in Inventories Message-ID: <20090306205045.06EEAC18084@milkyway.forumone.com> I am currently working on a service sector GHG inventory. Direct emissions include company-owned vehicles running on gasoline, diesel and E85. My understanding is that biofuels should not be included in Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions since they are part of the short-term carbon cycle. So, should I calculate emissions based on gallons of gasoline and multiply by 0.15 to account for 85% ethanol? Also, what about the 10% ethanol that is often in retail gasoline? Should that also be accounted for in some way or is it insignificant? I am calculating emissions from 2003 to present and don't have information about gasoline ethanol levels over that time period. After searching the web for 2 days for papers on this topic I am appealing to the experts. Please provide reference or advise. Thanks. From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Mar 11 13:26:24 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Handling E85 in Inventories Message-ID: <20090311172624.92D71C1806A@milkyway.forumone.com> Tom: See Ch. 13 of the Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf). It has the methodology and emission factors you need. For documented gallons of E85 actual use, break it out to gasoline and ethanol gallons and then use the defaul CO2 emission factors. The biogenic CO2 from ethanol (5.56 kg CO2/gal for E100) is tracked separately (motor gasoline is 8.81 kg CO2/gal). You will also need to compute the N2O and CH4 emissions from both gasoline and ethanol. That gets tricky since it is usually done in g/mi, and by model year and control technology. So you will need to come up with some average fleet fuel economy to get the miles if you do not already have them and then organize the analyses by model year or use N2O and CH4 values that are conservative and representative of the entire fleet. I believe the N2O and CH4 from combusting ethanol is considered anthropogenic and should be included in your Scope 1 direct emissions. The Climate Registry gives default N2O and CH4 values for ethanol and their computation does not need to be performed by model year. You then aggregate the CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions using the GWPs for N2O (23) and CH4 (310) as metric tons CO2-equivalent. This is described in the Registry Guideline. The 10% ethanol that MAY be in retail gas is speculative. If you can't document it, then I would suggest that you just use the default emission factors for motor gasoline. Common motor gasoline can contain up to 10% ethanol, but that does not mean it actually does (now I'm well beyond my expertise). Regards, Dennis From doregan at libertyenviro.com Wed Mar 11 15:17:48 2009 From: doregan at libertyenviro.com (Dennis O'Regan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] Handling E85 in Inventories Message-ID: <20090311191748.DB405C18060@milkyway.forumone.com> It has been pointed out that in my last message I reversed the GWPs for N2O and Ch4. Ch4 is 21 and N2O is 310. Since the original question addressed fleet vehicles, HFC (mostly R-134a) should be inventoried as well. Regards, Dennis From sevans at cleanair.com Mon Mar 16 17:19:34 2009 From: sevans at cleanair.com (Scott Evans) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Message-ID: <20090316211934.9529EC1806A@milkyway.forumone.com> Work that we have done comparing actual measured CO2 data from coal-fired power plants with calculated CO2 estimates based on coal carbon content show that the calculated estimates are consistently low by between 5 and 20%. For some large units, this translates into differences of more than one million tons per year between the two approaches. There are several statements in IPCC documents and others stating, in effect, that the calculation approach provides data of equivalent quality to direct measurement by CEMS. However, not one shred of data is presented to support this claim. In fact, this claim is directly contradicted by the data. The most astounding argument I have heard is that if there is a discrepancy, the calculated data should be considered more accurate. Let's see now,,, a CEMS has a known uncertainty that is traceable to a National Standard. A calculation is subject to unknown (but large) uncertainties regarding fuel flow, carbon content, and oxidiation rates. The idea that theoretical calculations should be used to vet actual scientific observation would make Galileo spin in his grave. I am not suggesting that all CO2 data be generated solely from CEMS. I am simply pointing out that the use of emission factors ALWAYS results in data with greater uncertainty (i.e. less reliability) than direct measurement. However, in many GHG protocols, such as The Climate Registry's draft Electric Power Sector Protocol, calculated CO2 is rated as highly as direct CEMS data. In order for any GHG trading program to be taken seriously, we must be careful about the quality of data used to support the program. Calculated data is simply not as reliable as directly measured data. This must be recognized and accepted if we are to move forward with a credible program. From Saviour.Vassallo at mepa.org.mt Tue Mar 17 04:05:15 2009 From: Saviour.Vassallo at mepa.org.mt (Saviour Vassallo) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:05:15 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: <20090316211934.9529EC1806A@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Mr Evans, There is validity in your comments, however, you might want to have a look at the monitoring and reporting guidelines* used in respect of the European Union emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) to see how the matters you raise (including calculation methodologies and uncertainties) are treated with regards to stationary emission sources. One should take into consideration the fact that the application of CEMS in large industrial installations is not always possible and could be a significantly costly exercise - besides it might not always capture all emissions. In the case of the EU ETS, calculated emission estimates are rated even more than CEMS, and data supplied by CEMS has to be supported with estimated figures. It is important to also note that emission reports provided by participants in the EU ETS have to be verified by accredited verifiers. *Commission Decision 2007/589/EC establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European parliament and of the Council. regards Saviour Vassallo B.Sc., M.Sc Environment Protection Officer Scott Evans To Sent by: discuss at ghgnetwork.org discuss-bounces at g cc hgnetwork.org Subject [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors 16/03/2009 22:19 for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Work that we have done comparing actual measured CO2 data from coal-fired power plants with calculated CO2 estimates based on coal carbon content show that the calculated estimates are consistently low by between 5 and 20%. For some large units, this translates into differences of more than one million tons per year between the two approaches. There are several statements in IPCC documents and others stating, in effect, that the calculation approach provides data of equivalent quality to direct measurement by CEMS. However, not one shred of data is presented to support this claim. In fact, this claim is directly contradicted by the data. The most astounding argument I have heard is that if there is a discrepancy, the calculated data should be considered more accurate. Let's see now,,, a CEMS has a known uncertainty that is traceable to a National Standard. A calculation is subject to unknown (but large) uncertainties regarding fuel flow, carbon content, and oxidiation rates. The idea that theoretical calculations should be used to vet actual scientific observation would make Galileo spin in his grave. I am not suggesting that all CO2 data be generated solely from CEMS. I am simply pointing out that the use of emission factors ALWAYS results in data with greater uncertainty (i.e. less reliability) than direct measurement. However, in many GHG protocols, such as The Climate Registry's draft Electric Power Sector Protocol, calculated CO2 is rated as highly as direct CEMS data. In order for any GHG trading program to be taken seriously, we must be careful about the quality of data used to support the program. Calculated data is simply not as reliable as directly measured data. This must be recognized and accepted if we are to move forward with a credible program. _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------- Malta Environment & Planning Authority St. Francis Ravelin Floriana Malta TEL: +356 2290 0000 FAX: +356 2290 2295 http://www.mepa.org.mt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Any views expressed are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of MEPA. DATA PROTECTION CLAUSE: In terms of the Data Protection Act (Chapter 440 of the Laws of Malta), note that MEPA will process any personal and/or sensitive data supplied to it as detailed in http://www.mepa.org.mt/customercare/data_protection/mainpage.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Tue Mar 17 10:38:32 2009 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <446319.64394.qm@web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Scott, Saviour, and Network Members, While I was at the US EPA in the group that runs both the GHG inventory and acid rain programs, we did some studies comparing CEM data to full-based CO2 estimates. We found a significant difference between the two (if memory serves me right, it was on the order of 7%). It is wrong to assume that CEMs are the correct number by default, and that any error is in the fuel-based data. For example, there have been multiple improvements over the years to the stack flow measurement techniques under CFR Part 75 (e.g., to deal with cyclonic flow). And it is my understanding that the difference now between fuel-based estimates and CEM data has narrowed. One would assume that a good chuck of this narrowing is due to the the CEM data getting better (i.e., that it was not perfect to begin with, and probably still isn't). I remember that some other studies have shown that CEMs used under the US Acid Rain program in the past tended to overestimate CO2 emissions. Anecdotal evidence also shows that the fuel comsumption data reported to EIA is not perfect either. Both EPA and EIA continue to make efforts to improve their data, though. The general point here is that it is incorrect to assume that CEM data is always better and more accurate than fuel consumption based estimates for CO2 emissions. Neither is inherently better or more accurate. Clearly fuel-based approaches are cheaper and easier to implement for a given level of accuracy. Fuel sampling and monitoring mass input is not that tough. While CEMs are relatively complex to implement well. So on a pure cost-benefit basis, if you are ONLY concerned about CO2 (and not any other pollutants) then fuel-based methods probably make the most sense for CO2. However, if you have already invested in CEMs for some other reasons (e.g., monitoring SO2 and NOx) then why not use them. Especially, if the data they produce is already sanctioned under a legally binding regulatory framework. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) ________________________________ ________________________________ From: Saviour Vassallo To: Scott Evans Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:05:15 AM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Mr Evans, There is validity in your comments, however, you might want to have a look at the monitoring and reporting guidelines* used in respect of the European Union emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) to see how the matters you raise (including calculation methodologies and uncertainties) are treated with regards to stationary emission sources. One should take into consideration the fact that the application of CEMS in large industrial installations is not always possible and could be a significantly costly exercise - besides it might not always capture all emissions. In the case of the EU ETS, calculated emission estimates are rated even more than CEMS, and data supplied by CEMS has to be supported with estimated figures. It is important to also note that emission reports provided by participants in the EU ETS have to be verified by accredited verifiers. *Commission Decision 2007/589/EC establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European parliament and of the Council. regards Saviour Vassallo B.Sc., M.Sc Environment Protection Officer Scott Evans To Sent by: discuss at ghgnetwork.org discuss-bounces at g cc hgnetwork.org Subject [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors 16/03/2009 22:19 for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Work that we have done comparing actual measured CO2 data from coal-fired power plants with calculated CO2 estimates based on coal carbon content show that the calculated estimates are consistently low by between 5 and 20%. For some large units, this translates into differences of more than one million tons per year between the two approaches. There are several statements in IPCC documents and others stating, in effect, that the calculation approach provides data of equivalent quality to direct measurement by CEMS. However, not one shred of data is presented to support this claim. In fact, this claim is directly contradicted by the data. The most astounding argument I have heard is that if there is a discrepancy, the calculated data should be considered more accurate. Let's see now,,, a CEMS has a known uncertainty that is traceable to a National Standard. A calculation is subject to unknown (but large) uncertainties regarding fuel flow, carbon content, and oxidiation rates. The idea that theoretical calculations should be used to vet actual scientific observation would make Galileo spin in his grave. I am not suggesting that all CO2 data be generated solely from CEMS. I am simply pointing out that the use of emission factors ALWAYS results in data with greater uncertainty (i.e. less reliability) than direct measurement. However, in many GHG protocols, such as The Climate Registry's draft Electric Power Sector Protocol, calculated CO2 is rated as highly as direct CEMS data. In order for any GHG trading program to be taken seriously, we must be careful about the quality of data used to support the program. Calculated data is simply not as reliable as directly measured data. This must be recognized and accepted if we are to move forward with a credible program. _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------- Malta Environment & Planning Authority St. Francis Ravelin Floriana Malta TEL: +356 2290 0000 FAX: +356 2290 2295 http://www.mepa.org.mt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Any views expressed are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of MEPA. DATA PROTECTION CLAUSE: In terms of the Data Protection Act (Chapter 440 of the Laws of Malta), note that MEPA will process any personal and/or sensitive data supplied to it as detailed in http://www.mepa.org.mt/customercare/data_protection/mainpage.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experts Network www.ghgnetwork.org To post message: Discuss mailing list Discuss at ghgnetwork.org To unsubscribe: http://milkyway.forumone.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090317/ffa62721/attachment.html From eggleston at iges.or.jp Tue Mar 17 10:44:49 2009 From: eggleston at iges.or.jp (Simon Eggleston) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Message-ID: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> I think the issue is where the values of carbon contents you have used actually come from. Given that the CO2 coming out from a combustion plant comes from the carbon in fuel input the question is which is best to measure. CEMS are expensive and not so easy to use - measuring carbon contents of fuels is relatively cheap and straightforward. CEMS do give continuous measurements but this is not really needed for greenhouse gases. If the carbon content of fuel actually burnt is measured you would expect this to give a good estimate of the annual emissions (or a small over-estimate due to the amount un-burnt). However, if you use a carbon content from the literature or some default value then this is clearly less much accurate. The IPCC Guidelines are clear that for significant sources of CO2 you should use country specific values of carbon contents (i.e. measured values) not the default values. (Again a country average carbon content may be a good estimator for NATIONAL ANNUAL emissions while leading to errors in the estimates for an individual plant.) I would question if the cost of CEMS can be justified if the aim is to improve national annual emission estimates - there are usually many other CO2 sources with higher uncertainties. Of course, there may be other reasons for using CEMS if you wish to monitor one plant. From sevans at cleanair.com Tue Mar 17 12:44:44 2009 From: sevans at cleanair.com (Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:44:44 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> References: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: Simon- You bring up an excellent point that I neglected to mention earlier. Assuming that fuel content based calculations provide a bias-free estimate of CO2 (and this has yet to be shown), they may provide an adequate estimate of national emissions. This is what emission factors were designed to do. US EPA cautions that its emission factors should not be used to determine emissions from individual plants (although they are used for that every day). AP-42 emission factors were designed for states to determine their state-wide emission inventories. For this purpose, they work fairly well. However, as you point out, use of emission factors at individual plants can be disastrous. Remember that many emission factors (or fuel carbon factors) are averages that may have a high variability. On a plant-by- plant basis, you never know where they may be. So for national inventories factors may be fine. For individual plants, they can be a problem. --- Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering 500 W. Wood St. Palatine, Illinois 60041 847-654-4569 - voice 847-991-3385 - fax sevans at cleanair.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3275 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090317/15a6a821/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Simon Eggleston wrote: > I think the issue is where the values of carbon contents you have > used actually come from. > > Given that the CO2 coming out from a combustion plant comes from the > carbon in fuel input the question is which is best to measure. CEMS > are expensive and not so easy to use - measuring carbon contents of > fuels is relatively cheap and straightforward. CEMS do give > continuous measurements but this is not really needed for greenhouse > gases. > > If the carbon content of fuel actually burnt is measured you would > expect this to give a good estimate of the annual emissions (or a > small over-estimate due to the amount un-burnt). > > However, if you use a carbon content from the literature or some > default value then this is clearly less much accurate. > > The IPCC Guidelines are clear that for significant sources of CO2 > you should use country specific values of carbon contents (i.e. > measured values) not the default values. (Again a country average > carbon content may be a good estimator for NATIONAL ANNUAL emissions > while leading to errors in the estimates for an individual plant.) > > I would question if the cost of CEMS can be justified if the aim is > to improve national annual emission estimates - there are usually > many other CO2 sources with higher uncertainties. Of course, there > may be other reasons for using CEMS if you wish to monitor one plant. > _______________________________________________ > 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 discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Tue Mar 17 22:24:03 2009 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: References: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> Message-ID: <993992.30518.qm@web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Scott, Reasonable point. Although the statements form EPA you refer to about emission factors are primarily related to pollutants other than CO2, I believe. Their comments about not using AP-42 factors are really directed at non-CO2 pollutant emissions, which are not a simple mass balance function. And I don't think anyone is proposing, this includes The Climate Registry EPW workgroup (I should disclose that I am on that group), that default carbon content factors be fully relied on. Plant or unit-level fuel sampling is called for to address the issue you bring up. More broadly, the carbon content of standard fossil fuel types does exhibit some variability, but it is not necessarily large. It depends on the fuel type. For example, if you are burning propane, then the variability in carbon content there is almost nothing. I did some analysis on heating value and carbon content variability for specific fuel types in the GHG Protocol's Stationary Combustion calculation tool (www.ghgprotocol.org), for anyone that is interested in seeing what these ranges actually look like. michael ________________________________ Michael Gillenwater GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) ________________________________ ________________________________ From: Scott Evans To: Simon Eggleston Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:44:44 PM Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Simon- You bring up an excellent point that I neglected to mention earlier. Assuming that fuel content based calculations provide a bias-free estimate of CO2 (and this has yet to be shown), they may provide an adequate estimate of national emissions. This is what emission factors were designed to do. US EPA cautions that its emission factors should not be used to determine emissions from individual plants (although they are used for that every day). AP-42 emission factors were designed for states to determine their state-wide emission inventories. For this purpose, they work fairly well. However, as you point out, use of emission factors at individual plants can be disastrous. Remember that many emission factors (or fuel carbon factors) are averages that may have a high variability. On a plant-by-plant basis, you never know where they may be. So for national inventories factors may be fine. For individual plants, they can be a problem. --- Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering 500 W. Wood St. Palatine, Illinois 60041 847-654-4569 - voice 847-991-3385 - fax sevans at cleanair.com On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Simon Eggleston wrote: > I think the issue is where the values of carbon contents you have used actually come from. > > Given that the CO2 coming out from a combustion plant comes from the carbon in fuel input the question is which is best to measure. CEMS are expensive and not so easy to use - measuring carbon contents of fuels is relatively cheap and straightforward. CEMS do give continuous measurements but this is not really needed for greenhouse gases. > > If the carbon content of fuel actually burnt is measured you would expect this to give a good estimate of the annual emissions (or a small over-estimate due to the amount un-burnt). > > However, if you use a carbon content from the literature or some default value then this is clearly less much accurate. > > The IPCC Guidelines are clear that for significant sources of CO2 you should use country specific values of carbon contents (i.e. measured values) not the default values. (Again a country average carbon content may be a good estimator for NATIONAL ANNUAL emissions while leading to errors in the estimates for an individual plant.) > > I would question if the cost of CEMS can be justified if the aim is to improve national annual emission estimates - there are usually many other CO2 sources with higher uncertainties. Of course, there may be other reasons for using CEMS if you wish to monitor one plant. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090317/b96dec2f/attachment.html From antonio.pizzigallo at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 08:50:18 2009 From: antonio.pizzigallo at gmail.com (Antonio Pizzigallo) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:50:18 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Inventory of Waste Incinerator Message-ID: <8dd69bf80903180550j4ee21285v85c28a605a3f7398@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, anyone know where do I could find suggestions, reports, information on waste incinerator GHG inventory? I thank you in advance for support. Bests -- Antonio C.I. Pizzigallo, Ph.D. Please consider the environment before printing this email [Ai sensi del D.Lgs.196/03 si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il messaggio stesso le fosse pervenuto erroneamente, la invitiamo ad eliminarlo, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie.] [The information included in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the correct recipient, you are kindly requested to notify the sender immediately, to cancel it and not to disclose the contents to any other person.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090318/17d0453d/attachment.html From discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org Wed Mar 18 11:57:07 2009 From: discuss-owner at ghgnetwork.org (Michael Gillenwater [moderator]) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:57:07 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary SourceEmissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: <8A116FFC507A234A9E7480C161B6DCF506D8A0FE@us1-exbe01.BSI-GLOBAL.NET> References: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> <993992.30518.qm@web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8A116FFC507A234A9E7480C161B6DCF506D8A0FE@us1-exbe01.BSI-GLOBAL.NET> Message-ID: <20dd85730903180857m4bd9280as266cd1972aefc291@mail.gmail.com> Wil, Agree fully. As you point out, we should just be careful setting up a straw man comparison. putting rigorously implemented CEMs with calibration, etc. up again fuel based estimates using default carbon content factors is really not how we should discuss the issue. We should compare like with like, that means, as you say, comparing CEMs with fuel based methods using rigorous sampling protocols, fuel input metering, and residual unoxidized carbon sampling. mg Michael Gillenwater Executive Director GHG Experts Network* www.ghgnetwork.org Princeton University Science, Technology & Environmental Policy Program Skype: mwgillenwater Tel +1 202 997 3335 gillenwater at alum.mit.edu -- * Organization is an independent non-profit and not affiliated with Princeton University. On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Wil Wang wrote: > Michael, et. al., Following up on this very interesting topic and thread, > I need to bring to the group what we have seen in the field. Indeed, > numerous emission factors have been established by EPA and others since > early 1990 for various air pollutants, including CO2, from combustion of > different fuel streams (under various conditions, I might add). Relevant > factors may be used as surrogate in CO2 emission calculation as permitted by > various GHG schemes, including The Climate Registry?s General Reporting > Protocol. It should be noted, as Messrs. Eggleston and Evans pointed out, > that not all ?natural gas? or other commercially or internally supplied > fossil fuels are created equal, consequently, direct application of CO2 > emission factors either from AP42 or other sources will inevitably introduce > some level of error and/or uncertainty. Extent of potential > error/uncertainly must be examined and taken into account when making > materiality determination ? this is one aspect we verifiers often look into > diligently. Fuel stream profiling over time or calibrated CEMS remains to > be of higher data quality. Best, WIL > > > > Wilhelm Wang > > Manager, Business Sustainability > > BSI Management Systems Americas Entity > > _____________________________________ > > M:+ 571 216 2270 > > F: + 201 666 0258 > > E: wilhelm.wang at bsigroup.com > > W: www.bsiamerica.com > > P* **Please consider the environment before printing this email* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto: > discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Gillenwater > [moderator] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:24 PM > *To:* Scott Evans; Simon Eggleston > *Cc:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org > *Subject:* Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary > SourceEmissions of CO2 > > > > Scott, > > Reasonable point. Although the statements form EPA you refer to about > emission factors are primarily related to pollutants other than CO2, I > believe. Their comments about not using AP-42 factors are really directed > at non-CO2 pollutant emissions, which are not a simple mass balance > function. > > And I don't think anyone is proposing, this includes The Climate Registry > EPW workgroup (I should disclose that I am on that group), that default > carbon content factors be fully relied on. Plant or unit-level fuel > sampling is called for to address the issue you bring up. > > More broadly, the carbon content of standard fossil fuel types does exhibit > some variability, but it is not necessarily large. It depends on the fuel > type. For example, if you are burning propane, then the variability in > carbon content there is almost nothing. I did some analysis on heating > value and carbon content variability for specific fuel types in the GHG > Protocol's Stationary Combustion calculation tool (www.ghgprotocol.org), > for anyone that is interested in seeing what these ranges actually look > like. > > michael > > ------------------------------ > > Michael Gillenwater > GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Scott Evans > *To:* Simon Eggleston > *Cc:* discuss at ghgnetwork.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:44:44 PM > *Subject:* Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source > Emissions of CO2 > > Simon- > > You bring up an excellent point that I neglected to mention earlier. > Assuming that fuel content based calculations provide a bias-free estimate > of CO2 (and this has yet to be shown), they may provide an adequate estimate > of national emissions. This is what emission factors were designed to do. US > EPA cautions that its emission factors should not be used to determine > emissions from individual plants (although they are used for that every > day). AP-42 emission factors were designed for states to determine their > state-wide emission inventories. For this purpose, they work fairly well. > However, as you point out, use of emission factors at individual plants can > be disastrous. Remember that many emission factors (or fuel carbon factors) > are averages that may have a high variability. On a plant-by-plant basis, > you never know where they may be. > > So for national inventories factors may be fine. For individual plants, > they can be a problem. > > --- > Scott Evans > Clean Air Engineering > 500 W. Wood St. > Palatine, Illinois 60041 > > 847-654-4569 - voice > 847-991-3385 - fax > sevans at cleanair.com > > > > > On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Simon Eggleston wrote: > > > I think the issue is where the values of carbon contents you have used > actually come from. > > > > Given that the CO2 coming out from a combustion plant comes from the > carbon in fuel input the question is which is best to measure. CEMS are > expensive and not so easy to use - measuring carbon contents of fuels is > relatively cheap and straightforward. CEMS do give continuous measurements > but this is not really needed for greenhouse gases. > > > > If the carbon content of fuel actually burnt is measured you would expect > this to give a good estimate of the annual emissions (or a small > over-estimate due to the amount un-burnt). > > > > However, if you use a carbon content from the literature or some default > value then this is clearly less much accurate. > > > > The IPCC Guidelines are clear that for significant sources of CO2 you > should use country specific values of carbon contents (i.e. measured values) > not the default values. (Again a country average carbon content may be a > good estimator for NATIONAL ANNUAL emissions while leading to errors in the > estimates for an individual plant.) > > > > I would question if the cost of CEMS can be justified if the aim is to > improve national annual emission estimates - there are usually many other > CO2 sources with higher uncertainties. Of course, there may be other reasons > for using CEMS if you wish to monitor one plant. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090318/670ba7ef/attachment-0001.html From sevans at cleanair.com Wed Mar 18 12:04:41 2009 From: sevans at cleanair.com (Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:04:41 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary SourceEmissions of CO2 In-Reply-To: <20dd85730903180857m4bd9280as266cd1972aefc291@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090317144449.C05CAC18006@milkyway.forumone.com> <993992.30518.qm@web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8A116FFC507A234A9E7480C161B6DCF506D8A0FE@us1-exbe01.BSI-GLOBAL.NET> <20dd85730903180857m4bd9280as266cd1972aefc291@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5808D288-7CB3-47DA-A046-459F4F44662F@cleanair.com> Michael, The problem is that there is no QA/QC requirements for the fuel sampling options. The uncertainty is unknown. Plants I have spoken to tell me that their fuel input metering is no better than ?10 to 20% and that they do not rely on that data for operations. If you have rigorous QA/QC for one set of data and no QA/QC for the other set, how can one claim they are equivalent in terms of reliability -- especially when the results can be dramatically different? This is the fundamental flaw in the TCR approach. Just curious... will you be posting my other comment? Scott --- Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering 500 W. Wood St. Palatine, Illinois 60041 847-654-4569 - voice 847-991-3385 - fax sevans at cleanair.com On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Michael Gillenwater [moderator] wrote: > Wil, > > Agree fully. As you point out, we should just be careful setting up > a straw man comparison. putting rigorously implemented CEMs with > calibration, etc. up again fuel based estimates using default carbon > content factors is really not how we should discuss the issue. We > should compare like with like, that means, as you say, comparing > CEMs with fuel based methods using rigorous sampling protocols, fuel > input metering, and residual unoxidized carbon sampling. > > mg > > > Michael Gillenwater > Executive Director > GHG Experts Network* > www.ghgnetwork.org > > Princeton University > Science, Technology & Environmental Policy Program > Skype: mwgillenwater > Tel +1 202 997 3335 > gillenwater at alum.mit.edu > -- > * Organization is an independent non-profit and not affiliated with > Princeton University. > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Wil Wang > wrote: > Michael, et. al., Following up on this very interesting topic and > thread, I need to bring to the group what we have seen in the > field. Indeed, numerous emission factors have been established by > EPA and others since early 1990 for various air pollutants, > including CO2, from combustion of different fuel streams (under > various conditions, I might add). Relevant factors may be used as > surrogate in CO2 emission calculation as permitted by various GHG > schemes, including The Climate Registry?s General Reporting > Protocol. It should be noted, as Messrs. Eggleston and Evans > pointed out, that not all ?natural gas? or other commercially or > internally supplied fossil fuels are created equal, consequently, > direct application of CO2 emission factors either from AP42 or other > sources will inevitably introduce some level of error and/or > uncertainty. Extent of potential error/uncertainly must be examined > and taken into account when making materiality determination ? this > is one aspect we verifiers often look into diligently. Fuel stream > profiling over time or calibrated CEMS remains to be of higher data > quality. Best, WIL > > > Wilhelm Wang > > Manager, Business Sustainability > > BSI Management Systems Americas Entity > > _____________________________________ > > M:+ 571 216 2270 > > F: + 201 666 0258 > > E: wilhelm.wang at bsigroup.com > > W: www.bsiamerica.com > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > > > > From: discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ghgnetwork.org > ] On Behalf Of Michael Gillenwater [moderator] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:24 PM > To: Scott Evans; Simon Eggleston > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > > > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary > SourceEmissions of CO2 > > > Scott, > > Reasonable point. Although the statements form EPA you refer to > about emission factors are primarily related to pollutants other > than CO2, I believe. Their comments about not using AP-42 factors > are really directed at non-CO2 pollutant emissions, which are not a > simple mass balance function. > > And I don't think anyone is proposing, this includes The Climate > Registry EPW workgroup (I should disclose that I am on that group), > that default carbon content factors be fully relied on. Plant or > unit-level fuel sampling is called for to address the issue you > bring up. > > More broadly, the carbon content of standard fossil fuel types does > exhibit some variability, but it is not necessarily large. It > depends on the fuel type. For example, if you are burning propane, > then the variability in carbon content there is almost nothing. I > did some analysis on heating value and carbon content variability > for specific fuel types in the GHG Protocol's Stationary Combustion > calculation tool (www.ghgprotocol.org), for anyone that is > interested in seeing what these ranges actually look like. > > michael > > > Michael Gillenwater > GHG Management Institute (Dean of Institute) > > > > > From: Scott Evans > To: Simon Eggleston > Cc: discuss at ghgnetwork.org > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:44:44 PM > > > Subject: Re: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary > Source Emissions of CO2 > > Simon- > > You bring up an excellent point that I neglected to mention earlier. > Assuming that fuel content based calculations provide a bias-free > estimate of CO2 (and this has yet to be shown), they may provide an > adequate estimate of national emissions. This is what emission > factors were designed to do. US EPA cautions that its emission > factors should not be used to determine emissions from individual > plants (although they are used for that every day). AP-42 emission > factors were designed for states to determine their state-wide > emission inventories. For this purpose, they work fairly well. > However, as you point out, use of emission factors at individual > plants can be disastrous. Remember that many emission factors (or > fuel carbon factors) are averages that may have a high variability. > On a plant-by-plant basis, you never know where they may be. > > So for national inventories factors may be fine. For individual > plants, they can be a problem. > > > --- > Scott Evans > Clean Air Engineering > 500 W. Wood St. > Palatine, Illinois 60041 > > 847-654-4569 - voice > 847-991-3385 - fax > sevans at cleanair.com > > > > > On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Simon Eggleston wrote: > > > I think the issue is where the values of carbon contents you have > used actually come from. > > > > Given that the CO2 coming out from a combustion plant comes from > the carbon in fuel input the question is which is best to measure. > CEMS are expensive and not so easy to use - measuring carbon > contents of fuels is relatively cheap and straightforward. CEMS do > give continuous measurements but this is not really needed for > greenhouse gases. > > > > If the carbon content of fuel actually burnt is measured you would > expect this to give a good estimate of the annual emissions (or a > small over-estimate due to the amount un-burnt). > > > > However, if you use a carbon content from the literature or some > default value then this is clearly less much accurate. > > > > The IPCC Guidelines are clear that for significant sources of CO2 > you should use country specific values of carbon contents (i.e. > measured values) not the default values. (Again a country average > carbon content may be a good estimator for NATIONAL ANNUAL emissions > while leading to errors in the estimates for an individual plant.) > > > > I would question if the cost of CEMS can be justified if the aim > is to improve national annual emission estimates - there are usually > many other CO2 sources with higher uncertainties. Of course, there > may be other reasons for using CEMS if you wish to monitor one plant. > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090318/eb4282d9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3275 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090318/eb4282d9/attachment.gif From jking at mwcog.org Wed Mar 18 15:53:10 2009 From: jking at mwcog.org (Jeffrey King) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:53:10 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] EPA proposed Rule Comparison to Other Reporting Protocols Message-ID: Is anyone aware of a good comparison of the EPA Proposed GHG Reporting Rule and how it is similar/different than existing voluntary protocols such as the Climate Registry, WRI/WBCSD, etc. I'd like to find such a technical comparison at a pretty detailed level if possible. Jeffrey King Sr. Environmental Planner Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol St NE Washington, DC 20002 jking at mwcog.org 202-962-3200 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090318/fe8383fc/attachment.html From george.gosieski at bes.us.com Wed Mar 18 20:28:30 2009 From: george.gosieski at bes.us.com (George Gosieski) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:28:30 -0400 Subject: [GHG Network] EPA proposed Rule Comparison to Other Reporting Protocols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeffrey, You may want to check out EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-054. This provides a full review of existing GHG reporting programs and guidance. It was compiled by the Federal GHG reporting program. You may want to review pages 43 ?45 of the MRR Preamble. Regards, George Gosieski Partner Business EcoSystems 3730 Darby Drive Midlothian, VA 23113 +1.804.212.4454 On 3/18/09 3:53 PM, "Jeffrey King" wrote: > Is anyone aware of a good comparison of the EPA Proposed GHG Reporting Rule > and how it is similar/different than existing voluntary protocols such as the > Climate Registry, WRI/WBCSD, etc. I?d like to find such a technical > comparison at a pretty detailed level if possible. > > Jeffrey King > > Sr. Environmental Planner > > Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments > > 777 North Capitol St NE > > Washington, DC 20002 > > jking at mwcog.org > > 202-962-3200 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090318/32f8f04d/attachment.html From sevans at cleanair.com Thu Mar 19 13:47:00 2009 From: sevans at cleanair.com (Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:47:00 -0500 Subject: [GHG Network] EPA proposed Rule Comparison to Other Reporting Protocols In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0DF99437-0583-4B27-A8BA-4E80C049CF57@cleanair.com> Jeffrey, While this is not the detailed analysis you have asked for, I have found two striking differences between the EPA proposal and the EU-ETS approach. First, EPA clearly acknowledges that directly measured data (i.e. CEMS) is the "gold standard" against which the accuracy of calculated data must be measured. EPA's highest quality tier "Tier 4" allows only CEMS. The Europeans have decided the opposite - that the calculated data is superior and that any directly measured data must be compared to calculated data for accuracy. The Climate Registry in its proposed Electric Utility Sector protocol, has opted for a "relaxed" version of the European approach. By relaxed, I mean that TCR does not require the QA/QC nor the uncertainty determination required by EU-ETS. The other striking difference is that EPA is not requiring third-party verification. Scott --- Scott Evans Clean Air Engineering 500 W. Wood St. Palatine, Illinois 60041 847-654-4569 - voice 847-991-3385 - fax sevans at cleanair.com On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Jeffrey King wrote: > Is anyone aware of a good comparison of the EPA Proposed GHG > Reporting Rule and how it is similar/different than existing > voluntary protocols such as the Climate Registry, WRI/WBCSD, etc. > I?d like to find such a technical comparison at a pretty detailed > level if possible. > > Jeffrey King > Sr. Environmental Planner > Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments > 777 North Capitol St NE > Washington, DC 20002 > jking at mwcog.org > 202-962-3200 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090319/eccf86ea/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3275 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090319/eccf86ea/attachment.gif From sam at theclimateregistry.org Fri Mar 20 14:16:52 2009 From: sam at theclimateregistry.org (Sam Hitz) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GHG Network] GHG Emission Factors for Stationary Source Emissions of CO2 Message-ID: <20090320181652.EA324C18072@milkyway.forumone.com> I would like to clarify the approach taken by The Climate Registry???s draft Electric Power Sector Protocol. Similar to EPA???s proposed reporting rule, the TCR protocol allows for the quantification of CO2 emissions from electric generating units according to one of four approaches, each designated by tier. Both the use of CEMS (consistent with 40 CFR Part 75) and fuel based quantification that relies on measured carbon content and measured fuel consumption are designated as Tier A (Tier A1 and Tier A2 respectively). It is a fair assumption that the majority of those units subject to the Acid Rain Program that also choose to participate in a voluntary program such as the Registry???s will do so using CO2 data as measured by their CEMS units. Those that are not subject to the Acid Rain Program have the option of reporting to the Registry using the fuel based quantification option that relies on measured carbon content and measured fuel consumption, and still stay within Tier A. Tier B and C methodologies are based on the use of default factors and are analogous to EPA???s Tiers 2 and 1. However, more importantly, the Registry???s use of tiers is not intended to constitute an absolute hierarchy of accuracy, but to provide transparency as to the quantification methodology that has been selected. In designating CEMS based measurement and fuel based quantification that uses measured carbon content as Tier A, the Registry is not suggesting the exact equivalence of both approaches in all scenarios, but simply that both approaches rely on measurement as opposed to the use of default values. It is up to policy makers to determine the fitness of a given approach for their particular objectives. The Registry???s objectives are to encourage broad reporting of GHGs in an accurate and transparent way that is policy neutral. The draft Electric Power Sector Protocol is currently available for public comment. The comment period ends April 3rd, 2009. Those interested in reviewing the draft and/or providing comments can download it and the accompanying comment template form at : http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/electric-power-sector-protocol.php Sam Hitz Senior Policy Advisor The Climate Registry 525 W. 6th Street, Suite 445 Los Angeles CA 90014 Tel. +1-213-891-1444 x129 sam at theclimateregistry.org www.theclimateregistry.org From Dan.Harding at earthscan.co.uk Tue Mar 31 12:42:06 2009 From: Dan.Harding at earthscan.co.uk (Dan Harding) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:42:06 +0100 Subject: [GHG Network] New Climate Books Message-ID: <01767B7F8B46DB4486065880B7D2D1D4056DF331@JJSRV02.intranet.jxj.com> ***Apologies for cross-posting*** Dear GHG subscribers, Please see below for a selection of new Earthscan books that may be of interest. Click here to request inspection copies . Book review editors can reply to this e-mail to request review copies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLIMATE CHANGE AND AVIATION: Issues, Challenges and Solutions Edited by Stefan G?ssling and Paul Upham Massive increases in availability of air travel and air freight have led to aviation becoming one of the fastest growing emitters of greenhouse gases. This textbook is the first to attempt a comprehensive review of aviation and climate change and brings together an international team of leading scientists. 'A timely, challenging and fascinating book on a topic of central importance to the success or otherwise of our climate change policies.' Professor John Whitelegg, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, UK 'Climate Change and Aviation presents a clear picture of the transport sector's greatest challenge ... This book avoids wishful thinking and takes the much harder, but more productive, path of considering difficult solutions that clash with short-term and short-sighted expectations about the unlimited growth potential for flying.' Professor Anthony Perl, Urban Studies Program, Simon Fraser University, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THINKING IN SYSTEMS: A Primer Donella H. Meadows and edited by Diana Wright Donella Meadows was lead author of the bestselling and hugely influential Limits to Growth and Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update and this book was intended to make the fundamental concept of systems thinking accessible to the general reader. Thinking in Systems is a concise and crucial book offering insight for problem-solving on scales ranging from the personal to the global. This essential primer brings systems thinking out of the realm of computers and equations and into the tangible world, showing readers how to develop the systems-thinking skills that thought leaders across the globe consider critical for 21st-century life. 'Thinking in Systems distills her lifetime of wisdom. This clear, fun-to-read synthesis will help diverse readers everywhere to grasp and harness how our complex world really works.' Amory B. Lovins 'An invaluable companion piece to Limits to Growth ... a simple book about a complex world graced by the wisdom of a profound thinker committed to shap[ing] a better future.' Publishers Weekly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELLING SOLAR: The Diffusion of Renewable Energy in Emerging Markets Damian Miller To solve the climate crisis, the world must make a wholesale shift to renewable energy technologies. With surging growth in emerging markets, this transformation takes on even greater urgency. The challenges - and opportunities - are immense. Selling Solar considers how emerging markets can make this shift, showing how photovoltaic technology has begun to diffuse rapidly in emerging markets after years of struggling to take off. Damian Miller is the CEO of Orb Energy - CLICK HERE for a recent opinion editorial 100 MILLION SOLAR HOMES in which he makes the case for achieving the solar electrification of the developing world. 'Few missions are more important than solarizing the developing world - Few people have more experience of this task than Damian Miller. This unmissable book is the story of making it happen.' Jeremy Leggett, Founder and Executive Chairman of Solar Century, and author of Half Gone and The Carbon War 'An extremely useful publication which provides a very valuable assessment of how solar energy can be harnessed on a large scale using market approaches.' R. K. Pachauri, Director General, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN THE WATER SECTOR Edited by Fulco Ludwig, Pavel Kabat, Henk van Schaik and Michael van der Valk Climate variability has a large impact on water supply and future climate change is likely to make things worse. Climate Change Adaptation in the Water Sector is a compendium of strategies and a guide to using climate data to support water management decisions. 'Climate change will impact first on water. The water sector worldwide will need to mobilise for climate change adaptation and integrate the needs of both people and nature as it does so. This publication will help water managers meet this challenge.' Dr Mark Smith, Head, Water Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DICTIONARY AND INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE Richard E. Saunier and Richard A. Meganck This unique Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environmental Governance (GEG), written and compiled by two veterans of the international stage, provides over 5500 up-to-date entries covering the full swathe of international environmental governance terms, organizations and acronyms. This fully revised and updated edition contains over 500 new entries and acronyms as well as a new introductory section on global water governance, one of the most pressing environmental issues in our era of climate change, growing populations and food shortages. It also includes an introductory essay that frames the major issues in GEG. 'Indispensable and illuminating.... a virtual astrolabe for international environmental policy.' Tom Lovejoy, President, The Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the best, Dan Harding Marketing Executive Earthscan Dunstan House 14a St Cross Street London, EC1N 8XA Tel: +44 (0)20 7841 1953 Fax: +44 (0)20 7242 1474 At Earthscan we are committed to minimising our carbon footprint and environmental impacts. See our Environmental Policy for more information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://milkyway.forumone.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090331/15cde957/attachment-0001.html