United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) EPA-430-R-13-011 Washington, DC 20005 September 2013



# Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 

# Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030

### How to obtain copies You can electronically download this document from the U.S. EPA’s Web site at

< http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2mitigation.html >.

For further information The results presented in this report can be downloaded in spreadsheet format from the U.S. EPA’s Web

site at < http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2mitigation.html >. For additional information, contact Shaun Ragnauth, (202) 343

- 9142, ragnauth.shaun@epa.gov , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Peer

- reviewed document This report has undergone an external peer review consistent with the guidelines of the U.S. EPA Peer Review Policy. Comments were received from experts in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and other government agencies. See the Acknowledgements section for a list of reviewers. A copy of the EPA Peer Review guidelines can be downloaded from the following web page at

< http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/2peerrev.htm >.

### Acknowledgements

This report was prepared under a contract between the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and RTI International. Shaun Ragnauth edited and directed completion

of the report. Lead authors include Jeffry Petrusa of RTI, Shaun Ragnauth of USEPA,

Jameel Alsalam of USEPA, David Godwin of USEPA, Jared Creason of USEPA, Jia Li of

USEPA, and Robert Beach of RTI. We thank USEPA reviewers Reid Harvey, Allison Costa,

Kurt Roos, Tom Wirth, Jefferson Cole, Carey Bylin, Suzanne Waltzer, Tom Frankiewicz,

Chris Godlove, Sally Rand, Kirsten Cappel, Jayne Somers, Melissa Weitz, and Elisa Rim.

Other significant contributors and co-authors include Sara Ohrel of USEPA, William Salas

of Applied GeoSolutions, Changsheng Li of University of New Hampshire, Pete Ingraham

of Applied GeoSolutions, Stephen Ogle of Colorado State University, and

Benjamin Henderson of International Food Policy Research Institute.

The staff at RTI assisted in compiling and finalizing the report. The staff at RTI and

ICF Consulting prepared many of the individual analyses. Special recognition goes to

Jeffrey Petrusa at RTI and Marian Van Pelt at ICF Consulting for their significant

contributions on this project.

We also thank the following external reviewers: Stuart Day (CSIRO Energy Technology),

Clark Talkington (Advanced Resources International), Jon Kelefant (Advanced Resources

International), Mike Godec (Advanced Resources International), Ronald Collings (Ruby

Canyon Engineering), Pam Lacey (American Gas Association), Erica Bowman

(America’s Natural Gas Alliance), Richard Meyer (American Gas Association), Karin Ritter

(American Petroleum Institute), Lisa Beal (Interstate Natural Gas Association of America),

Alex MacPherson (USEPA), David McCabe (Clean Air Task Force), Maureen Hardwick

(International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium), Paul Ashford (Caleb Group),

Debra Reinhart (National Science Foundation), Morton Barlaz (North Carolina State

University), Chris Bayless (World Aluminum), Jerry Marks, Kenneth Martchek (Alcoa),

Lee Bray (U.S. Geological Survey), Silvio Stangherlin (ABB), Archie McCulloch,

Deborah Kramer (U.S. Geological Survey), Roger Desaulniers (Polycontrols), Kurt Werner

(3M), Cynthia Murphy (University of Texas), Lambert Kuijpers (Technical University ECfS),

Robert Wilkins (Danfoss), Bill Neuffer (USEPA), David Hind (Orica), Lorraine Gershman

(American Chemistry Council), Mausami Desai (USEPA), Nathan Frank (USEPA),

Himanshu Pathak (Indian Agricultural Research Institute), Kristen Johnson (Washington

State University), Ron Sass (Rice University), Phil Robertson (Michigan State University),

Arvin Mosier (USDA/ARS), Keith Smith (University of Edinburgh) Steven Smith (Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory), Steven Rose (Electric Power Research Institute),

Francesco Tubiello (UN Food and Agriculture Organization).

Although these individuals participated in the review of this analysis, their efforts do not

constitute an endorsement of the report’s results or of any USEPA policies and programs.CONTENTS



# Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary

.................................................................................................................... ES -1



### I. Technical Summary

I. Technical Summary

........................................................................................................................ I-1

I.1 Overview

................................................................................................ ............................................. I-1

I.2 Non- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

............................................................................................................. I-1

I.2.1 Methane (CH 4 )

...................................................................................................................... I-2

I.2.2 Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O)

............................................................................................................ I-3

I.2.3 F- Gases Gases

....................................................................................................................... I-3

I.2.4 Use of GWPs in this Report

................................................................................................ I-4

I.3 Methodology

................................................................................................ ....................................... I-4

I.3.1 Baseline Emissions for Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

...................................................... I-5

I.3.2 Mitigation Option Analysis Methodology

....................................................................... I-7

I.3.3 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

................................................................................... I- 13

I.3.4 Methodological Enhancements from Analysis

.............................................................. I- 15

I.4 Aggregate Results

............................................................................................................................ I- 15

I.4.1 Baselines

.............................................................................................................................. I- 16

I.4.2 Global MACs

...................................................................................................................... I- 19

I.5 Limitations and Uncertainties

........................................................................................................ I- 20

I.5.1 Exclusion of Transaction Costs

........................................................................................ I- 21

I.5.2 Static Approach to Abatement Assessment

................................................................... I- 21

I.5.3 Limited Use of Regional Data

.......................................................................................... I- 21

I.5.4 Exclusion of Indirect Emissions Reducti ons

.................................................................. I- 21

References

................................................................................................ .................................................... I- 22



### II. Energy

II.1. Coal Mining

................................................................................................ ..................................... II -1

II.1.1 Sector Summary

............................................................................................................................. II-1

II.1.2 Methane Emissions from Coal Mining

....................................................................................... II-3

II.1.2.1 Activity Data and Related Assumptions

.................................................................. II-4

II.1.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

...................................................... II-5

II.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

............................................................. II-6

II.1.3.1 Methane Recovery System from Degasification/Drainage Systems

..................... II-8

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IIICONTENTS

II.1.3.2 Degasification for Utilization in Energy Production

.............................................. II-9

II.1.3.3 Degasification for On

- site Utilization

— Process Heat

........................................... II- 11

II.1.3.4 Combustion through Flaring

.................................................................................... II- 12

II.1.3.5 VAM Oxidation

.......................................................................................................... II- 12

II.1.3.6 Evaluation of Future Mitigation Option and Trends

............................................ II- 13

II.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

........................................................................................ II- 13

II.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

........................................................................................ II- 13

II.1.4.2 Assessment of Secto ral Trends

................................................................................. II- 14

II.1.4.3 Definition of Model Facilities for the Analysis

...................................................... II- 15

II.1.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

................................................ II- 15

II.1.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.............................................................................................. II- 16

II.1.4.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................. II- 17

References

................................................................................................ ................................................... II- 19

II.2. Oil and N atural Gas Systems

...................................................................................................... II

- 21

II.2.1 Sector Summary

........................................................................................................................... II- 21

II.2.2 Methane Emissions: Oil and Natural Gas Systems

................................................................ . II- 22

II.2.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

............................................................................................................... II- 24

II.2.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... II- 25

II.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

........................................................... II- 26

II.2.3.1 Oil and Natural Gas Production

.............................................................................. II- 26

II.2.3.2 Gas Processing and Transmission Segments

......................................................... II- 29

II.2.3.3 Gas Distribution Segment

......................................................................................... II- 34

II.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs A nalysis

........................................................................................ II- 35

II.2.4.1 Methodological Approach

........................................................................................ II- 35

II.2.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

.............................................................................................. II- 40

II.2.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................. II- 42

References

................................................................................................ ................................................... II- 43



### III. Waste

III.1. Landfill Sector

................................................................................................ ............................... III -1

III.1.1 Sector Summary

........................................................................................................................... III-1

III.1.2 Methane Emissions from Landf ills

............................................................................................ III-3

III.1.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

............................................................................................................... III-4

III.1.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... III-5

III.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

........................................................... III-6

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES IVCONTENTS

III.1.3.1 Landfill CH 4 Mitigation Technologies

.................................................................... III-7

III.1.3.2 Diversion Alternatives

............................................................................................. III- 10

III.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

....................................................................................... III- 15

III.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

....................................................................................... III- 16

III.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................. III- 22

III.1.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................. III- 23

References

................................................................................................ .................................................. III- 24

III.2. Wastewater

................................................................................................ .................................. III

- 27

III.2.1 Sector Summary

.......................................................................................................................... III- 27

III.2.2 GHG Emissions from Wastewater

........................................................................................... III- 29

III.2.2.1 CH 4 Emissions from Domestic and Industrial Wastewater

................................ III- 29

III.2.2.2 N 2 O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater

— Human Sewage

.......................... III- 30

III.2.2.3 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

................................................... III- 30

III.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

.......................................................... III- 32

III.2.3.1 Overview of Abatement Measures

......................................................................... III- 34

III.2.3.2 CH 4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Decentralized Treatment

................... III- 35

III.2.3.3 CH 4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Collection System without

Treatment

................................................................................................................... III- 37

III.2.3.4 CH 4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Centralized Aerobic WWTPs

............ III- 38

III.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

....................................................................................... III- 40

III.2.4.1 Methodological Approach

....................................................................................... III- 40

III.2.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................. III- 42

III.2.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................. III- 44

References

................................................................................................ .................................................. III- 45



### IV. Industrial Processes

IV.1. Nitric and Adipic Acid Production

............................................................................................... IV -1

IV.1.1 Sector Summary

........................................................................................................................... IV-1

IV.1.2 N 2 O Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Production

...................................................... IV-2

IV.1.2.1 Nitric Acid Production and Emission Factors

....................................................... IV-2

IV.1.2.2 Adipic Acid Production and Emission Factors

...................................................... IV-4

IV.1.2.3 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV-5

IV.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

........................................................... IV-6

IV.1.3.1 Adipic Acid —N 2 O Abatement Methods

................................................................ IV-7

IV.1.3.2 Nitric Acid

— Primary Abatement Measures

.......................................................... IV-7

IV.1.3.3 Nitric Acid

— Secondary Abatement Measures

...................................................... IV-7

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES VCONTENTS

IV.1.3.4 Nitric Acid

— Tertiary Abatement Measure: Direct Catalytic Decomposition

........................................................................................................... IV-8

IV.1.3.5 Nitric Acid

— Tertiary Abatement Measure: Non

- selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)

...................................................................................................... IV-9

IV.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

........................................................................................ IV-9

IV.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

........................................................................................ IV-9

IV.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV- 13

IV.1.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................ IV- 15

References

................................................................................................ ................................................. IV- 16

IV.2. HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

...................................................... IV

- 19

IV.2.1 Sector Summary

......................................................................................................................... IV- 19

IV.2.2 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

............................................................ IV- 20

IV.2.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................... IV- 22

IV.2.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV- 23

IV.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

......................................................... IV- 23

IV.2.3.1 Enhanced HFC

- 134a in New MVACs

................................................................... IV- 25

IV.2.3.2 HFO

- 1234yf in New MVACs

.................................................................................. IV- 25

IV.2.3.3 Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf in New MVACs

............................................................... IV- 25

IV.2.3.4 Distributed Systems in New Large Retail Food

.................................................. IV- 26

IV.2.3.5 HFC Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large Retail Food

..... IV- 26

IV.2.3.6 NH 3 or HCs Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large

Retail Food

................................................................................................................ IV- 27

IV.2.3.7 CO 2 Transcritical Systems in New Larg e Retail Food

........................................ IV- 27

IV.2.3.8 Retrofits of R

- 404A in Large Retail Food

.............................................................. IV- 28

IV.2.3.9 HCs in New Small Retail Food Refrigeration Systems

....................................... IV- 28

IV.2.3.10 HCs in New Window AC and Dehumidifiers

..................................................... IV- 29

IV.2.3.11 R- 32 in New Unitary AC Equipment and PTAC/PTHP

..................................... IV- 29

IV.2.3.12 MCHX in New Unitary AC Equipment

................................................................ IV- 30

IV.2.3.13 R- 32 with MCHX in New Unitary AC Equipment

.............................................. IV- 30

IV.2.3.14 MCHX in New Positive Displacement Chillers

................................................... IV- 30

IV.2.3.15 NH 3 or CO 2 in New IPR and Cold Storage Systems

........................................... IV- 31

IV.2.3.16 Refrigerant Recovery at Disposal for All Existing Equipment Types

.............. IV- 31

IV.2.3.17 Refrigerant Recovery at Servicing for Existing Small Equipment

.................... IV- 32

IV.2.3.18 Leak Repair for Existing Large Equipment

.......................................................... IV- 32

IV.2.3.19 HCs in New Domestic Refrigeration Systems

..................................................... IV- 33

IV.2.3.20 CO 2 in Transport Refrigeration

............................................................................. IV- 33

IV.2.3.21 Low

- GWP Refrigerants and Blends

...................................................................... IV- 33

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES VICONTENTS

IV.2.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

............................................................................................ IV- 33

IV.2.5 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

...................................................................................... IV-35

IV.2.5.1 Methodological Approach

...................................................................................... IV- 36

IV.2.5.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

................................................................ . IV- 36

IV.2.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

.............................................. IV- 39

IV.2.5.4 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV-41

IV.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................. IV- 42

References

................................................................................................ ................................................. IV- 44

IV.3. HFC Emissions from Solvent Use

............................................................................................. IV

- 49

IV.3.1 Sector Summary

......................................................................................................................... IV- 49

IV.3.2 Emissions from Solvents

........................................................................................................... IV- 50

IV.3.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................... IV- 51

IV.3.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV- 51

IV.3.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

......................................................... IV- 52

IV.3.3.1 HFC to HFE

.............................................................................................................. IV- 53

IV.3.3.2 Retrofit

....................................................................................................................... IV- 53

IV.3.3.3 Not- in

- Kind Aqueous

.............................................................................................. IV- 54

IV.3.3.4 Not- in

- Kind Semi

- aqueous

..................................................................................... IV- 54

IV.3.3.5 Low

- GWP Alternatives

........................................................................................... IV- 54

IV.3.3.6 Engineering Cost Data Summary

.......................................................................... IV- 55

IV.3.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

...................................................................................... IV- 55

IV.3.4.1 Methodological Approach

...................................................................................... IV-56

IV.3.4.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

................................................................ . IV- 56

IV.3.4.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

.............................................. IV- 56

IV.3.4.4 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV- 57

IV.3.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................. IV- 58

References

................................................................................................ ................................................. IV- 59

IV.4. HFC Emissions from Foams Manufacturing

............................................................................ IV

- 61

IV.4.1 Sector Summary

......................................................................................................................... IV- 61

IV.4.2 Emissions from Foams

.............................................................................................................. IV- 62

IV.4.2.1 Activity Data, Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

............................................................................................................. IV- 64

IV.4.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV- 64

IV.4.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

......................................................... IV- 64

IV.4.3.1 HCs in PU Appliances

............................................................................................. IV- 66

IV.4.3.2 HCs in Commercial Refrigeration

......................................................................... IV- 66

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES VIICONTENTS

IV.4.3.3 HC in Polyurethane Spray Foams

......................................................................... IV- 67

IV.4.3.4 CO2 in Polyurethane Spray Foams

....................................................................... IV- 67

IV.4.3.5 LCD/Alcohol in XPS Boardst ock

........................................................................... IV- 67

IV.4.3.6 HFC

- 134a to HCs in PU One

- Component Foam

................................................. IV- 68

IV.4.3.7 HFC

- 152a to HCs in PU One

- Component Foam

................................................. IV- 68

IV.4.3.8 HCs in PU Continuous and Discontinuous Foams

............................................. IV- 68

IV.4.3.9 Manual Blowing Agent Recovery from Appliances at End of Life (EOL )

....... IV- 69

IV.4.3.10 Fully Automated Blowing Agent Recovery from Appliances at EOL

............. IV- 69

IV.4.3.11 Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent in PU Foams

....................................................... IV- 69

IV.4.3.12 Solstice Gas Blowing Agent in XPS Foam and One

- Component Foam

........... IV- 70

IV.4.3.13 Methyl Formate in PU and XPS Foams

................................................................ . IV- 71

IV.4.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

............................................................................................ IV- 71

IV.4.5 Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis

........................................................................................ IV- 72

IV.4.5.1 Methodological Approach

...................................................................................... IV- 72

IV.4.5.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

................................................................ . IV- 72

IV.4.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

.............................................. IV- 73

IV.4.5.4 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV- 74

IV.4.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................. IV- 74

References

................................................................................................ ................................................. IV- 76

IV.5. HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use

.............................................................................. IV

- 79

IV.5.1 Sector Summary

......................................................................................................................... IV- 79

IV.5.2 Emissions from Aerosol Product Use

..................................................................................... IV- 80

IV.5.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................... IV- 81

IV.5.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV- 81

IV.5.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

......................................................... IV- 81

IV.5.3.1 Hydrocarbons

........................................................................................................... IV- 82

IV.5.3.2 Not- in

- Kind

.............................................................................................................. IV- 83

IV.5.3.3 HFO

- 1234ze

.............................................................................................................. IV- 83

IV.5.3.4 HF C- 134a to HFC

- 152a

........................................................................................... IV- 84

IV.5.3.5 Dry Powder Inhalers

............................................................................................... IV- 84

IV.5.3.6 Engineering Cost Data Summary

.......................................................................... IV- 85

IV.5.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

...................................................................................... IV- 85

IV.5.4.1 Methodological Approach

...................................................................................... IV- 85

IV.5.4.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

................................................................ . IV- 85

IV.5.4.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

.............................................. IV- 86

IV.5.4.4 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV- 87

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES VIIICONTENTS

IV.5.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................. IV- 88

References

................................................................................................ ................................................. IV- 89

IV.6. HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Protection

......................................................................... IV

- 91

IV.6.1 Sector Summary

......................................................................................................................... IV- 91

IV.6.2 Emissions from F ire Protection

................................................................................................ IV- 92

IV.6.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................... IV- 93

IV.6.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... IV- 93

IV.6.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

......................................................... IV- 94

IV.6.3.1 FK -5-1- 12 in New Class A Total Flooding Applications

.................................... IV- 95

IV.6.3.2 Inert Gas Systems in New Class A Total Flooding Applications

...................... IV- 96

IV.6.3.3 Water Mist Systems in New Class B Total Flooding Applications

................... IV- 96

IV.6.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

............................................................................................ IV- 97

IV.6.5 Marginal Abatement Cost Analys is

........................................................................................ IV- 97

IV.6.5.1 Methodological Approach

...................................................................................... IV- 97

IV.6.5.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

................................................................ . IV- 98

IV.6.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

.............................................. IV- 99

IV.6.5.4 MAC Analysis Results

............................................................................................ IV- 99

IV.6.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................. IV- 99

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 101

IV.7. PFC Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production

........................................................... IV

- 103

IV.7.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 103

IV.7.2 Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production

................................................................ IV- 105

IV.7.2.1 Activity Data and Important Trends

................................................................... IV- 106

IV.7.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................. IV- 107

IV.7.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 108

IV.7.3.1 Minor Retrofit

......................................................................................................... IV- 109

IV.7.3.2 Major Retrofit

......................................................................................................... IV- 109

IV.7.3.3 Engineering Cost Data Summary

........................................................................ IV- 110

IV.7.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 110

IV.7.4.1 Methodological Approa ch

.................................................................................... IV- 111

IV.7.4.2 Definition of Model Facilities

............................................................................... IV- 111

IV.7.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

............................................................... IV- 111

IV.7.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

............................................ IV- 112

IV.7.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 113

IV.7.4 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 114

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 115

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IXCONTENTS

IV.8. HFC

- 23 Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production

...................................................................... IV

- 117

IV.8.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 117

IV.8.1.1 Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production

................................................................ . IV- 119

IV.8.1.2 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................. IV- 119

IV.8.1.3 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................. IV- 120

IV.8.2 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 122

IV.8.2.1 Thermal Oxidation

................................................................................................ . IV- 123

IV.8.2.2 Evaluation of Future Mitigation Options and Trends

...................................... IV- 123

IV.8.3 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 124

IV.8.3.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 124

IV.8.3.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

............................................................... IV- 124

IV.8.3.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

............................................ IV- 125

IV.8.3.4 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 125

IV.8.4 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 127

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 128

IV.9. F- GHG Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing

...................................................... IV

- 129

IV.9.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 129

IV.9.2 Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing

.................................................................. IV- 131

IV.9.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................. IV- 131

IV.9.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

................................................ IV- 133

IV.9.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 134

IV.9.3.1 Thermal Abatement

............................................................................................... IV- 135

IV.9.3.2 Catalytic Abatement

.............................................................................................. IV- 136

IV.9.3.3 Plasma Abatement

................................................................................................ . IV- 136

IV.9.3.4 NF 3 Remote Chamber Clean

................................................................................. IV- 137

IV.9.3.5 Gas Replacement

.................................................................................................... IV- 13 8

IV.9.3.6 Process Optimization

............................................................................................ IV- 138

IV.9.4 Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis

...................................................................................... IV- 139

IV.9.4.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 139

IV.9.4.2 Definition of Model Facilities

............................................................................... IV- 140

IV.9.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

............................................................... IV- 140

IV.9.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

............................................ IV- 142

IV.9.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 143

IV.9.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 144

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 145

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XCONTENTS

IV.10. SF 6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems

........................................................................ IV

- 147

IV.10.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 147

IV.10.2 SF 6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems

........................................................................ IV- 149

IV.10.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................. IV- 150

IV.10.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................. IV- 152

IV.10.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 153

IV.10.3.1 SF 6 Recycling

........................................................................................................... IV- 153

IV.10.3.2 Leak Detection and Leak Repair (LDAR)

........................................................... IV- 155

IV.10.3.3 Equipment Refurbishment

................................................................................... IV- 155

IV.10.3.4 Improved SF 6 Handling

....................................................................................... IV- 156

IV.10.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 157

IV.10.4.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 157

IV.10.4.2 Defi nition of EPS Model Facilities

....................................................................... IV- 157

IV.10.4.3 Parameters Used to Estimate Technical Effectiveness

...................................... IV- 159

IV.10.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

............................................ IV- 159

IV.10.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 160

IV.10.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 162

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 163

IV.11. SF6 Emissions from Magnesium Production

........................................................................ IV

- 165

IV.11.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 165

IV.11.2 SF 6 Emissions from Magnesium Manufacturing

................................................................ . IV- 166

IV.11.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

.................................. IV- 167

IV.11.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................. IV- 168

IV.11.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 169

IV.11.3.1 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas

— Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )

.................. IV- 169

IV.11.3.2 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas

— HFC 134a

..................................... IV- 170

IV.11.3.3 Repl acement with Alternative Cover Gas

— NovecTM 612

................................ IV- 170

IV.11.3.4 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics

...................... IV- 170

IV.11.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 171

IV.11.4.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 171

IV.11.4.2 Model Facilities Defined

....................................................................................... IV- 171

IV.11.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

............................................................... IV- 172

IV.11.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

............................................ IV- 172

IV.11.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 172

IV.11.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 174

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 175

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XICONTENTS

IV.12. Emissions from Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing

................................................................ IV

- 177

IV.12.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 177

IV.12.2 Emissions from Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing

.............................................................. IV- 178

IV.12.2.1 Activity Data and Important Sectoral/Regional Trends

................................... IV- 180

IV.12.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

................................................ IV- 180

IV.12.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 181

IV.12.3.1 Thermal Abatement

............................................................................................... IV- 182

IV.12.3.2 Catalytic Abatement

.............................................................................................. IV- 183

IV.12.3.3 Plasma Abatement

................................................................................................ . IV- 183

IV.12.3.4 NF 3 Remote Chamber Clean

................................................................................. IV- 183

IV.12.3.5 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics

...................... IV- 184

IV.12.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 184

IV.12.4.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 184

IV.12.4.2 Definition of Model Facility

................................................................................. IV- 184

IV.12.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

............................................................... IV- 185

IV.12.4.4 Estimating the Break -E ven Price of Abatement Measures

............................... IV- 185

IV.12.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 186

IV.12.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 187

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 189

IV.13. PFC Emissions from Flat Panel Display Manufacturing

...................................................... IV

- 191

IV.13.1 Sector Summary

....................................................................................................................... IV- 191

IV.13.2 Emissions fr om Flat Panel Display Manufacturing

............................................................ IV- 192

IV.13.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

........................................................................................................... IV- 193

IV.13.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

................................................ IV- 194

IV.13.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

....................................................... IV- 194

IV.13.3.1 Central Abatement

................................................................................................ . IV- 195

IV.13.3.2 Thermal Abatement

............................................................................................... IV- 195

IV.13.3.3 Catalytic Abatement

.............................................................................................. IV- 195

IV.13.3.4 Plasma Abatement

................................................................................................ . IV- 196

IV.13.3.5 NF 3 Remote Chamber Clean

................................................................................. IV- 196

IV.13.3.6 Gas Replacement

.................................................................................................... IV- 196

IV.13.3.7 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics

...................... IV- 197

IV.13.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

.................................................................................... IV- 197

IV.13.4.1 Methodological Approach

.................................................................................... IV- 197

IV.13.4.2 Facility Definition

.................................................................................................. IV- 197

IV.13.4.3 Estimating the Technical Effectiveness Parameter

............................................ IV- 197

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XIICONTENTS

IV.13.4.4 Estimatin g Break

- Even Prices

.............................................................................. IV- 198

IV.13.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

.......................................................................................... IV- 199

IV.13.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

................................................................................................ IV- 200

References

................................................................................................ ............................................... IV- 201



### V. Agriculture

V.1. Non

- Rice Croplands

....................................................................................................................... V-1

V.1.1 Sector Summary

............................................................................................................................. V-1

V.1.2 Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands

.......................................................................................... V-4

V.1.2.1 Methodology

................................................................................................................ V-4

V.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

............................................................. V-6

V.1.3.1 Mitigation Technologies

............................................................................................ V-6

V.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

........................................................................................ V- 11

V.1.4.1 Estimate Abatement Measure Costs and Benefits

................................................. V- 11

V.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

.............................................................................................. V- 11

V.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis

..................................................................................................................... V- 13

V.1.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................................... V- 15

References

................................................................................................ ................................................... V- 17

V.2. Rice Cultivation

............................................................................................................................ V- 19

V.2.1 Sector Summary

........................................................................................................................... V- 19

V.2.2 CH 4 and N 2 O Emissions and Changes in Soil Carbon from Rice Cultivation

..................... V- 21

V.2.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

............................................................................................................... V- 22

V.2.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

.................................................... V- 32

V.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

........................................................... V- 32

V.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

........................................................................................ V- 36

V.2.4.1 MAC Analysis Results

.............................................................................................. V- 36

V.2 .5 Sensitivity Analyses

.................................................................................................................... V- 39

V.2.5. Uncertainties and Limitations

......................................................................................... V- 41

References

................................................................................................ ................................................... V- 42

V.3. Livestock

................................................................................................ ....................................... V- 43

V.3.1 Sector Summary

........................................................................................................................... V- 43

V.3.2 CH 4 and N 2 O Emissions from Livestock Management

.......................................................... V- 46

V.3.2.1 CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation

............................................................ V- 46

V.3.2.2 CH 4 and N 2 O Emissions from Manure Management

........................................... V- 46

V.3.2.3 Baseline CH 4 and N 2 O Emissions Estimates

.......................................................... V- 47

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XIIICONTENTS

V.3.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

........................................................... V- 50

V.3.3.1 Enteric Fermentation CH 4 Mitigation Technologies

............................................. V- 50

V.3.3.2 Manure Management CH 4 Mitigation Technologies

............................................ V- 53

V.3.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

........................................................................................ V- 58

V.3.4.1 Development of Disaggregated Baseline Livestock Populations

........................ V- 58

V.3.4.4 MAC Analysis Results

.............................................................................................. V- 63

V.3.5 Sensitivity Analyses

.................................................................................................................... V- 65

V.3.4.5. Uncertainties and Limitations

.................................................................................. V-71

References

................................................................................................ ................................................... V- 73

A ppendixes

A: Tables

................................................................................................ .............................................. A-1

B: Coal Mining

................................................................................................ .................................... B-1

C: Natural Gas and Oil Systems

....................................................................................................... C-1

D: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

........................................................................................... D-1

E: Solvent Use

................................................................................................ ..................................... E-1

F: Foams Manufacturing

................................................................................................................... F-1

G: Aerosol Product Use

..................................................................................................................... G-1

H: Fire Protection

................................................................................................ ............................... H-1

I: Primary Aluminum Production

................................................................................................... I-1

J: HCFC

- 22 Production

...................................................................................................................... J-1

K: Electric Power Systems

................................................................................................................. K-1

L: Magnesium Manufacturing

.......................................................................................................... L-1

M: Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing

............................................................................................... M-1

N: Flat Panel Display Manufacturing

.............................................................................................. N-1

O: Descri ption of the Input Data Used in DAYCENT Simulations

............................................ O-1

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XIVCONTENTS



# List of Figures

Number Page

Section I

I-1 Contribution of Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect from Preindustrial to Present (measured in watts/meter 2 )

...................... I-2

I-2 Illustrative Non

- CO 2 Marginal Abatement Curve

................................................................... I- 13

I-3 Percentage Share of Global Non

- CO 2 Emissions a by Type of Gas in 2010

............................ I- 16

I-4 Non- CO 2 Global Emissions Forecast to 2030 by Greenhouse Gas

......................................... I- 17

I-5 Global Emissions by Major Sector for all Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

................................ I- 18

I-6 Projected World Emissions Baseline for Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases, Including Top Emitting Regions

................................................................................................................... I- 18

I-7 Global 2030 MACs by Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas

.................................................................... I- 19

I-8 Global 2030 MACs for Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

............... I- 20

I-9 Global 2030 MACs for Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases by Maj or Emitting Regions

............... I- 20



### Section II

1-1 CH 4 Emissions from Coal Mining: 2000

– 2030

............................................................................ II-1

1-2 Global Abatement Potential in Coal Mining: 2010, 2020, and 2030

........................................ II-2

1-3 Flow Chart of the Coal Mining Sector MAC Modeling Approach

....................................... II- 14

1-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters and Rest of World in 2030

............... II- 17

2-1 Emissions Projections for the Oil and Natural Gas Systems Sector: 2000

– 2030

.................. II- 21

2-2 Global Abatement Potential in Oil and Natural Gas Systems: 2010, 2020, and 2030

......... II- 22

2-3 Segments of Oil an d Natural Gas Systems

............................................................................... II- 23

2-4 Global Natural Gas Production: 2015

– 2035

............................................................................. II- 24

2-5 Diagram of BAU Emissions for the United States Oil and Natural Gas System

................. II- 37

2-6 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

............................................... II- 41



### Section III

1-1 Emissions Projections for the Landfill Sector: 2000

– 2030

....................................................... III-1

1-2 Global Abatement Potential in Landfill Sector: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................................... III-2

1-3 Conceptual Model for Estimating Mitigation Potential in the MSW Landfill Sector

....... III- 17

1-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

.............................................. III- 23

2-1 CH 4 Emissions from Wastewater: 2000

– 2030

......................................................................... III- 27

2-2 N 2 O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater: 2000

– 2030

....................................................... III- 28

2-3 Global MAC for Wastewater: 2010, 2020, and 2030

.............................................................. III- 29

2-4 Sanitation Ladder for Improvements to Wastewater Treatment

........................................ III- 33

2-5 Five Existing Scenarios Evaluated for Given Wastewater Discharge Pathways Based on Technology Level, Treatment Alternative, and Collection Method

.................. III- 33

2-6 Mitigation Technology Approach for Developing Countries with Decentralized

Treatment

................................................................................................ .................................... III- 35

2-7 Mitigation Technology Approach for Developing Countries with Decentralized

Treatment

................................................................................................ .................................... III- 38

2-8 Mitigation Technology Approach for Countries with Existing Centralized WWTPs

...... III- 39

2-9 Domestic Wastewater MAC Analysis Flow Chart

................................................................ III- 40

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XVCONTENTS

2- 10 Share of Wastewater CH 4 Emissions to Domestic and Industrial Sources (Avg.

2002

– 2007)

................................................................................................ ................................... III- 41

2- 11 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2020

.............................................. III- 43



### Section IV

1-1 N 2 O Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid: 2000

– 2030

....................................................... IV-1

1-2 Global MAC for Nitric and Adipic Acid: 2010, 2020, and 2030

............................................. IV-2

1-3 Adipic Acid Production Capacity by Country: 2010

.............................................................. IV-4

1-4 Operational Adipic Acid Production Facilities in 2010 by Share of Global Capacity

...... IV- 11

1-5 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

.............................................. IV- 14

2-1 HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and AC: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

..................................... IV- 19

2-2 Global Abatement Potential in Refrigeration and AC: 2010, 2020, and 2030

.................... IV- 20

2-3 Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Application Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 21

2-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

....................................... IV-42

3-1 HFC and PFC Emissions from Solvent Use: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

...................................... IV- 49

3-2 Global Abatement Potential in Solvent Use: 2010, 2020, and 2030

..................................... IV- 50

3-3 Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Degre aser Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

.... IV- 51

3-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

....................................... IV- 58

4-1 HFC Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.................................... IV- 61

4-2 Global Abatement Potential in Foams Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................... IV- 62

4-3 Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Application Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 63

4-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Foam Emitters in 2030

............................ IV- 75

5-1 HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

...................................... IV- 79

5-2 Global Abatement Potential in Aerosol Product Use: 2010, 2020, and 2030

...................... IV- 80

5-3 Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

......... IV- 81

5-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

....................................... IV- 88

6-1 HFC and PFC Emissions f rom Fire Protection: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................ . IV- 91

6-2 Global Abatement Potential in Fire Protection: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................................ IV- 92

6-3 Global HFC and PFC Emissions in 2020 (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

...................... IV- 93

6-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitter s in 2030

..................................... IV- 100

7-1 PFC Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.................. IV- 104

7-2 Global Abatement Potential in Primary Aluminum Production: 2010, 2020, and

2030

................................................................................................ ............................................ IV- 105

7-3 Global PFC Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted E missions)

....... IV- 106

7-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

..................................... IV- 114

8-1 HCF

- 23 Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.............................. IV- 117

8-2 Global Abatement Potential in HCFC

- 22 Production: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................... IV- 118

8-3 Global HFC

- 23 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

................................................................................................ ................................ . IV- 120

8-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Countries with Abatement Potential in 2030

..... IV- 126

9-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 129

9-2 Global Abatement Potential in Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

.. IV- 130

9-3 Global F

- GHG Emissions in 2020 by Fab Type and Process (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

................................................................................................ ................................ . IV- 132

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XVICONTENTS

9-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 20 30

..................................... IV- 143

10 -1 SF 6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................... IV- 147

10 -2 Global Abatement Potential in Electric Power Systems: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................ IV- 148

10 -3 Percentage of Global SF 6 Emissions in 2020 by Emission Stream (% of GWP

Weighted Emissions)

............................................................................................................... IV- 149

10 -4 Global SF 6 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

......... IV- 151

10 -5 Distribution of 2010 Emission Rates Reported through USEPA’s Voluntary Partnership

................................................................................................ ............................... IV- 15 8

10 -6 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five and Rest of World Emitters in 2030

.... IV- 161

11 -1 SF 6 Emissions from Magnesium Production: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.................................. IV- 165

11 -2 Global Abatement Potential in Magnesium Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

........ IV- 166

11 -3 Global SF 6 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

......... IV- 167

11 -4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

..................................... IV- 174

12 -1 F- GHG Emissions from PV Cell Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............................ IV- 177

12 -2 Global Abatement Potential in PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

................ IV- 178

12 -3 Global F

- GHG Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

.. IV- 179

12 -4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters and Rest of World in 2030

.... IV- 187

13 -1 F- GHG Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................ . IV- 191

13 -2 Global Abatement Potential in FPD Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

..................... IV- 192

13 -3 Global F

- GHG Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

.. IV- 193

13 -4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves by Emitting County in 2030

........................................ IV- 199



### Section V

1-1 Global Baseline Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands by GHG: 2010

- 2030

......................... V-2

1-2 Baseline Net GHG Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands, Top Five Emitting

Countries

................................................................................................ ........................................ V-3

1-3 Global MAC Curve for Net GHG Red uctio ns from Non

- Rice Cropland Soils

.................... V-4

1-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top

- Five Emitting Countries in 2010 and 2030

...... V- 12

1-5 Global Abatement Potential in Non

- rice Croplands Management: 2010, 2020, and 2030 (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)

............................................................... V- 14

1-6 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2010, 2030 (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)

......................................................................................... V- 15

2-1 Net GHG Emissions Projections for Rice Cultivation: 2000

– 2030

........................................ V- 19

2-2 Global Abatement Potential in Rice Cultivation with Production Equal to Baseline
Levels: 2010, 2020, and 2030

...................................................................................................... V- 21

2-3 DNDC Rice Cropland Area Sown, Top 5 countries, by Type and Water Management

................................................................................................ ................................ V- 23

2-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030, Baseline Production

Case

................................................................................................ ............................................... V- 39

2-5 Margina l Abatement Cost Curve, Baseline Area Case

.......................................................... V- 40

2-6 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030, Baseline Area Case

............ V- 40

3-1 Total Net GHG Emissions and Projections for the Livestock Sector: 2000

- 2030

................ V- 43

3-2 CH4 Emissions Projections for the Livestock Sector: 2010

– 2030

.......................................... V- 44

3-3 N 2 0 Emissions Projections from the Livestock Sector: 2010

– 2030

........................................ V- 44

3-4 Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management: 2010, 2020, and 2030

.................. V- 45

3-5 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030 (Baseli ne Production Case)

................................................................................................ ............................................. V- 64

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XVIICONTENTS

3-6 Global Net GHG Livestock Emissions Reduction Potential by Mitigation Option (Baseline Production Case)

........................................................................................................ V- 65

3-7 Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management, Baseline Number of
Animals : 2010, 2020, and 2030

.................................................................................................. V- 66

3-8 Glob al Abatement Potential in Livestock Management, Baseline Production with No Antimethanogen: 2010, 2020, and 2030

............................................................................. V- 67

3-9 Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management, Baseline Number of Animals with No Antimethanogen: 2010, 2020, and 2030

.................................................... V- 69

3- 10 Global Beef Production under Baseline and Mitigation Options, Assuming Full Adoption of Individual Options and Holding the Number of Animals Constant

............ V- 70

3- 11 Global Production of Milk from Dairy Cattle Under Baseline and Mitigation Options, Assuming Full Adoption of Individual Options and Holding the Number

of Animals Constant

................................................................................................................... V- 71

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XVIIICONTENTS



# List of Tables

Nu mber Page

Section I

I-1 Global Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions for 2010 (MtCO 2 e) by Source and Gas Type

................................................................................................ ................................... I-2

I-2 Global Warming Potentials

........................................................................................................... I-4

I-3 Calculation of Potential Emission Reduction for an Abatement Option

................................ I-9

I-4 Financial Assumptions in Breakeven Price Calculations for Abatement Options

.............. I- 11

I-5 International Economic Adjustment Factors for Selected Countries

..................................... I- 12



### Section II

1-1 IPCC Suggested Underground Emissions Factors for Selected Countries in

m 3 /tonne Coal Produced

............................................................................................................... II-5

1-2 Projected Emissions from Coal Mine CH 4 by Country and Region: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ......................................... II-6

1-3 Summary of Abatement Measures for Coal Mines

................................................................... II-7

1-4 Factors Used to Estimate Abatement Potential in Coal Mines

................................................ II-7

1-5 Example Break

- Even Price Calculation for Coal Mine Abatement Measures

..................... II- 15

1-6 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices ($/tCO 2 e) in 2030

.............. II- 16

2-1 Emissions Source from Oil and Natural Gas Systems

............................................................ II- 23

2-2 Projected Baseline CH 4 Emissions for Oil and Natural Gas Systems by Country/Region: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

...................................................................................... II-25

2-3 Abatement Measures Applied in Oil and Gas Production Segments

.................................. II- 27

2-4 Abatement Measures for the Natural Gas Processing Segment

............................................ II- 30

2-5 Abatement Measures for the Natural Gas Transmission Segment

....................................... II- 31

2-6 Abatement Measures for the Distribution Segment

............................................................... II- 34

2-7 International Statistics on Key Activity Drivers: 2010

............................................................ II- 36

2-8 Example Break

- Even Price Calculation based on 2010 MAC for the United States

........... II- 39

2-9 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030

............................... II- 41



### Section III

1-1 Projected Baseline Emissions for MSW Landfills by Country: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

......... III-5

1-2 Summary of the Engineering and Cost Assumptions for Abatement Measures at

Landfills

................................................................................................ ........................................ III-6

1-3 Electricity Generation Technology Costs

................................................................................. III-8

1-4 Model Facilities Share of BAU Emissions: 2010

– 2030

........................................................... III- 18

1-5 Model Facility Assumptions for International LFG Mitigation Options

........................... III- 19

1-6 CH 4 Generation Factors by Country

....................................................................................... III- 20

1-7 Example Break

- Even Prices for MSW Landfill Technology Options

................................ . III- 21

1-8 Break

- Even Pri ces of Waste Diversion Options

..................................................................... III- 21

1-9 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............ III- 22

2-1 Projected CH 4 Baseline Emissions from Wastewater: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

...................... III- 31

2-2 Projected N 2 O Baseline Emissions from Human: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............................. III- 31

2-3 Abatement Measures for the Wastewater Sector

.................................................................. III- 34

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XIXCONTENTS

2-4 Example Break

- Even Prices for Wastewater Abatement Measures in 2030 for the

United States

................................................................................................ ............................... III- 42

2-5 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030

............................. III- 43



### Section IV

1-1 IPCC Emissions Factors for Nitric Acid Production

............................................................... IV-3

1-2 Projected N 2 O Baseline Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Production: 2010

–
2030

................................................................................................ ................................................ IV-5

1-3 Abatement Measures for Nitric and Adipic Acid Production

............................................... IV-6

1-4 Adipic Acid

- Produ cing Countries’ Share of Baseline Emissions

........................................ IV- 12

1-5 Model Nitric Acid Facilities Assumptions

............................................................................. IV- 13

1-6 Example Break

- Even Prices for N 2 O Abatement Measures

................................................. IV- 13

1-7 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030

............................. IV- 14

2-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Refrigeration and AC: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.......... IV- 23

2-2 Refrigeration and AC Abatement Options

............................................................................. IV- 24

2-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

.............................................................................. IV- 34

2-4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

........................................................................................... IV-36

2-5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC

.............. IV- 39

2-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ..................................... IV-41

3-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Solvent Use: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.............................. IV- 52

3-2 Solvent Use Abatement Options

.............................................................................................. IV- 52

3-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

.............................................................................. IV- 55

3-4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

........................................................................................... IV- 56

3-5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Solvent Use

............................... IV- 57

3-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ..................................... IV- 57

4-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............ IV- 65

4-2 Foams Manufacturing Abatement Options

........................................................................... IV- 65

4-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

.............................................................................. IV- 71

4-4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

........................................................................................... IV- 73

4-5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Foams Manufacturing

............. IV- 74

4-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ..................................... IV- 75

5-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2010

- 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................ IV- 82

5-2 Aerosol Produc t Use Abatement Options

.............................................................................. IV- 83

5-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

.............................................................................. IV- 85

5-4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

........................................................................................... IV- 86

5-5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Aerosol Product Use

................ IV- 86

5-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ..................................... IV- 87

6-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Fire Protection: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

...................... IV- 94

6-2 Fire Protection Abatement Options

......................................................................................... IV- 95

6-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

.............................................................................. IV- 98

6-4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

........................................................................................... IV- 98

6-5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Fire Protection

.......................... IV- 99

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XXCONTENTS

6-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 100

7-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 108

7-2 Primary Aluminum Production Abatement Options

......................................................... IV- 109

7-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 111

7-4 Description of Primary Aluminum Production Facilities

.................................................. IV- 112

7-5 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 112

7-6 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Primary Aluminum

Production

................................................................................................ ................................ IV- 113

7-7 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 113

8-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............ IV-1 20

8-2 Distribution of HCF

- 23 Emissions by Location and Facility Type: 2010

– 2030

................ IV- 121

8-3 HCFC

- 22 Production Abatement Options

........................................................................... IV- 122

8-4 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 122

8-5 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 125

8-6 Example Break

- Even P rices for Abatement Measures in HCFC

- 22 Production

............. IV- 125

8-7 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ .................................. IV- 126

9-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2010

- 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 133

9-2 Semiconductor Manufacturing Abatement Options

.......................................................... IV- 134

9-3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 135

9-4 Annual Cost per Tool for Thermal Abatement Systems

.................................................... IV- 136

9-5 Capital Costs per CVD Chamber for Making a Facility NF 3 Ready

................................ . IV- 138

9-6 Percentage of Annual Emissions by Process and Fab Type

............................................... IV- 141

9-7 Technical Effectiveness Summary for New Fabs (Constant Over Time)

......................... IV- 141

9-8 Technical Effectiveness Summary for Old Fabs (in 2020)

.................................................. IV- 141

9-9 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Semico nductor Manufacturing

.......................................................................................................................... IV- 142

9- 10 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 143

10 -1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

........ IV- 152

10 -2 EPS Abatement Options

......................................................................................................... IV- 153

10 -3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 154

10 -4 EPSs System Country Mapping

............................................................................................. IV- 159

10 -5 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 160

10 -6 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in EPSs

......................................... IV- 160

10

- 7 : Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Select ed Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 161

11 -1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Magnesium Production: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

........ IV- 168

11 -2 Magnesium Production Abatement Options

....................................................................... IV- 169

11 -3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 171

11 -4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 172

11 -5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Magnesium Manufacturing

.. IV- 173

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XXICONTENTS

11 -6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 173

12 -1 Projected Baseline Emissions from PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

......... IV- 182

12 -2 PV Cell Manufacturing Abatement Options

........................................................................ IV- 182

12 -3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 184

12 -4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 185

12 -5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in PV Cell Manufacturing

......... IV- 186

12 -6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 186

13 -1 Projected Baseline Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.............. IV- 194

13 -2 FPD Manufacturing Abatement Options

............................................................................. IV- 195

13 -3 Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

............................................................................ IV- 197

13 -4 Technical Effectiveness Summary

......................................................................................... IV- 198

13 -5 Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in FPD Manufacturing

............... IV- 198

13 -6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

................................................................................................ ................................... IV- 199



### Section V

1-1 Projected Net GHG Baseline Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands by Country:

2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

..................................................................................................................... V-3

1-2 DAYCENT Base Mean Yields, and Differences from Mean Yield for Mitigation Strategies, by Year (Metric tons of Grain per Hectare)

............................................................ V-9

1-3 Abatement Potential at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (No “Optimal Fertilization “Scenario)

.............................................................................................................. V- 11

1-4 Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO 2 e) (“Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy excluded)

....................................................................... V- 13

1-5 Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO 2 e) (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)

........................................................................ V- 14

2-1 Baseline CH 4 , N 2 O, and Soil Carbon Estimates for Rice Cropland for 2010, 2020 and 2030 by Region

............................................................................................................................ V- 20

2-2 Baseline yields for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for selected countries (kg/ha)

................................ V- 24

2-3 Baseline production for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for selected countries (metric tonnes)

........ V- 24

2-4 DNDC Average N Fertilizer Application Rate by Country and Rice Production Type

................................................................................................ .............................................. V- 25

2-5 Distribution of Baseline Water Management for Irrigated Rice by Country (%)

............... V- 28

2-6 Alternative Rice Management Scenarios Simulated using DNDC

...................................... V- 33

2-7 Rice Management Techniques

.................................................................................................. V- 35

2-8 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............. V- 37

2-9 Distribution of Net GHG Reductions across Mitigation Options, Baseline

Production Case

.......................................................................................................................... V- 38

3-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Livestock Management: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

........... V- 48

3-2 Projected Baseline Emissions from Enteric Fermentation: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

............... V- 48

3-3 Projected Baseline Emissions from Manure Management: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 e)

.............. V- 49

3-4 Abatement Measures for Enteric Fermentation CH 4

............................................................. V- 51

3-5 Abatement Measures for Manure Management

..................................................................... V- 54

3-6 Projected Global Livestock Populations by Species

............................................................... V- 58

3-7 Regional Livestock Populations by Species, 2010 and 2030

.................................................. V- 60

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 G REENHOUSE GASES XXIICONTENTS

3-8 Livestock Distribution by Intensity and Livestock Production System for India, 2010 (% of animals by species)

.................................................................................................. V- 62

3-9 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (Mt CO 2 e),

Baseline Production Case

.......................................................................................................... V- 63

3- 10 MAC Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for Baseline Number

of Animals Scenario

.................................................................................................................... V- 66

3- 11 MAC Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for No Antimethanogen Scenario

......................................................................................................... V- 68

3- 12 MAC Res ults and Differences from Constant Production Case for Combined Baseline Number of Animals and No Antimethanogen Case

.............................................. V- 69

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES XXIIIEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GL OBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES ES -1 

# Executive Summary

Greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat

waves that threaten the health o f the sick, poor

, or elderly; increases in ground

- level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; and other threats to human health and welfare. In some cases, reducing non

- CO 2 emissions can have a more rapid effect on the climate and be more cost

- effective than reducing CO 2 emissions. Given the important role that mitigation of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases can play in climate strategies, there is a clear need for an i mproved unders tanding of the mitigation potential

for non

- CO 2 sources, as well as for the incorporation of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas mitigation in climate economic analyses. This report is a follow

- on to the 2006 EPA report Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases and illustrates the abatement potential of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases through a comprehensive global analysis and resulting data set of marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves.

The report provides a comprehensive global analysis and resulting data set of MACs tha t illustrate the abatement potential of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases by sector and by region. This analysis incorporates updated mitigation technologies, costs, and emissions baselines with an updated modeling approach. The results of the analysis are MAC curves that reflect aggregated break

- even prices for implementing mitigation options in a given sector and region with more detail than available in the previous report. This assessment of mitigation potential is unique because it is comprehensive across all n on

- CO 2 greenhouse gases, across all emitting sectors of the economy, and across all regions of the world. The MAC curves allow for improved understanding of the mitigation potential for non

- CO 2 sources, as well

as inclusion of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas mitiga tion in economic modeling of multigas mitigation strategies.

The basic methodology

— a bottom

- up, engineering cost approach

— is the same as the methodology followed in the 2006 report. Building on the baseline non

- CO 2 emissions projections from the USEPA’s

G lobal Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990

– 2030 (2012), this analysis applie s mitigation options to the emissions baseli ne in each sector. T he technical abatement potential and cost are calculated for each mitigation option a cross all the emitting greenhouse gas sectors

. The average break

- even price is calculated for the estimated abatement potential for each mitigation option. The options are then ordered in ascending order of break

- even price (cost) and plotted against abatement potentia l. The resulting MAC is a stepwise function; each point on the curve represents the break

- even price point for a discrete mitigation option (or defined bundle of mitigation strategies) and the associated abatement potential. This report makes no explicit a ssumption about policies that would be required to facilitate and generate adoption of mitigation options. Therefore, this report provides estimates of technical mitigation potential. 

# G reen house gases other than carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) play an important role in the effort to understand and address global climate change. Non

- carbon dioxide ( non

- CO 2 ) greenhouse gases include methane ( CH 4 )

, nitrous oxide ( N 2 O) , and a number of high global warming potential or fluorinated gases. The non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases are more potent than CO 2 (per unit weight) at trapping heat within the atmosphere and, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for either shorter or longer period s of time than CO 2 . Approximately 30% of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect since preindustrial times can be attributed to these non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [IPCC], 2001b); approximately 25 % of GWP

- weighted greenho use gas emissions in the year 2005 comprise the non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [ USEPA ] , 2012).EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES -2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES The results of this analysis are MAC curves that reflect the prices for implementing mitigation options in a given sector and region. This report provides improved data to better understand the mitigation potential for non

- CO 2 sources and allows for inclusion of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas mitigation approaches in economic modelin g of multigas mitigation strategies. The MAC data sets can be downloaded in spreadsheet format from the USEPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAact ivities/economics/nonco2mitigation.html

. Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Gases Can Play an Important Role in Climate Strategies. Worldwide, the potential for cost

- effective non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas abatement is significant. Figure ES

- 1 shows the global total aggregate MAC for the year 2030. Without a price signal (i.e., at $0/ tCO 2 e ), the global mitigation potential is greater than 1,800 million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent ( MtCO 2 e ), or 12% of the baseline

emissions (refer to Section I.3.3 of this report for a more detailed explanation of unrealized mitigation potential in the MACs). As the break

- even price rises, the mitigation potential grows. Significant mitigation opportunities could be realized in the lower range of break

- even prices. The global mitigation potential at a price of $10/ tCO 2 e is greater than 3 ,000 MtCO 2 e , or 20% of the baseline emissions, and greater than 2,400 MtCO 2 e or 24% of the baseline emissions at $20/ tCO 2 e . In the higher range of break

even p rices, the MAC becomes steeper, and less mitigation potential exists for each additional increase in price.



### Figure ES -1 : Global Total Aggregate MAC for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases in 203 0

-$40 -$20

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e)

Globally, the Sectors with the Greatest Potential for Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases are the Energy and Agriculture Sectors. Figure ES

- 2 shows the global MACs by economic sector in 20 3 0. At a

break

- even price of $5/tCO 2 e, the potential to reduce of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases is greater than 1,190

MtCO 2 e in the energy sector and approximately 1,080 MtCO 2 e in the industrial process sector

. At a

break

- even price of $30/tCO 2 e, the potential increases to approximately 1,475 MtCO 2 e in the industrial

sector , nearly 1,400 MtCO 2 e in the energy sector, and 50 0 a nd 332 MtCO 2 e in the agriculture and waste

sectors, respectively.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES ES -3 Methane Mitigation h as t he Largest Potential a cross A ll t he Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases. Figure ES

- 3 shows the global MACs by greenhouse gas type for 20 3 0. At or below $0/tCO 2 e, the potential

for CH 4 mitigation is greater than 1, 0 00 MtCO 2 e . The potential for reducing CH 4 emissions grows to over 2,0 00 MtCO 2 e as the break

- even price rises from $0 to $30/ tCO 2 e , w hile less than that of CH 4 , N 2 O, and Fgases exhibit significant mitigation potential at or below $0/ tCO 2 e

.



### Figure ES -2 : Global 20 3 0 MACs for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases by Major Sector

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 -$20

-$40 Non

- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Waste

Agriculture

Energy

Industrial



### Figure ES -3 : Global 20 3 0 MACs by Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gas Type

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 -$20

-$40 Non

- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Nitrous Oxide

F-Gases

MethaneEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES -4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES Major Emitting Regions o f t he World Offer Large Potential Mitigation Opportunities. Figure ES

- 4 shows the global MACs by region for 20 3 0. The United States and China are the top two contributors to global mitigation potential with cost

- effective mitigation of 260 and 200 MtCO 2 e, respectively. The largest sources of mitigation potential in these regions are oil/gas, refrigeration/ac, livestock, and c oal. The EU, India, and Brazil represent significant mitigation potential as well. At a break

- even price of $30/tCO 2 e the five largest emitting countries represent 46% of the global abatement potential.



### Figure ES -4 : Global 20 3 0 MACs for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 -$20

-$40 Non

- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Brazil

India

EU27

United States

China

Rest of World

The aggregate MACs by economic sector, greenhouse gas type, and region highlight the importance

of including non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases in the analysis of multigas climate strategies . The MACs illustrate that a significant portion of this emissions reduction potential can be realized at zero or low carbon prices. T he mitigation potential in each economic sector is examined in greater detail in this report

.



## Reference s

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001b. Technical Summary: A Report Accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail . A product resulting from The Third Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, January 2001.
Available at: www.ipcc.ch

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2012a)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 1 

# I . Technical Summary

I .1 Overview

Th is report is a n update to the 2006 EPA report, Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases , and incorporates an updated modeling approach and new data on mitigation technologies, costs, and

emissions baselines. The basic methodology

— a bottom

- up, engineering cost appro ach

— is the same as was followed in the 2006 report, with some enhancements (as described in Section I.3.4 of this report). The results of this analysis are marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves. The end result of this report is a set of marginal abatement curves (MACs) that allow for improved understanding of the mitigation potential for non

- CO 2 sources, as well as inclusion of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas mitigation in economic modeling. The MAC data sets can be downloaded in spreadsheet format from the USEPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2mitigation.html

.



## I.2 Non

- CO 2 

## Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases other than CO 2 play an important role in the effort to understand and address global climate change. The non

- CO 2 gases include methane ( CH 4 )

, nitrous oxide ( N 2 O) , and a number of high global warming potential or fluorinated gases. The non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases are more potent th an CO 2 (per unit weight) at trapping heat within the atmosphere and, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for either shorter or longer periods of time than CO 2 . Figure I- 1 shows that these non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases are responsible for approximately 30 percent of the enhanced, anthropogenic greenhouse effect since preindustrial times.

Table I- 1 shows the global total greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2010, broken down by sector and by greenhouse gas type. The non

- CO 2 gases constitute 28 percent of the global total greenhouse gas

emissions. 

# T he objective of this peer reviewed technical report is to provide a comprehensive and consistent data set on global mitigation of noncarbon dioxide (non

- CO 2 ) greenhouse gases by sector and by region. Mitigating emissions of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases can be relatively inexpensive compared with mitigating CO 2 emissions. Thus, attention continues to focus on incorporating international non

- CO 2 gr eenhouse gas mitigation options into climate economic analyses. This requires a large data collection effort and expert analysis of available technologies and opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions across diverse regions and sectors.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### F igure I-1: Contribution of Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect from Preindustrial to Present (measured in watts/meter 2 

### )



### CH 4 

### 20.7%

CO 2 

### 71.6% Non

- CO 2 

### 28.4%

N 2 

### O 6.9%

High

- GWP Gases
0.7%

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) . 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.



### Table I-1: Global Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions for 2010 (MtCO 2 

### e) by Source and Gas Type

Sectors CH 4 

### N 2 

### O F- Gases Global Total
Non

- CO 2 

### Emissions Percentage of
Global Total
Non

- CO 2 

### GHGs
Agriculture 3,102 2,897

— 5,999 53%

Energy 2,991 54

— 3,044 27%
Industry 83 118 672 873 8%

Waste 1,374 97

— 1,471 13%

Global Total 7,549 3,166 672 11,387
Percentage of Global
Total Non

- CO 2 

### GHGs 66% 28% 6%

Source: USEPA. 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990

- 2030. EPA 430 -S- 12

- 006. USEPA: Washington
D.C. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2projections.html



### I. 2.1 Methane (CH 4 

### )

CH 4 is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than CO 2 over a 100

- year period (IPCC, 1996)

. In addition, CH 4 ’s chemical lifetime in the atm osphere is approximately 12 years, compared with approximately 100 years for CO 2 . These two factors make CH 4 a candidate for mitigating global warming in the near term (i.e., within the next 25 years or so) or in the time frame during which atmospheric con centrations of CH 4 could respond to mitigation actions.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 3 CH 4 is emitted from a variety of manmade sources, including landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and c ertain industrial processes. CH 4 is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As a result, efforts to prevent or capture and use CH 4 emissions can provide significant energy, economic,

and environmental benefits.



### I.2.2 Nitr ous Oxide (N 2 

### O)

N 2 O is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Because of its long atmospheric lifetime (approximately 120 years) and heat

- trapping effects

— about 310 times more powerful than CO 2 on a per

molecule basis —N 2 O is an important greenh ouse gas.

N 2 O has both natural and manmade sources and is removed from the atmosphere mainly by photolysis (i.e., breakdown by sunlight) in the stratosphere. In the United States, the main manmade

sources of N 2 O are agricultural soil management, livestock waste management, mobile and stationary fossil fuel combustion, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N 2 O is also produced naturally from a variety of biological sources in soil and water.



### I.2. 3 F- Gases Gases

There are three major groups or types of F- Gases gases: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). These compounds are the most potent greenhouse gases because of their large heat

- trapping capacity and, in the cases of SF 6 and the PFCs, their extremely long atmospheric lifetimes. Because some of these gases, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, their accumulation is essentially irreversible. F- Gases gases are emitted from a broad range of industri al sources; most of these gases have few (if any) natural sources.



### HFCs

HFCs are manmade chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone

depleting substances (ODSs) for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The GWPs of HFCs range from 140 (HFC

- 152a) to 11,700 (HFC

- 23). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year (HFC

- 152a) to 260 years (HFC

- 23). Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (for example, HFC

- 134 a, which is used in automobile air

- conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric lifetime of 14 years).



### PFCs

Primary aluminum production, semiconductor manufactur ing and flat panel display manufacturing are the largest known manmade sources of tetrafluoromethane (CF 4 ), and hexafluoroethane (C 2 F 6 ). PFCs are also relatively minor substitutes for ODSs. Over a 100

- year period, CF 4 and C 2 F 6 are, respectively,
6,500 and 9,200 times more effective than CO 2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.



### Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF **6** 

### )

The GWP of SF 6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas evaluated by IPCC. SF 6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas with excellent dielectric properties. It is used (1) for

insulation and current interru ption in electric power transmission and distribution equipment; (2) to protect molten magnesium from oxidation and potentially violent burning in the magnesium industry; (3) to create circuitry patterns and to clean vapor deposition chambers during manufacture of semiconductors and flat panel displays; and (4) for a variety of smaller uses, including uses as a tracer gas

and as a filler for sound

- insulated windows.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES Like the PFCs, SF 6 is very long lived, so all manmade sources contribute directly to its acc umulation in the atmosphere. Measurements of SF 6 show that its global average concentration increased by about 7 percent per year during the 1980s and 1990s, from less than 1 ppt in 1980 to almost 4 ppt in the late 1990s (IPCC, 2001a).



### I.2.4 Use of GWPs in this Report

The GWP compares the relative ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere during a certain time frame. Per IPCC (1996) guidelines, CO 2 is the reference gas and thus has a GWP of 1. Based on a time frame of 100 years, the GWP of CH 4 is 21 and the GWP of N 2 O is 310. Table I- 2 lists all GWPs used in this report to convert the non

- CO 2 emissions into CO 2

- equivalent units. This report uses GWPs from the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report (rather than the 2001 Third Assessment Report ) because these are the values specified by greenhouse gas reporting guidelines under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.



### Table I-2: Global Warming Potentials

Gas GWP a


### Carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) 1
Methane (CH 4 

### ) 21
Nitrous oxide (N 2 

### O) 310

HFC

- 23 11,700

HFC

- 32 650

HFC

- 125 2,800

HFC

- 134a 1,300

HFC

- 143a 3,800

HFC

- 152a 140

HFC

- 227ea 2,900

HFC

- 236fa 6,300

HFC

- 4310mee 1,300

CF 4 

### 6,500

C 2 

### F 6 

### 9,200

C 4 

### F 10 

### 7,000

C 6 

### F 14 

### 7,400

SF 6 

### 23,900

Source: IPCC, 1996.

a 100 year time horizon

.



## I. 3 Methodology

This section describes the basic methodology used in this report to analyze potential emissions and

abatement of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases. The analysis builds on the approach presented in the 2006 Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases r eport (USEPA, 2006a). For the current analysis several enhancements were made for the MAC analysis and these will be highlighted in the discussion that

follows. Primary enhancements include:TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 5 • Updating baseline emissions projections

• Disaggregating mitigation potential and costs to the country level for 195 countries

• Updating reduction efficiencies for individual measures by country

• Updating capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for individual measures

• Segmenting O&M costs into labor, ma terials and energy components

• Developing international adjustments factors used to construct country specific abatement costs

and benefits

• Updat ing crop process model simulations of changes in crop yields and emissions associated

with rice cultivation and cropland soil management

MAC curves are constructed for each region and sector by estimating the carbon price at which the present value benefits and costs for each mitigation option equilibrates. The methodology produces a stepwise curve, where each point reflects the average price and reduction potential if a mitigation technology were applied across the sector within a given region. In conjunction with appropriate baseline and projected emissions for a given sector the results are expressed in terms of absolute reductions of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO 2 e). This section describes the components of our methodology.

First, we establish the baseline emissions for each sector as described in Section I.3 .1. Section I. 3. 2
presents the methodology used to evaluate mitigation options, which involves calculating the abatement potential and the breakeven price for each option. Lastly, we describe the construction of the MACs in

Section I .3.3. Some sectors deviate from this methodology depending on specific cir cumstances, which are briefly mentioned here and described in more detail in the sector

- specifi c chapters.

The results of the analysis are presented as MACs by region and by sector and generally focus on the

2010 to 2030 time frame. Emissions abatement in the MACs is shown as both absolute emissions reductions and as percentage reductions from the baseline. Non

- CO 2 emissions sources analyzed in this
report are

• coal mining ;

• oil and natural gas systems;

• solid waste management ;

• wastewater;

• specialized industrial processes ; and

• agriculture.



### I.3.1 Baseline Emissions for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases

For consistency across regions and sectors the MAC Report analysis primarily uses the EPA report, Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990

- 2030 for baseline emissions and projections. The Global Emissions Report (GER) was published in December of 2012, and uses a combination of
country

- prepared, publicly

- available reports (UNFCCC National Communications) and IPCC Tier 1 methodologies to fill in m issing or unavailable data. The basis for the U.S. historical emissions in the GER is the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and Sinks published in April of 2011. The methods used to estimate and project non

- CO 2 emissions in USEPA (20 12 ) are briefly summar ized here. In some cases, particularly for agricultural emissions, it was necessary to develop separate baselines from which to assess the mitigation analyses. For the agricultural sector, the baseline emissions used in this report were based on crop proce ss model simulations and livestock population data combined with projected crop areas and livestock populations, respectively, from the International Food Policy Research InstituteTECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Tra de (IMPACT) model. These deviations are also explained in more detail in this report.

The preferred approach for estimating historical and projected emissions is to use country -prepared, publicly

- available reports. EPA applied an overarching methodology t o estimate emissions across all sectors, and deviations to this methodology are discussed in each of the source

- specific methodology

sections of USEPA (2012)

. T he following summary of the general methodology used to estimate global

non

- CO 2 emissions is replicated from the USEPA (2012) report

.



### Historical Emissions

For Annex I Countries (A1) , the UNFCCC flexible query system (UNFCCC, 2012) provides emission estimates for A1 countries from Common Reporting Format (CRF) files, submitted with annual national inventories. The full or partial time series of source disaggregated data is available f or A1 countries from 1990 through 2007. The time series is complete for the majority of sources; however there are gaps in the time series for some countries and categories and data for missing years were supplemented. The methodology used by each source to interpolate, backcast, or forecast depends on the availability of CRF data and the distribution of that data over time. In general, the following methodology was applied to interpolate, backcast, or forecast data:

• When two years are reported such that a year requiring an estimate (e.g., 1995) occurred between the reported years (e.g., 1993 and 1997), EPA interpolates the missing estimate (1995) using reported estimates.

• EPA backcasted or forecasted emission estimates to complete the historical series fo r 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 on a source by source basis. For each source, EPA used growth rates for available activity data believed to best correlate with emissions (e.g., production, consumption). If either 1) more than one type of activity data should be used, 2) the emission factor will vary over time, or 3) the relationship between the activity data and emissions is not linear (i.e., exponential), then EPA used Tier 1 growth rates. This involves estimating emissions for 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005

usin g a Tier 1 approach, then using the rate of growth of this emission estimate to backcast and forecast the country

- reported emissions.

• If a country

- reported an estimate for an individual source for one year, but reported aggregate estimates for other years, EPA disaggregated the estimates using the percent contribution of the individual source in the latest reported year.

For Non

- Annex I countries historical emissions data were available in the UNFCCC flexible query system as well, but generally these reported data do not constitute a full time series. The methodology for interpolating or backcasting missing historical data used by each source will follow the same general guidelines outlined in the earlier in this section

. Because the data for non

- A1 count ries from the UNFCCC flexible query system do not generally have a compl ete time series, it is likely that non

- A1 sources will rely more heavily on Tier 1 calculated growth rates or activity data growth rates for backcasting and forecasting emissions betwe en 1990 and 2005

. 

### Projected Emissions

Emission projections by source and country were obtained from National Communications (NCs) reports. For A1 countries, this refers to the Fifth NCs currently being released. For non

- A1 countries, EPA

reviewed t he most recent NCs submitted to the UNFCCC.

If an NC had projections for a sector but not a source, EPA used the relative proportion of emissions for the latest year of historical emissions to disaggregate projected emissions for a source. For example, if France projected CH 4 emissions from agriculture to 2030 but does specify what portion is from manureTECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 7 management, EPA took the proportion of emissions that manure contributes to agriculture CH 4 emissions in France’s 2007 GHG Inventory, assume this proportion remains constant for 2030, and apply this to the 2030 agriculture estimate.

If projections for a sector are not available from a NC, EPA used activity data drivers or Tier 1 growth rates, specific to each source. The specific methodology followed by each source category is outlined in each sector’s methodology description

. For most countries, emissions and projections are not available for the sources of F

- GHGs. Therefore,

EPA estimates F

- GHG emissions and projections using detailed source methodologies described in USEPA (2012)

. 

### Baseline Emissions for Agriculture

Although USEPA (2012) contains estimates of baseline emissions for agricultural sources, alternative baselines were developed for the purposes of the mitigation report. The primary rationale was to ensure consistency in the area, number of livestock head, production, and price projections used across the entire agricultural sector. Projections provided by IFPRI from their IMPACT model of global agricultural markets were used to adjus t values for agricultural activities and associated emissions over time. In addition, detailed p rocess

- based models

— Daily Century ( DAYCENT ) for croplands and DeNitr i fication

– DeComposition (DNDC) for rice cultivation

— were used for both the baseline emission s estimates and the greenhouse gas implications of mitigation options, thus allowing for a clear identification of baseline management conditions and consistent estimates of changes to those conditions through mitigation

activities. Emissions obtained usin g these detailed simulation models differ from those obtained in USEPA (2012), which relied upon IPCC default emissions factors. For emissions associated with livestock, the mitigation analysis in this report relies on projections similar to those used in USEPA (20 12 ) , but with some differences due to the adjustments made for consistency with IFPRI IMPACT projections across all agricultural sectors

. The baseline emissions were also disaggregated by livestock production system and intensity using data provid ed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Further details about the emissions baselines estimated by the DAYCENT and DNDC models, and their relationship to USEPA (20 12 ) estimates, are provided in Section V Agriculture of this report

.



### I.3.2 Mitigation Option Analysis Methodology

Mitigation options represented in the MACs of this report are applied to the baselines described in

Section I V.1. 3.1. T he mitigation option analysis throughout this report was conducted using a common methodology and framework . This section outlines the basic methodology. The sector

- specific chapters describe the mitigation estimation methods in greater detail, including any necessary deviations from the basic methodology.

The abatement analysis for all non

- CO 2 gases for agriculture, coal mines, natural gas systems, oil systems, landfills, wastewater treatment, and nitric and adipic acid production are based on USEPA ,

2006 and improve upon DeAngelo et al. ( 2006 ), Beach et al. (2008), Delhotal et al. ( 2006 ), an d Ottinger et al. ( 2006 )

. These studies provided estimates of potential CH 4 and N 2 O emissions reductions from major emitting sectors and quantified costs and benefits of these reductions.

Given the detailed data available for U.S. sectors , the USEPA’s U.S. analysis uses representative facility estimates but then applies the estimates to a highly disaggregated and detailed set of emissions sources for all the major sectors and subsectors. For example, the USEPA analysis of the natural gas s ector is based on more than 100 emissions sources in that industry, including gas well equipment, pipeline compressors and equipment, and system upsets. Thus, the USEPA analysis provides significant detail at

the sector and subsector levels.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES The analysis generally begin s with developing sector level model facilities or units to which mitigation options are applied. In many cases the model facilities , abatement costs and mitigation potential are based on detailed US and EU inventory estimates, and then extr apolate t o “model” facilities

for other countries. For some sectors, such as wastewater, landfills, and selected industrial sectors, additional detail on international abatement options and costs are available and are incorporated into the

model.

A scaling factor is used to reconcile inventory data with the GER baseline emissions data. For the FGases abatement analysis, natural gas and oil, and landfills sectors it is assumed that some mitigation technologies are adopted to meet future regulations o r voluntary industry reduction targets. Therefore, some mitigation options are accounted for in the baseline emissions. If an option is assumed to be adopted in the baseline, it is not included when generating the MAC. In addition, expert judgment

determin es market shares for mitigation technologies competing for the same set of emissions (when multiple options are available that are substitutes for each other)

. The agricultural sector’s emissions abatement analysis improves upon previous stud ies supported by the USEPA ( USEPA, 2006; DeAngelo et al., 2006; Beach et al., 2008 ) that generated MACs by major world region for cropland N 2 O, livestock enteric CH4, manure management CH4, and rice cultivation CH4. The most significant change in this report is the use of updated versions of the biophysical, process

- based

models used in previous studies (i.e., DAYCENT and DNDC) applied at a more disaggregated spatial

scale to better capture the net greenhouse gas and yield effects and to capture the spatial and temporal variability of those effects for the cropland and rice emissions baseline and mitigation scenarios. Use of these process

- based models is intended to show broad spatial and temporal baseline trends and broad changes when mitigation scenarios are introduced, rather than to show definitive absolute emissions numbers for specific locations. In addition, baseline emissions estimates have been updated and a larger

n umber of mitigation options are now assessed , particularly for rice cultivation (e.g., increased emphasis on options that reduce N 2 O as well as CH 4 ) . Considerably greater disaggregation of the baseline by production system has been incorporated to improve our ability to characterize technical applicability for different types of livestock and cropping systems. More detailed results are provided for rice cultivation under deepwater, upland, rainfed, and irrigated conditions, with separate calculations for al ternative irrigated water management strategies and for livestock management based on livestock production system and management intensity

. 

### Technical Characteristics of Abatement Options

The non

- CO 2 abatement options evaluated in this report are compiled from the studies mentioned above, as well as from the literature relevant for each sector. For each region, either the entire set of

sector

- specific options or the subset of options determined to be applicable is applied. Options are

omitted from i ndividual regions on a case

- by

- case basis, using either expert knowledge of the region or technical and physical factors (e.g., appropriate climate conditions). In addition, the share or extent of applicability of an option within different regions may var y based on these conditions.

The selective omission of options represents a static view of the region’s socioeconomic conditions. In

some instances the reduction efficiency of an option improves over time reflecting anticipated technology

advances. Howeve r, the applicability of options is held constant over time. Ideally, more detailed information on country

- specific conditions, technologies, and experiences will be available in the future, which will enable more rigorous analyses of abatement option avail ability over time in each region. In addition, the average technical lifetime of an option (in years), determined using expert knowledge of the technology or recent literature, is held constant over time and across regions.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 9 Table I-3 summarizes how the pot ential emission reduction is calculated for each of the available abatement options. First the techn ical effectiveness of each option is calculated by multiplying the options technical applicability by its market share by its reduction efficiency

. This yields the percentage of baseline emissions that can be reduced at the national or regional level by a given option. This is then applied to the Emissions stream (MtCO 2 e) to which the option is applied to yield the emissions reductions for the mitiga tion option.



### Table I- 3: Calculation of Potential Emission Reduction for an Abatement Option

Technical Applicability (%) X Market
Share a 

### (%) X Reduction Efficiency (%) = Technical
Effectiveness (%)

Technical
Effectiveness (%) X Baseline Unit
Emissions (MtCO 2 e) = Unit
Emission
Reduction (MtCO 2 e)

Percentage of
total baseline
emissions from a particular
emissions
source to which a given option
can be potentially applied. Percentage of technically applicable
baseline

emissions to which a given option is applied;
avoids double counting

among competing options Percentage of technically
achievable

emissions
abatement for an option
after it is applied to a given
emissions

stream Percentage of
baseline

emissions that
can be

reduced at the
national or regional level by a given option. Emissions

stream to
which the option is applied Unit
emission
reductions

a Implied market share non competing options (i.e., only one options is applicable for an emissions streams) is assumed to add to 100 percent

Technical applicability accounts for the portion of emissions from a facility or region that a mitigation option could feasibly reduce based on its application. For example, if an option applies only to the underground portion of emissions from coal mining, then the technical applicability for the option would be the percentage of emissions from underground mining relative to total emissions from coal mining.

The implied market share of an option is a mathematical adjustment for other qualitative factors that may influence the effectiveness or adoption of a mitigation option. For certain energy, waste, and agriculture sectors, it was outside the scope of this analysis to account for adoption feasibility, such as social acceptance and alternative permutatio ns in the sequencing of adoption. For example, if n competing (overlapping) mitigation options are available for a single emissions stream, t he implied

market share of each of the n overlapping options is equal to 1/ n . This avoids cumulative reductions of greater than 100 percent across options. Given the lack of region

- specific data for determining the relative level of diffusion among options that could compete for the same emissions stream, we applied this conservative adjustment. An example of overlapping options is the sequencing of cropland mitigation options, where the adoption of one option (e.g., conversion to no tillage) affects the effectiveness of subsequent options (e.g., reduced fertilizer applications). While this describes the basic application of the implied adoption rate in the energy, waste, and agriculture sectors, this factor is informed by expert insight into the potential market penetration over time in the industrial processes sector. For sectors such
as landfills, where marke t share assumptions are available, customized shares that sum to one are used
instead of 1/ n

.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES When nonoverlapping options are applied, they affect 100 percent of baseline emissions from the relevant source. Examples of two nonoverlapping options in the nat ural gas system are inspection and maintenance of compressors and replacement of distribution pipes. These options are applied independently to different parts of the sector and do not compete for the same emissions stream.

The reduction efficiency of a m itigation option is the percentage reduction achieved with adoption. The reduction efficiency is applied to the relevant baseline emissions as defined by technical applicability and adoption effectiveness. Most abatement options, when adopted, reduce an em issions stream less than 100 percent. If multiple options are available for the same component, the total reduction for that component is less than 100 percent.

Once the technical effectiveness of an option is calculated as described above, th is percentages multiplied by the baseline emissions for each sector and region to calculate the absolute amount of emissions reduced by employing the option. The absolute amount of baseline emissions reduced by an option in a given year is expressed in million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MtCO 2 eq). 1

If

the options are assumed to be technically feasible in a given region, the options are assumed to be implemented immediately, Furthermore, once options are adopted, they are assumed to remain in place for the duration of the analysis, and an option’s parameters are not changed over its lifetime.



### Economic Characteristics of Abatement Options

Each abatement option is characterized in terms of its costs and benefits per an abated unit of gas (tCO 2 eq or ton s of emitted gas [e.g., tCH 4 ]). The benefits include a carbon value/price expressed as
$/tCO

- 2 e. The carbon price at which an option’s benefits equal the costs is referred to as the option’s breakeven price.

For each mitigation option, the carbon price ( P ) at which that option becomes economically viable is

calculated using the equation below (i.e., where the present value of the benefits of the option equals the present value of the costs of implementing the option). A present value analysis of each optio n is used to determine breakeven abatement costs in a given region. Breakeven calculations are independent of the year the mitigation option is implemented but are contingent on the life expectancy of the option. The net present value calculation solves fo r breakeven price P , by equating the present value of the benefits with the present value of the costs of the mitigation option. More specifically, � � ( 1

− TR ) ( P ∙ ER + R ) + TB ( 1 + DR ) t �

= CC + � � ( 1

− TR ) RC ( 1 + DR ) t � T

t=1 T

t=1

Net Present Value Benefits Net Present Value Costs

wh ere

P = the breakeven price of the option ($/tCO 2 e);

ER = the emissions reduction achieved by the technology (MtCO 2 e);

R = t he revenue generated from energy production (scaled based on regional energy prices) or sales of by

- products of abatement (e.g., compost) or change in agricultural commodity prices ($);

T = the option lifetime (years);

DR = the selected discount rate (%);

1 One MtCO 2 eq equals 1 teragram of CO 2 equivalent (TgCO 2 eq); 1 metric ton = 1,000 kg = 1.102 short tons = 2,205 lbs.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 11 CC = the one

- time capital cost of the option ($); RC = the recurring (O&M) cost of the option (portions of which may be scaled based on regional

la bor and materials costs) ($/year);

TR = th e tax rate (%); and

TB = a nnual tax benefit of depreciation = � CC

T � ∙ TR

.

Assuming that the emissions reduction ER , the recurring costs RC , and the revenue generated R do not change on an annual basis, then we can rearrange this equation to solve for the breakeven price P of the option for a given year:

P = CC

( 1

− TR )

∙ ER

∙ ∑ 1 ( 1 + DR ) t T t=1 + RC

ER − R

ER − CC

ER ∙ T ∙ TR ( 1

− TR )

Costs include capital or one

- time costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) or recurring costs. Most of the agricultural sector options, such as changes in management practice s , do not have applicable capital costs, with the exception of anaerobic digesters for manure ma nagement.

Benefits or revenues from employing an abatement option can include (1) the intrinsic value of the recovered gas (e.g., the value of CH 4 either as natural gas or as electricity/heat, the value of HFC

- 134a as a refrigerant), (2) nongreenhouse gas benefits of abatement options (e.g., compost or digestate for waste diversion options, increases in crop yields), and (3) the value of abating the gas given a greenhouse gas price in terms of dollars per tCO 2 eq ($/tCO 2 eq) or dollars per metric ton of gas (e.g., $/tCH 4 , $/tHFC

- 134a). In most cases, there are two price signals for the abatement of CH 4 : one price based on

CH 4 ’s value as energy (because natural gas is 95 percent CH 4 ) and one price based on CH4’s value as a greenhouse gas. All cost and benefit values are expressed in constant year 20 10 U.S. dollars. T his analysis is conducted using a 10 percent discount rate and a 40 percent tax rate. For quick reference, Table I-4 lists the basic financial assumptions used throughout this report.



### Table I-4: F inancial Assumptions in Breakeven Price Calculations for Abatement Options

Economic Parameter Assumption

Discount Rate 10%

Tax Rate 40%

Constant Year Dollars 2010$

**International Adjustment Factors**

Costs and ben efits of abatement options are adjusted to reflect regional prices. Wages and prices will vary by country . H ence recurring O&M costs are segmented into labor, energy and materials costs. Material costs components range from materials and suppli es in the in the industrial and energy sect ors, to fertilizer costs in the agricultural sectors
– all of which are likely to vary by region. One

- time capital costs are assumed to relatively stable across regions and not adjusted from country to country.

For some options data were available on the r elative cost shares between labor, energy and materials. For instance, in coal mining, different technologies have different cost shares which were developed based on expert judgment. For options without detailed cost breakouts, t he shares are generally as signed evenly as 33 % each to labor, energy, and materials

. For the agricultural sector, labor , energy, water and other input costs are calculated from their shares of agricultural production costs based on socialTECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES accounting matrix (SAM) data from the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) v8 database and agricultural wage data from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

In regions where there is a lack of detailed revenue (benefits) data, revenues are scaled based on the

ratio between average prices of natural gas (when CH 4 is abated and sold as natural gas) or of electricity (when CH 4 is used to generate electricity or heat) in a given region and in the United States. Similarly,

revenues from non

- CH 4 benefits of abatement opti ons are scaled based on the ratio between the GDPs per capita in a given regio n and in the United States . In the agricultural sector, changes in revenue occur as a change in either crop yield or livestock productivity. Data on changes in crop yield or live stock productivity are combined with data on regional producer prices for the relevant agricultural commodity to calculate revenue changes.

Table I-5 lists the international economic adjustment factors for selected countries. Us ing publically

available da ta on country

- specific wage rates and energy prices, along with input from previous MAC analysis, indices reflecting each country’s wage rates and prices relative to the United States were created. Adjustment Factors were created for labor, natural gas, el ectricity, coal and material cost s. When data was not available for a country, the country was either mapped to a similar country (with data) or previously developed EMF factors were used.



### Table I- 5: International Economic Adjustment Factors for Selected C ountries

Country Labor a 

### Natural Gas b 

### Electricity b 

### Coal b 

### Materials c


### Afghanistan 0.02 0.75 1.30 0.89 0.01

Brazil 0.24 1.30 1.60 0.76 0.13
Congo 0.19 1.06 0.34 0.37 0.05

China 0.04 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.07

India 0.03 0.67 1.69 0.69 0.02
Madagascar 0.19 1.06 0.34 0.37 0.01

Mexico 0.12 1.04 1.42 0.94 0.20

Norway 1.80 1.62 0.77 2.57 1.61

Poland 0.26 0.98 1.19 1.25 0.24

Russian Federation 0.12 0.19 0.56 0.67 0.15

Switzerland 1.35 1.62 1.41 2.04 1.30

United States 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Uzbekistan 0.12 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.02

a W

age data was obtained primarily from U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics’s International Labor Comparisons ( BLS, 2010) and augmented with (BLS, 2010b), (BLS, 2010c) and (FSSS,2010)

. b Energy Prices were obtained from EIA’s International Energy Statistics (EIA, 2010b)

.

c Material factors were based on GDP/Capita statistics obtained from UNCTAD Statistical Database (

UNCTAD

, 2012 ).

Note that b reakeven price calculations for this analysis do not include transaction or monitoring and reporting costs, because there are no explicit assumptions in this report about policies that would encourage and facilitate adoption of the mitigation options. Refer to Section I .5 for a more complete discussion of the limitations of this analysis.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 13 

### I .3.3 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

MACs are used to show the amount of emissions reduction potential at varying carbon price levels. In theory, a MAC illustrates the cost of abating each additional ton of emissions. Figure I-2 shows an

illustrative MAC. The x

- axis show s the amount of emissions abatement in MtCO 2 eq, and the y

- axis shows the breakeven price in $/tCO 2 eq required to achieve the level of abatement. Therefore, moving along the

curve from left to right, the lowest cost abate ment options are adopted first.



### Figu re I- 2: Illustrative Non

- CO 2 

### Marginal Abatement Curve

Value of CO 2

Equivalent ($/tCO 2 eq)

Abated GHG Emissions (MtCO 2 eq) Market Price $O

/tCO 2 eq MAC

Total Abatement Potential Energy/Commodity
Prices

The curve becomes vertical at the point of maximum total abatement potential, which is the sum of all technically feasible abatement options in a sector or region. At this point no additional price signals

from GHG credit markets could motivate emissions reductions; any additional emissions reductions (shifting the vertical axis to the right) are due to increased energy efficiencies, conservation of production
materials, or both.

The points on the MAC that appear at or below the zero cost line ($0/tCO 2 eq) illustrate potentially

pro fitable mitigation options . These “below

- the

- line” amounts represent mitigation options that are already cost

- effective given the costs and benefits considered (and are sometimes referred to as “no

regret” options) yet have not been implemented

. However, t here may be nonmonetary barriers that are preventing their adoption

. The MACs in this report are constructed from bottom

- up average breakeven price calculations. The average breakeven price is calculated for the estimated abatement potential for each miti gation option (see Section I

. ). The options are then ordered in ascending order of breakeven price (cost) and plotted against abatement potential. The resulting MAC is a stepwise function, rather than a smooth curve, as seen in the illustrative MAC (Figure I-2 ), because each point on the curve represents the breakeven price point for a discrete mitigation option (or defined bundle of mitigation strategies ).

Conceptually, marginal costs are the incremental costs of an additional unit of abatement. However, the abatement cost curves developed here reflect the incremental costs of adopting the next cost -effective mitigation option. We estimated the costs and benefits associated with all or nothing adoption of each

well

- defined mitigation practice. We did not e stimate the marginal costs of incremental changes withinTECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES each practice (e.g., the net cost associated with an incremental change in paddy rice irrigation). Instead, the MACs developed in this report reflect the average net cost of each option for the achie ved reduction
– hence the noncontinuous, stepwise nature of the curve.

In the energy and waste sectors, representative facilities facing varied mitigation costs employ mitigation technologies based on the lowest average breakeven option price. In calculati ng the abatement potential, options are evaluated according to whether they are complements or substitutes. If a group of options are complements (or independent of one another), the implied market shares are all equal to one. If options are substitutes fo r each other, t hen market share s that sum to one are used to distribute adoption across the available options ( see table I. 3). In some instances, the lowest price option is selected for each representative facility

. When limited information is available, t he market share is evenly distributed (1/n) across all viable options. I n this way, the implied adoption rate for each technology is

estimated.

In the industrial processes sector, mitigation options are applied to representative facilit ies , in order

of lo west average breakeven price to highest average breakeven price. Each option is applied to a portion of the baseline emissions based on the implied adoption rate (the market share factor, as described in

Section I.3.2.2 ), which, in the industrial sector, i s informed by expert insight into potential adoption rates of various mitigation technologies.

In the agriculture sector, mitigation options are applied to the portion of emissions where they are technically applicable (e.g., anaerobic digesters are assumed to be applicable only in intensively managed dairy and hog production systems) . The implied market share for competing options is based purely on the number of available migration options (n) that are applicable to a given subset of emissions and t hat

reduce emissions 2 (1/n), where each option is applied to an equal portion of the cropland base or livestock population and, thus regional baseline emissions, for each region over time. Given the existence of nonprice and implementation factors that inf luence market share and the lack of accurate and detailed information regarding these qualitative characteristics, we assume an even distribution of options across

the relevant baseline for the agriculture sector. This approach allows options to share a po rtion of market penetration, regardless of their cost

- effectiveness, rather than allowing only the least

- cost option to completely dominate the market. Our methodology is more conservative than if we had assumed only price factors exist, thus allowing the least

- cost option to penetrate the sector by 100 percent.

The MACs represent the average economic potential of mitigation technologies in that sector, because it is assumed that if a mitigation technology is technically feasible in a given region, then it is implemented according to the relevant economic conditions. Therefore, the MACs do not represent the market potential or the social acceptance of a technology. The models used in the analysis are static (i.e., they do not represent adoption of mitigatio n technologies over time). This analysis assumes partial equilibrium conditions that do not represent economic feedbacks from the input or output markets. This analysis makes no assumptions regarding a policy environment that might encourage the implementa tion of mitigation options. Additional discussion of some key limitations of the methodology is provided in Section I. 5.

2 Some agricultural mitigation options may increase emissions under certain conditions depending on baseline regional management and soil, climate, and other considerations. In addition, there are many mitigation options that

increase emissio ns per head of livestock or per hectare of land, but reduce emissions intensity per unit of output. Thus, agricultural MACs are calculated both assuming constant production and constant area/head of livestock to present a range of potential mitigation. The options that provide net emissions reductions may differ between these alternative methods of MAC generation.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 15 The end result of this analysis is a tabular data set for the MACs by sector, gas, and region, which are presented in Appendix A. 3 Sec toral MACs are aggregated by gas and by region to create global MACs, which are presented in Section I. 4.2

.



### I.3.4 Methodological Enhancements from Analysis

This report builds on a study previously conducted by the USEPA for Stanford’s EMF

- 21 and the

USEP A (2006) report . The EMF

- 21 focused specifically on multigas strategies and the incorporation of

non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas data sets into economic models. Although this analysis is built largely on the previous USEPA analysis for the EMF

- 21, we have made seve ral key enhancements.

New mitigation options have been added to the analysis for coal mining, agriculture, natural gas and oil systems sectors. This report also presents MAC curves for the domestic wastewater sector , flat panel display production, and photovoltaic cell production , which were not available in the previous report.

For industrial sources of fluorinated gases, the emissions baselines have been updated since the EMF

21 analysis. In addition, the MACs for aluminum manufacturing and electrica l power systems have been

enhanced with additional data.

The emissions baselines in the ODS substitute sector have also been enhanced. The EMF

- 21 ODS substitute baseline was an average between baselines derived by the USEPA and ECOFYS. For this report, the USEPA has generated an updated baseline. Assumptions in the ODS substitute sector, such as the market penetration potential of various mitigation options, have been updated from the EMF

- 21 analysis based on the input of industry experts.

In the agricultural sector, the previous methodology is improved on for this analysis by using updated versions of the biophysical, process

- based models DAYCENT and DNDC that are utilized at a more spatially disaggregated level and with a more disaggregated set of baseli ne management types to which these options can be applied . These models capture the net greenhouse gas effects of the cropland and rice baseline emissions and mitigation options, and they reflect the heterogeneous emissions and yield effects of adopting mi tigation practices. In addition, new agricultural mitigation options are now assessed, and more detailed results are provided for alternative baseline crop and livestock management practices

.



## I. 4 Aggregate Results

Global total non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas basel ine emissions in 2010 are estimated at 11,389 MtCO 2 e , and

p rojected to increase 33% by 2030, totaling 15,157 MtCO 2 e . Non

- CO 2 anthropogenic emissions come from four major emitting sectors: the energy, waste management, industrial processes, and agricultural

industries. China, United States, Russia, India and Brazil are the 5 largest country emitters and account

for 40% of total emissions.

This section presents the projected baseline emissions for non

- CO 2 anthropogenic greenhouse gases and provides a global overview of the MAC analysis results by sector and top emitting countries and regions from 2010

- 2030. The gases represented in the analysis are CH 4 , N 2 0, and F- Gases 4 , which are

3 Tables are presented that provide the percentage abatement for a series of breakeven prices. The MAC data are presented as tables so that exact values can be determined for use in modeling activities.

4 F- Gases include fluorinated gases used as substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and High

- GWP gases from industrial processes (PFC, HFC

- 23, SF 6 ).TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES emitted from four major sectors: the agricultural, energy, waste, and industrial processes industries. China, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, and Russia are the world’s five largest emitting countries as of 2010, accounting for 46 percent of total non

- CO 2 emissions

. The data are aggregated in this chapter and provide a summary of all emitting sources and non

- CO 2 greenhouse gases. The individual chapters are organized by source and present the full details of these analyses. For a complete set of mitigation potential by sector, gas, and region, refer to Appendix A.

Ba seline projections presented in this section come from the Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse

Gas Emissions: 1990

- 20 3 0 (USEPA, 20 12 ). Since its publication there have been some minor r evisions to the baseline projections for the industrial processes photovoltaic (PV) and flat panel display (FPD) manufacturing. The totals presented in this report will differ slightly from the projections in the 2012
report.



### I.4.1 Baselines

**By Non**

**- CO**  **2** 

### Greenhous **e Gas**

Figure I-3 illustrates the relative share of each non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas that comprises the global

baseline emissions total. CH 4 represents the largest share of emissions worldwide, accounting for approximately 66% of the total non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 , while N 2 O and F-G ases account for the 28 percent and 6 percent, respectively.



### Figure I-3: Percentage Share of Global Non

- CO 2 

### Emissions a 

### by Type of Gas in 2010



### World Total = 11,389 MtCO 2 

### e F- Gases

6%

N 2 

### O

28%

CH 4 

### 66%

Source: USEPA, 2012.

a CO 2 equivalency based on 100

- year GWP.

Figure I-4 presents the projected baseline emissions by greenhouse gas for 2010, 2020, and 2030. FGases represent the most significant change in baseline emissions. Accordingly to Figure I-4 , high GWPs are to increase nearly 300 percent between 2010 and 2030. CH 4 a nd N 2 O observe a more modest increase at an average decadal rate of roughly 10 percent. As a result, F- Gase s are projected to gain 15 percent of

the total share of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas emission by 2030, up from 4 percent in 2010TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 17 

### Figure I-4: Non

- CO 2 

### Globa l Emissions Forecast to 2030 by Greenhouse Gas

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000e2COt 8,000M 6,000

4,000

2,000

0

2010 2020 2030

Year High GWPs

N2O

CH4

Source: USEPA, 2012.



### By Major Emitting Sectors and Countries

The sources of non

- CO 2 emissions are categorized into four major emissions sectors: energy, waste, industrial processes, and agriculture. Figures I-5 and I-6 provide the projected global baseline emission for 2010, 2020, 2030, by major emissions sector and by major emitting reg ion, respectively. The agriculture sector includes soil and manure management, rice cultivation, enteric fermentation, and other nonindustrial sources such as biomass burning. Emissions sources categorized in the energy sector include coal mining activitie s, natural gas transmission and distribution, and gas and oil production. The waste sector includes municipal solid waste management, as well as human sewage and other types of wastewater treatment. The industrial processes sector includes a wide range of activities, such as semiconductor manufacturing, primary aluminum production, and electricity transmission and

distribution.

Agriculture is the primary source of non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 45 percent of the total 2010 baseline. Energ y holds the second largest share of non

- CO 2 emissions, representing 23 percent of the baseline. The waste and industrial processes sectors represent 11 and 7 percent, respectively. This trend will change through 2030, however, as emissions from the industrial processes sector is projected to increase by more than double, and will therefore produce more non

- CO 2 emissions that waste by 2030.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Figure I-5: Global Emissions by Major Sector for all Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000e2COt 8,000M 6,000

4,000

2,000

- 2010 2020 2030

Year Waste

Industrial Processes

Energy

Agriculture

Source: USEPA, 2012.



### Figure I- 6: Projected World Emissions Baseline for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases, Including Top Emitting Regions

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000e2COt 8,000M 6,000

4,000

2,000

- 2010 2020 2030 Year Brazil

Russia

India

Central & S. America

Europe

United States

Asia

China

Africa

Rest of World

Source: USEPA, 2012.

Figure I-6 shows the projected emissions baselines for the world, as well as the largest emitting countries. The largest non

- CO 2 emitting countries are typically characterized as mature, highly industrialized countries or countries with significant agricultural industries. In 2010, the top five emitting

countries
– China, the United States, EU

- 15, Brazil, and Russia
– account for 44% of the world’s total non

-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 19 CO 2 emissions. Although 2010’s top five emitting countries is projected to change during the next 20 years, their relative contribution to the world baseline will likely remain constant through 2030.



### I.4.2 Global MACs

The MAC a nalysis methodology described in Section I. 3 of this report develop bottom

- up projections of potential reduction in non

- CO 2 emissions in terms of the break

- even price ($/tCO 2 e ). The emission reduction potential is constrained by the limitations of the technologies considered in the analysis, as well as regional and geographical applicability. In this report, MACs are developed for each major source by sector and country. The resulting series of MACs are aggregated up across sectors, gases and regions. The

M ACs indicate the potential reduction in non

- CO 2 gas emissions for a given breakeven price. Figure I-7 presented the results from the MAC analysis for 20 3 0 by major economic sector. Figure I-8 presents aggregate MACs by greenhouse gas type for 2030. Figure I-9 presents the 2030 MACs for the world’s largest non

- CO 2 greenhouse gas emitting regions.



### Figure I- 7: Global 2030 MACs by Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gas

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 -$20

-$40 Non- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Waste

Agriculture

Energy

IndustrialTECHNICAL SUMMARY

I- 20 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Figure I-8: Global 2030 MACs for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 -$20

-$40 Non- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Nitrous Oxide

F-Gases

Methane



### Figure I-9: Global 2030 MACs for Non

- CO 2 

### Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

$100

$80

$60e2 $40OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 -$20

-$40 Non- CO 2 Reductions (MtCO 2 e) Brazil

India

EU27

United States

China

Rest of World



## I .5 Limitations and Uncertainties

The results of this analysis cover the major emitting regions, emissions sources, and abatement options; we discuss a few limitations of this ana lysis briefly below.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES I- 21 

### I.5.1 Exclusion of Transaction Costs

Ongoing work in the area of mitigation costs continues focus on including transactions costs. As discussed in the 2006 version of this report, Lawrence Berkeley National Laborat ory (LBNL)

, Assessing Transaction Costs of Project- based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading ( Antinori and Sathaye 2007), which reported that transactions costs range between $0.03 per metric ton of carbon dioxide for large projects to $4.05 per ton of carbon dioxide for smaller projects, with a weighted average of $0.36 per tonne of carbon dioxide for a suite of projects considered. More recent MAC work by others (Rose, et al. 2013) estimated the unit cost of an abatement project increases by an average of 15% when transaction costs are included. Transaction costs vary significantly, contingent on the size of the project, the applicab le mitigation technology, and other factors. Given the lack of comprehensive data, this analysis continues to exclude transaction costs from the analysis.



### I.5.2 Static Approach to Abatement Assessment

This analysis does not account for the technological change in such option characteristics as availability, reduction efficiency, applicability, and costs. For example, the same sets of options are applied in 2010 and 2030 and an option’s parameters are not changed over its lifetime. This current

limitation l ikely underestimates abatement potential because technologies generally improve over time and costs fall. The introduction of a dynamic approach to assessing regional abatement potentials requires additional assumptions about rates of technological progres s and better baseline projections, that, once incorporated into this analysis, will yield a better representation of how MACs change over space and time. Developing more dynamic MACs to capture the impacts of technological change should be included in any future MAC development.



### I.5.3 Limited Use of Regional Data

The analytic framework used in this study is flexible enough to incorporate regional differences in all the characteristics of abatement options. However, a lack of country

- specific data led to a r eliance on expert judgment, as noted in the sector

- specific chapters. This expert judgment was obtained from

source

- level technical experts in government and industry with knowledge of project

- level technologies, costs, and specific regional conditions. Ap plicability of abatement options, for example, is reliant on expert judgment, because the makeup of the current infrastructure in a given country in a given sector is uncertain. A much greater use of data originating from local experts and organizations is recommended

for the follow

- up research of CH 4 abatement in countries outside the United States and EU. Incorporating more regional data could also enhance the range of emissions sources and mitigation options addressed in this analysis.



### I.5.4 Exclusion of Indirect Emissions Reductions

This analysis does not account for indirect emissions reductions, which can result from either the substitution of electricity from the grid, with electricity produced on

- site from recovered CH 4 , or from the

substitution of n atural gas in pipelines with recovered CH 4 . Calculation of such indirect reductions requires additional assumptions about the carbon intensity of electricity in different regions. In the U.S. landfill sector, indirect reductions generally augment emissions reductions by about 15 percent. In the agricultural sector, although some mitigation options primarily target a single gas, implementation of the mitigation options will have multiple greenhouse gas effects, most of which are reflected in the agricultural results.TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I

- 22 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

## References

Antinori, C. and J. Sathaye 2007. Assessing Transaction Costs of Project

- based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Report No. LBNL

- 57315. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007

. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.

M iller (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPPC). 1996. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Three volumes: Vol. 1, Reporting Instructions; Vol. 2, Workbook; Vol. 3, Reference Manual. Paris, France: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environmental Programme, Organization for Economic Co

- Operation and Development, International Energy Agency.

Rose, S

. K., R

. Beach, K

. Calvin, B

. McCarl, J

. Petrusa, B

. Sohngen, R

. Youngman, A

. Diamant, F

. de la Chesnaye, J

. Edmonds, R

. Rosenzweig, and M

. Wise, 2013. Estimating Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Offset Supplies: Accounting for Investment Risks and Other Market Realties. Ele ctric Power Research Institute [EPRI], Palo Alto, CA. Report 1025510.
Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service (FSSS), 2010. Main Indicators: Living Standards

. Table 7.7: Average Monthly Nominal Accrued Wages of Employees of Organisations by Kin ds of Economic
Activities. 2010. http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b10_12/IssWWW.exe/stg/d01/07

- 07.htm United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2012. National Accou nts: Nominal and Real GDP, total and per capita, annual 1970

- 2011

. UNCTAD Statistical Database. Available at: http://unctadstat.unctad.org

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010a. International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 1996

- 2008 . Table 8: Production Workers: Hourly Compensation Costs in U.S. Dollars in Manufacturing, 33 countries or areas and selected economic groups, 1975

- 2008; and Table 2: All Employees: Hourly Compensati on Costs in U.S. Dollars in Manufacturing, 33 countries or areas and selected economic groups, 1996

- 2008 Released August 26, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/fls/

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010b. “Labor costs in India’s organized manufacturing sector.”
Table 2: Hourly compensation costs in India's organized manufacturing sector, 1999

– 2005

. May 2010. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/05/art1full.pdf

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010c. “Manufacturing in China.” Table 1: Hourly compensation costs of manufacturing workers in China, 2002

- 2008.” October 27, 2010. http://ww w.bls.gov/fls/china.htm#data_comparability

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430

- R

- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA. U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Admin istration (EIA), 2010a. International Energy
Statistics. Electricity Prices for Industry. June 10, 2010. http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html U.S. Department of Energy’s Ene rgy Information Administration (EIA), 2010b. International Energy
Statistics. Natural Gas Prices for Industry. June 10, 2010. http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/ngasprii.html

.

# II. Energy SectorCOAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -1 

# II.1. Coal Mining

II.1 .1 Sector Summary

Worldwide, the coal mining industry liberated more than 589 millio n metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO 2 e) , which accounted for 8% of total anthropogenic CH 1 4 emissions in 20 10

. The top 5 emitting countries of China, the United States, Russia, Australia , and Ukraine account for more than 80 % of coal mining CH 4 emissions

. Figure 1

- 1 summarizes the business

- as

- usual (BAU) emission baselines for the coal mining sector

. By 2030

, emissions levels are projected to more than double the levels in 2000 . The most rapid period of emissions growth occurred in the first decade of this century. M ore measured

g rowth is projected beyond 2010. Between 2010 and 2030, e missions are projected to grow by 33 %

. Currently, China represents over 50 % of global emissio ns

. China’s share of global emissions is projected

to increas e to 55 % by 2030.



### Figure 1-1: CH 4 

### Emissions from Coal Mining: 2000

– 2030

900 784 800
671 700 589
600e2 500CO 401tM 400

300

200

100

0

2000 2010 2020 2030 Ukraine

Australia

Russia

United States

China

ROW

Year

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ), 2012

.

1 Global CH 4 in 2010 = 7,549.2 MtCO 2 e (see Table A

- 2 in USEPA, 2012) 

# C o al mining is a significant source of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Coal is an important energy resource in many of the w orld’s economies , u sed for energy generation or as a

feedstock in in dustrial production processes. E xtract ing this energy resource through underground and surface mining releases methane (CH 4 ) stored in the coa l bed and surrounding geologic

strata. The U.S. Energy Information Ad ministration ’s (USEIA ’s ) (2011) most recent international energy outlook projects a 39 % increase in coal production between 20 10 and 2035

, reflecting continued economic and industrial development of the world’s eme rging economies. In the absence of widespread adoption

of abatement measures by the coal mining sector, e xpanding coal production to meet growing energy demand s will subsequently lead to increases in anthropogenic emission s.COAL MINING

II -2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES Capture for use or destruction are two alternative abatement measures that can mitigate CH 4 emissions associated with underground mining

. For mines that are able to utilize the recovered gas, the captured methane represent s a potential revenue stream that may offset a portion of the cost of implementing the abatement measure. Specifically

, three categories of abatement measures are considered : (1) gas recovery for energy end uses ; (2) combustion through flaring; and ( 3 ) ventilation air methane (VAM) recovery and destruction through thermal or catalytic oxidation, where low

concentrations of CH 4 p resent in ventilation air exhaust flows are oxidized.

G lobal abatement potential that is technologically achievable from underground coal mining based

on the abatement measures considered is approximately 60 % of total annual emissions in 2030

. Marginal

abatement cost ( MAC ) curve results are presented in Figure 1 -2 for 2010, 2020

, and 2030

. Maximum abatement potential in the coal mining sector is 400 and 4 68 Mt CO 2 e in 2020 and 2030 respectively

.



### Figure 1-2: Global Abatement Potential in Coal Mining: 2010, 2020, and 2030

2010

2020

2030 $60

$50

$40

$30e2 $20OCt$/

$10

$0

0 100 200 300 400 500 -$10

-$20

-$30 Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e)

While maximum abatement could only be achieved at higher carbon prices, the MAC results suggest that significant opportunities for CH 4 reductions in the coal mining sector at carbon prices at or below
$1 0. Furthermore there are approximately 78 Mt CO 2 e of reductions that are cost

- effective at current ly projected energy prices

. These reductions are sometimes referred to as no

- regret options.

The following section offers a brief explanation of how CH 4 is emi tted from coal mines, followed by a

discussion of projected trends in international baseline emissions

. Section II.1 .3 characterize s possible abatement technologies, outlining their technical specifications, costs and possible benefits, and potential

in se lected countries. The final section of this chapter discusses emissions reductions that occur following the implementation of each abatement technology and how these reductions are reflected in the MACs.COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -3 

## II.1 .2 Met hane Emissions from Coal Mining

M ethane is produced during a natural process that converts organic material into coal. Methane is

stored in the coal through a physical process referred to as sorption. Sorbed methane is condensed within the matrix of the coal as long as the hydrostatic pressure is maintained, but during the mining process, the pressure drops and the gas will begin to desorb and flow into the mine’s workings. Methane is also stored in the free spaces of the coal strata and migrates to the mine workings. Many factors affec t the quantity of CH 4 released, including the gas content of the coal, the permeability and porosity of the coal seams, the method of mining used, and the production capacity of the mining operation

. The concentration of methane present in the coal seam de pend s on several factors but generally increases with depth

. There are four major sources of CH 4 emissions in the coal sector including underground mines, surface mines, post

- mining processing, and abandoned mines

. U nderground mining is the largest single

source of emissions in the sector.

Underground Mines

. H igh concentration s of CH 4 in underground coal mines is a safety hazard . M ines are ventilated by use of large fans which are capable of movin g large volumes of air through the active workings. Air is drawn across the working face

, where coal is being extracted

, and exhausted to the atmosphere. This is often adequate to maintain safe levels of methane in the mine workings.

In especially gassy mines, the ventilation system may be supplemented by degasification systems, to

ensure adequate evacuation of methane from the mine to ensure safe working conditions

. Degasification systems are necessary to ensure safe operations in highly gas prone underground mines that are susceptible to gas outbursts and high methane emissions encountered at the mining face

. The primary methods to reduce emissions at the mining face include p re

- mine drain age systems that reduce the methane pressure in the coal seam, thereby reducing both the total volume of methane emitte d at the mining face and the rate at which it is emitted and post

- mining borehol es which drain methane from the collapsed and fractured zone (gob) behind the mining face. These reduce the concentration of methane, especially near the active mining coal fac e.

Degasification systems consist of a network of boreholes drilled from the surface

, or within the mine for the purpose of remo ving CH 4 before, during, or after mining. These wells extract coal mine methane

from the coal seam at relatively high concentrations (30 % to 90 %)

. Concentrations vary depending on the type of coal mined and the degasification technique used

. In contrast, underground mine ventilation systems emit large quantities of very dilute methane (typically less than 1% methane), known as

“ventilation air methane” or VAM.

Traditionally, CH 4 extracted from the mine is released or vented into the atmosphere. It is possible to mitigate underground mine methane emissions, especially from degasification systems, by capturing the gas and either flaring it or recovering and using it for energy

. In the case of VAM , the relatively low CH 4 concentration makes it more challenging both technically and economically to mitigate it or recover energy from it.

Surface Mine s

. Surface mining is a technique use d to extract coal from shallow depths at or below the

Earth’s surface. Because the hydrostatic pressure at shallow depths is lower, the in situ CH 4 content is not

as high at surface mines as at underground mines

. CH 4 emissions from surface mines (expressed as volume of CH 4 per mass of coal mined ) are typically less than from underground mines . As the overlying

soil and rock is removed and the coal exposed, CH 4 is emitted directly into the atmosphere. Both because

of its lower methane contents and because surface mining is only applicable in certain geographic regions , surface mines may contribute only a small fraction of a country’s overall emissions. For example,
in the United States in 2009, surface mining accounted for over 60% of coal production, while onlyCOAL MINING

II -4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES accounting for 18 % of CH 4 emissions from coal mining (USEPA, 2011 b ). In China, there is very little surface mining whereas in India almost all coal production is from surface mines

. The only tech nically

feasible abatement measure s av ailable to surface mining are pre

- mine methane drainage in advance of mining , similar to coal bed methane (CBM) recovery operation s (USEPA, 2008 a), or horizontal boreholes into a high wall where the ope ration starts as a surface mine but eventually the drift requires the operation to become an underground mine

. Given the limited contribution surface mines make to

national baseline emission s , this analysis did not consider any abatement measures for surface mining.

Post

- mining Operations . Following the mining operations, a series of operations, called post

- mining operations

, constitutes a third source of CH 4 emissions

. Not all CH 4 gas is released from coal during the process of coal breakage that takes place during extraction and transport to the surface at mining operations; some emissions occur during the processing, storage, and transport of coal as the coal

continues to de

- gas . The rate of post

- mining emissions depends on the rank of coal and the way it is handled. The highest rate of emissions occurs when coal is crushed, sized, and dried for industrial and utility uses. Given the limited contribution of post

- mining emissions to national baseline emissions and the limited technical options to abate these emissions from rail cars or storage piles, this analysis does not consider any abatement measures for post

- mining operations

.

Abandoned Mines

. Abandoned mines are another source of CH 4 emissions. Emissions are released through old wells

, ve ntilation shafts

, and cracks and fissures in overlying strata . In some cases, the CH 4 from these mines has been captured and used as a source of natural gas or to generate electricity. The

2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) guidelines provide a separate metho do logy for reporting emissio ns from abandoned coal mines. Hence

, emissions from this source are excluded from this analysis and are not included in the baseline estimates. Although there are abatement options for recovering and using methane from abandoned mines, these options were not examined in this analysis.

In summary, the majority of the CH 4 emitted from coal mining operations comes from gassy underground mines via ventilation systems and degasification systems. Smaller, but st ill significant,

amounts of CH 4 are emitted from surface mining and post

- mining operations and from abandoned mines

. Future levels of CH 4 emissions from coal mining

, however

, will be primarily determined by the management of CH 4 gas at active underground m ines

.



### II. 1 .2.1 Activity Data and Related Assumptions

Globally, coal production is expected to increase by 39 % from 2010 to 2035, growing at an averag e annual rate of 1.8 %. Future baseline CH 4 emissions estimates are directly related to projections of future levels of coal production. Projected coal production is based on global trends in the demand and supply

of coal , which are particularly influenced by the global mix of electricity generation sources. China and India are expected to account for 72 % of the increase in global production as they try to meet their demand with domestically produced coal (USEIA, 2011).

Three quarters of the world’s recoverable coal reserves are located in five count ries : the United States (2 7% ), Russia (1 8% ), China (1 3% ), Australia (9 %) , and India (7%) (USEIA, 2011 ). Because global coal consumption is projected to increase over the next several decades, it is also expected that these five

countries will produce the m ajority of coal to meet the demand. Efforts in recent years by China to modernize its coal mining operations are allowing coal to be mined at greater depths and at lower cost.
This, combined with a tremendous demand for coal

- generated electricity

, has cont ributed to substantial

increas es in CH 4 emissions

. Emissions factors for coal mining vary depending on the type of coal being mined, the depth at

which the mining face is located, and how much coal is being produced in a given year. These factors alsoCOAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -5 vary across countr ies and time

. E missions factors are estimated for each country and are based on the methodologies detailed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

. The IPCC guidelines provide a methodology for countries develo ping emissions factors based on the availability and certainty of emissions data

. 2 Table 1 -1 reports IPCC Tier 1 emissions factors for underground mines

based on CH 4 intensity and coal seam depth unadjusted for any CH 4 utilization or flaring

. 

### Table 1-1: IP CC Suggested Underground Emissions Factors for Selected Count ri es in m 3 

### /tonne Coal
Produced

Tier 1

— CH 4 

### Emissions Factor Emissions Factor (m 3 

### /tonne ) Emissions Factor a 

### (tCO 2 

### e/tonne )

Low (< 200m) 10 0.14

Average 18 0.26

High (> 400m) 25 0.36

Source: IPCC, 2006. Chapter 4: Fugitive Emissions in 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories . Vol

. 2. Energy.
Available at: http://www.ipcc

- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html

a Conversion factor of 1 m 3 = 0.0143 tCO 2 e

Improvements made in mining technology throughout the last 30 years have resulted in the ability to extract coal from increasingly greater depths. Developing countries’ adoption of advanced mining

tech nology has allowed countries such as China and Russia to reach deeper into their existing coal
reserves. As noted earlier, the volume of CH 4 in the coal seam may increase at greater depths because of increasing hydrostatic pressure. Thus, it is expected th at the CH 4 emission factors will increase as technology allows large coal

- producing countries to mine deeper , gassier coal seams

.



### II .1. 2.2 E missions Estimates and Related Assumptions

This section briefly discusses the historical and projected emissions trends and presents the baseline emissions used in the MAC analysis

. 3



### Historical **Emissions Estimates**

G lobal CH 4 emissions from coal mining increased by 14 % between 1990 and 2010. Key factors that

contribute d to the emissions growth over this time period i nclude overall increase s in coal production as well as technological improvements that have enabled coal mining at increased depths. For additional

detail on historical emissions estimates we refer the reader to USEPA ’s Global Emissions Report ( 2012 ).



### Projected **Emissions Estimates**

Absent the widespread adoption of abatement technologies, worldwide global CH 4 emissions from coal mining will continue to increase at an accelerated rate

. O ver the next 20 years , emissions are expected to grow at an average a nnual rate of 1. 5%, compared with 0.07 % between 1990 and 2010

. The projected increase is driven by a number of factors

, including continued mining technology advances a nd increasing demand for coal for electricity production over the same period. Large, in creasingly dev eloped

countries

, such as China and India

, are expected to experience high levels of economic growth . E conomic

2 Emissions factors for underground mines, the largest source of CH 4 emissions from coal mining, are the same as

those described in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Invent ories, and emissions factors for surface mines, post

- mining, and abandoned mines are all based on the IPCC’s 2006 guidelines.

3 For more detail on baseline development and estimation methodology, the authors refer the reader to the USEPA’s

Global Emissions Projection Report available at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

.COAL MINING

II -6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES growth in these countries will be the biggest driver of future CH 4 emissions from coal mining

. Increasing rates of technological adoption and modernization of mining operations will allow developing countries to mine deeper and more effectively and

, in turn, produce more CH 4 emissions

. Table 1 -2 presents
base line emissions projections by country and region from 2010 to 2030.



### Table 1-2: Projected Emissions from Coal Mine CH 4 

### by Country and Region: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 296 321 354 397 436 2.0%

United States 67 70 70 73 78 0.7%

Russia 49 51 51 50 51 0.3%

Australia 27 30 31 34 37 1.5%

Ukraine 30 31 31 31 31 0.3%

Rest of World ( ROW ) by Region b

Africa 10 11 11 12 12 1.1%

Central & South America 9 11 13 14 16 3.0%

Middle East 0 0 0 0 0 3.5%

Europe 30 29 29 29 29

− 0.2%

Eurasia 22 23 23 23 24 0.3%

Asia 45 49 55 61 67 2.0%

North America 3 3 3 3 3

− 0.7%

World Total 589 630 671 725 784 1.4%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

b ROW by Region excludes emissions from top 5 countries. Source: USEPA, 201 2



## II. 1 .3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

T his analysis considers five abatement measures classified into three technology categories that

include recovery for pipeline injection , power generation or use as a process fuel /on

- site heating

, flaring,

and catalytic or thermal oxidation of VAM

. It should be noted that mitigation of gas from degasification systems and ventilation systems are independent of each other. Abatement measures in the coal mining

sector consist of one or more of the following primary components: (1) a drainage and recovery system (where applicable) to remove methane from the co al seam pre

- mining or from the gob area post mining

, (2) the end

- use application for the gas recovered from the drainage system (where applicable ), and (3) the ventilation air methane recovery or mitigation system (where applicable)

.

Costs are derived from US EPA’s Coal b ed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) project Cash Flow

Model (USEPA, 2011b ) and applied to a representative populati on of underground mines

. Table 1-3

summ arizes the average total installed capital costs and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) cos ts
for each abatement measure.COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -7 

### Table 1-3: Summary of Abatement Measures for Coal Mines

Abatement Measure Total Installed Capital Cost a 

### (million USD) Total A nnual O&M C ost (million USD) Technical Lifetime (Years) Technical
Effectiveness b 

### (%)

Energy End Uses

Pipeline injection 8.4 2.4 15 21%

On- site electricity g eneration 23.0 2.6 15 28%

On-s ite use for process heat 2.8 1.2 15 28%

Excess Gas Flaring

Enclosed flare system 2.3 1.5 15 28%

Mitigation of VAM

VAM oxidation 8.0 1.3 15 19

– 68%

a Capital costs include costs of both recovery and abatement equipment requirements.

b Abatement potential expresses the maximum potential emission reductions at a facility level.

This section describes the abatement measures and associated costs of the methane recovery and abatement in the coal mining sector. Each technology is briefly characterized followed by a discussion of costs, potential benefits, technical effectiveness

, and applicability assum ptions used to estimate the abatement potential.

Technical effectiveness factors are calculated by considering a number of technological efficiency and applicability factors. Ta ble 1 -4 presents these factors for each abatement measure

. These include the

technical effectiveness of the recovery system and reduction efficiency of the utilization or destruction technology

. Technical effectiveness, represented by [ E ] in Table 1 -4

, of any option at the mine level is equal to the product of the fa cility applicability, recovery efficiency , technical fe asibility, and reduction efficiency factors

. 

### Table 1-4: Factors Used to Estimate Abatement Potential in Coal Mines

Abatement Measure Facility Applicability [A] Recovery Efficiency [B] Technical Feasibility [C] Reduction Efficiency [D] Technical
Effectiveness [E]

Energy End Uses : Drained Gas

Pipeline injection 38% 75% 100% 75 % 21 %

On- site electricity generation 38% 75% 100% 98% 2 8%

On- site direct use 38% 75% 100% 98% 28 %

Mitigation only: Drained gas

Enclosed flare system 38% 75% 100% 98% 28 %

Oxidation of VAM

VAM oxidation 62% 25% - 90% 77% 98% 19

– 68%

Tec h nical Effectiveness [ A ] × [ B ] × [ C ] × [ D ] = [ E ]COAL MINING

II -8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES Facility applicability [ A ] represents the share of total mine

- level methane emissions that are available for abatement through degasification and VAM. Approximately one

- third 4 of total mine emissions can be recovered through degasification (also commonly referred to as drainage ), while the majority of mine

emissions are released at low concentrations in the ventilation air referred to as VAM.

Recovery efficiency [ B ] relates to the collection system (see Section II. 1.3.1) itself and reflects what may be recovered through the drainage wells or ventilation exhaust system s

. Only a fraction of the total

drained CH 4 may be effectively u s ed or destroyed because of natural variances in the volume and

concentration of methane collected. With respect to VAM oxidation, for this analysis recovery efficiency is set at 25% in 2010 and grows to 90% by 2030.

Technical feasibility [ C ] relates to the physical or technical limitations of the technologies

. It is technically feasible to safely combust mine gas with CH 4 concentrations greater than 30% for drained gas

or 0.25% for VAM

. A value of 77% for VAM represents the fraction of exhaust vents with methane

concentration s high enough (>0.25%) to allow for oxidation

. 5 Finally, the reduction efficiency [ D ] is the

factor that describes the destruction efficiency of each end use or combustion technology. For pipeline injection, the reduction efficiency represents the methane losses that occur during transport from the mine to the point of sale into a natural gas pipeline.



### II. 1 .3.1 Methane Recovery System from Degasification / Drainage Systems

High

- quality CH 4 is recovered from coal seams by drilling vertical wells from the surface up to 10 years in advance of a mining operation or d rilling in

- mine horizontal boreholes several months or years before mining. Most mine operators exercise just

- in

- time management of gate road development; subsequently, horizontal cross

- panel boreholes are installed and drain gas for 6 months or less (USEPA,

2011b ).

The components of the capital and annua l costs for the drainage wells are outlined as given in

USEPA’s CMOP Cash Flow Model documentation ( US EPA, 2011b )

. The recovery system includes the equipment required for d rainage wells

, gas gathering lines , and delivery systems for coal mine methane (CMM)

. The recovery system is included in the costs of all abatement measures with the exception of

VAM oxidation

. 6 These costs are additive to the costs associated with each abatement measure

.

• Capital Cost: The capital costs for a d rainage system are a function of the recovered gas flow rate. Equipment requirements include construction of the drainage well(s), a wellhead blower, a satell ite compressor station, and gathering pipelines that connect the compressors to the methane

end

- use technology

. T he total installed capital costs will vary by location and gas flow rate. For example, ass uming a 600 Mcf/day volume of CMM gas ( with a CH 4 concentration of 90%), we
estimate the capital costs would be $850 ,000

. See Appendix B for additional detail on equi pment cost assumptions.

4 The proportion of mine CH 4 emissions recoverable through degasification systems can vary from 0% to 70% depending on the gassiness of the mine. This analysis uses 38%, which represents an average for gassy mines.

5 This value may be a high estimate based on anecdotal evidence from field testing experience. For example

, the

number of mines in Asia that meet s a threshold for application of available and field

- tested VAM abatement systems

is much lower.

6 A recovery system is not required for VAM oxidation because it relies on the mine’s existing ventilation system that

would be installed bef ore mining operations commence.COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -9 • Annual Operating and Maintenance ( O&M ) Costs: The annual costs are required to maintain the drainage system equated to approximately $2.2/Mcf per year

. These costs include the ongoing installation of gob wells and the gathering system piping that connects the wells to satellite

compressors. In keeping with the example mine of 600 Mcf/day, the annual O&M costs associated with the recovery system would be approximately $475,000.

• Recovery Efficiency: Recovery efficiency is assumed to be 75%.



### II.1

. 3.2 Degasification for Utilization in Energy Production

This category of abatement measures includes (1) recovery for pipeline injection and (2) recovery for electricity generation

. Both options require a recovery system in place to extract the methane gas from the

coal seams

. Which technology is most cost

- effective will be determined by a combination of regional energy prices and the capital equipment requirements

. 

### Degasification **for Pipeline Inj**  **ection**

Natural gas companies may purchase CH 4 recovered from coal mines. CH 4 suitable for sale into natural gas pipelines must have a concentration of at least 9 6 % and contain no more than 4 % concentration of noncombustible gases with a maximum of 4% carbo n dioxide or nitrogen and 1 ppm

oxygen

. Although CH 4 from coal mines requires water removal, it is typically free of hydrogen sulfide and other impurities found in natural gas. Hence

, little to no additional treatment and processing are
necessary to meet t he requirements for pipeline injection. In some cases, high

- quality CH 4 also can be obtained from gob wells.

Premining degas wells are the preferred recovery method for producing pipeline quality CH 4 from coal seams because the recovered methane is not contaminated with ventilation air from the working

areas of the mine.

Gob wells, in contrast, generally do not produce pipeline

- quality gas because the methane is frequently mixed with ventilation air. Gob gas CH 4 concentrations can range from 3 0% to over 90%

. It is possible to upgrade gob gas for pipeline quality although blending with pre

- mine drained gas and/or oxygen removal may be necessary, adding to the cost of gas processing

. H owever, it is possi ble to maintain a higher and more consistent gas quality through careful monitoring and adjustment of the vacuum pressure in gob wells as has been demonstrated in the United States (USEPA, 200 8b ).

The viability of a pipeline project is affected by several key factors

. First is a coal mine’s proximity to a commercial pipeline. The cost of constructing a pipeline to connect to a commercial pipeline can vary greatly depending on distance

. Secondly, and more importantly

, the terrain will affect the viability of a commercial pipeline project. Many mining areas are located in hilly and mountainous regions , thus

increas ing the difficulty and cost of constructing both gathering lines and pipeline to connect to the commercial natural gas pipeline (USEPA, 200 8b ). Fina lly, disposal of water produced from vertical wells may be a significant factor in determining the economic viability of a pipeline project.

• Initial Capital Cost: The per facility installed capital costs for pipeline injection of gob gas , as described in USEPA (2011 b ), include the installation of a pressure swing adsorption system to remove nitrogen and carbon dioxide down to a 4 % inert level. The utilization cost is a function of both the inlet gas flow rate and methane concentration and includes the cost of dehydration and compression necessary to process the gas and boost the sales gas to pressure for injection in a

na tural gas transmission pipeline. While there may be a range of pressures at which pipelines operate, this analysis assumes an operating pr essure of 900 psig. This option also includes the installation of a catalytic oxygen removal system and a pipeline to connect the mine’s gasCOAL MINING

II

- 10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES processing system to a n atural gas pipeline

. Pipeline costs estimated for this analysis are adjusted

base d on mine proximity to commercial pipeline but do not attempt to account for variations in

terrain across countries.

• Annual O&M Costs: The annual costs include costs of recovery system and cost of gas treatment and compression required for injection into commercial natural gas pipeline s.

• Annual Benefits: Revenues from this option are the gas sales based on the volume of gas produced and the market price of natural gas.

• Technical Effectiveness : The analysis assumes a technical effectiveness of 2 1 %. As shown in

Table 1

- 4, this considers a recovery efficiency of 75% (reflects the loss of 25% of the gas cannot be used in pipeline injection because the methane concentration is too low to process to pipeline specifications) and destruction efficiency of 75% to account for losses during transport to point of sale and injection into a commercial natural gas pipeline.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### Degasification for Electricity **Generation**

Drained methane can be used to fire internal combustion (IC) engines that drive generators to make electricity for sale to the local power grid (USEPA, 2011 b ). The quality of methane required for use in power generation can be less than that required for pipeline injection. I nternal combustion (IC) engine
generators can generate electricity using gas that has heat content as low as 3 0 0 Btu/cf or about 30%

methane . Mines can use electricity generated from recovered methane to meet their own on

- site electricity requirements and can also sell electricity generated in excess of on

- si te needs to utilities (USEPA, 200 8b ).

Coal mining is a very energy

- intensive industry that could realize significant cost savings by generating its own power. Nearly all equipment used in underground mining runs on electricity, including mining machines, c onveyor belts, ventilation fans, and elevators. While most of the equipment used in mining operations is used 250 days a year for two shifts per day, ventilation systems are required to run continuously year round. These systems require large amounts of energy, up to 60% of a mine’s total electricity usage. Total electricity demand can exceed 24 kWh per ton of coal produced (USEPA,

2008b ).

• Capital Cost: The c ost for this option includes the cost of gas processing to remove gas

contaminant s (primarily water vapor and solid particles) , the electricity generation equipment, and power grid connection equipment

. Costs are assumed to be $1,300/kW. Assuming a 2 MW facility and a capacity factor of 90%

, total installed capital costs of electricity generation would be
$2.7 million. Total installed capital costs for this abatement measure would be $4.5 million, which includes the $850,000 for recovery, assuming 20% owner ’ s costs and 5% contingenc ies.

• Annual O&M Costs: T he annual costs include $0.02/kWh for the engine

- gen set in addition to the $2.2/Mcf cost of the recovery system. Assuming a 600 Mcf/d flow and 90% capacity total O&M costs would be approximately $0.8 million USD.

• A nnual Benefits: Revenues in the form of power sales at market electricity prices. A 2 MW

c apacity generation facility with a 90% capacity factor would be expected to generateCOAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 11 approximately 16,000 MWh of electricity. Assuming an energy price of $0.075/kWh 7 , this project would generate $1. 2 million in revenue from electricity sales.

• Technical Eff ectiveness : The analysis assumes a technical effectiveness of 28%, assuming a recovery efficiency of 75% and destruction efficiency of 98% in the energy generation unit

.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### II.1.3.3 Degasif ication for On

- site Utilization

— Process Heat

This category of abatement measures includes (1) recovery for use in the boiler for supporting in

mine heating and (2) recovery for coal drying

.



### Mine Boilers

Drained methane can be used to fuel on

- site boilers that provide space or water heat to mine facilities

. This analysis assumes that existing boilers will be retrofitted to burn methane and that the drained methane is of sufficient quality to fuel the mine’s boiler and no additional gas processing is required

.

• Capital Cost: The costs for this option are primarily associated with the capital cost to retrofit the mine boiler to fire drained gas. The a nalysis assumes a 8.1 MMBTU/hr 8 average boiler heat load
and a retrofit cost of $ 7,500 /MMBTU/hr. Assuming the mine boiler fuel demand was 10 Mcf/hr,

to tal installed capital costs for this abatement measure would be $ 635,000 , which includes
$ 382 ,000 for the recovery system, $122,000 for boiler retrofit

, and an addi tional 20% in o wner ’ s

costs and 5% for contingencies.

• Annual O&M Cos ts: The annual costs are the $2. 4 /Mcf to operate the recovery system. Assuming

a 240 Mcf/d flow and 90% capacity , the total O&M costs would be approximately $ 213,000 USD.

• Annual Benefits: Benefits are the energy costs offset by using the drained methane ga s as a substitute fuel source ( offsetting coal consumption )

. Revenues associated with this project will be the quantity of coal replaced at the mine mouth coal market price ($/MMBTU)

.

• Technical Effectiveness : The analysis assumes a recovery efficiency of 75% and destruction efficiency of 98 % when combusted in mine boiler.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### Coal Drying

Another on

- site direct use application for drained CMM is to use it as a fuel in thermal coal drying operations at coal preparation plants co

- located near an underground mine. The existing coal drying

process can be retrofitted to burn methane as a supplemental fuel in addition to burning coal

. Similar to the mine boiler option, we assume d the CMM will n ot require further processing to serve as fuel to the dryer

.

• Capital Cost: The cost of converting the dryer to burn CMM was assumed to be the same as the cost of converting the boiler firing system [$7,500/MMBtu/hr]

. The analysis assumed an average coal drying rate of 380 tons/hr (USEPA, 1998). Assuming the average coal dryer heat ing

7 The actual price utilities would be willing to pay will vary depending on market and regulatory environment within the specific country

. In the absence of any additional market incentives

, purchas e rs would likely only pay the price of generation in the range of $0.025/kWhr in the United States.

8 MMBTU/hr = Million British Thermal Units per hourCOAL MINING

II

- 12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES requirement is 228 MMBTU/hr

, 9 CMM gas with a lower heating value of 991 BTU /cf, the total installed capital costs for this abatement measure would be $635,000 , which includes $382,000 for the recovery system, $122,000 for boiler retrofit

, and an addi tional 20% in owner’s costs and 5% for contingencies.

• Annual O&M Costs: The annual costs to operate the recovery system are assumed to be
$2.4/Mcf

. Assuming a 240 M cf/d flow and 90% capacity factor, total O&M costs would be approximately $213,000 USD.

• Annual Benefits: Benefits are the energy costs offset by using the drained methane gas as a

substitute fuel source ( offsetting coal consumption )

. Revenues associated wi th this project will be the quantity of coal replaced based on assumed energy content (MMBTU/ton) at the mine mouth

coal market price ($/MMBTU)

.

• Technical Effectiveness : The analysis uses a technical effectiveness of 28%

, which assumes a

recovery efficiency of 75% and destruction efficiency of 98% when combusted in mine boiler.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### II.1.3.4 Combustion through Flaring

After recovering methane using the drainage well technique, mines can choose to flare methane of greater tha n 30 % concentration (USEPA, 2011a )

. Flare systems considered include a n open flare and

enclosed combustion system

, which co nsists of a mounted burner where the flame is exposed (open) or

the flame is enclosed in a stack

. The cost s of the flaring syst em con sist of firing equipment a nd monitoring and metering equipment to validate methane destruction levels

.

• Capital Cost: The cost of installing a flar e system to burn CMM was assumed to be $ 280 /M cf/ day

. Assuming a n average daily flow rate of 600 Mcf gas , the total installed capital costs for this
abatement measure would be $ 1,239 ,000, which includes $ 850 ,000 for the recovery system,
$ 134 ,000 for the flare system

, and an addi tional 20% in owner’s costs and 5% for contingencies.

• Annual O&M Costs: The annual cost s to operate the recovery system are assumed to be
$2.4/Mcf. Assuming a 600 Mcf/d flow and 90% capacity factor, total O&M costs would be approximately $ 489 ,000 USD.

• Annual Benefits: There are no revenues associated with this option.

• Technical Effectiveness : The analysis uses a technical effectiveness of 28%, which assumes a recovery efficiency of 75% and destruction efficiency of 98% when combusted in flaring system

.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### II.1.3.5 VAM Oxidation

Oxidation technologies (both thermal and catalytic) have the potential to use CH 4 emitted from coal

mine ventilation air. E xtremely low CH 4 concentration levels (typically below 1 %) make it economically

infeasible to sell this gas to a pipeline. However, thermal oxidiz ers can combust the VAM converting it to

H 2 O and CO 2

. VAM oxidation is technically feasible at CH 4 concentrations between 0.25 % and 1.25 %

. For mines with lower VAM concentrations, a supplemental gas is required to bring the concentration above

the 0.25 % concentration limit

.

9 MMBTU/hr = Million British Thermal Units per hourCOAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 13 • Capital Cost: Abatement measure costs include the ductwork required to collect VAM exhaust

from the mine’s ventilation system at the surface vents, the d esign and installation of a thermal
oxidizer unit, a nd any supporting auxiliary equipment. The total in stalled capital cost of the VAM oxidizer unit is $23 per unit of recoverable ventilation air flow measured in cubic feet per minute [cfm]. Assuming the recoverable ventilation air flow rate of 1 00 Mcf m and a CH 4

concent ration of 0.2%, capital costs would b e $2.3 million USD (=100,000 cfm X $23/cfm). T he t otal installed capital costs for this abatement measure would be approximately $2.8 million after assuming allowances of 20% in owner’s costs and 5% for contingencies.

• Annual O&M Costs: Annual operating cos ts include costs to maintain the oxidizer unit, the electricity required to operate the oxidizer blowers (0.075 kWh/mcf)

, and the periodic relocation costs of moving equipment to the new location of a mine ventilation shaft ( every 5 years at a cost
of $4/c fm)

. Assuming a 100 Mcfm flow rate, total O&M costs would be approximately $ 462 ,000

USD , where VAM blower electricity costs account for 55% of the annual costs, while oxidizer O&M costs represent 28%, and annualized relocation costs make up the balance.

• Annual Benefits: Although low

- grade heat can be captured from the VAM oxidizer, little economic benefit can be obtained from it and only under special site

- specific conditions ; for this

reason, we assume th ere are no energy

- related benefits for this abatem ent measure.

• Technical Effectiveness : The analysis assumes a technical effectiveness of between 19% and 68%,

which assumes a recovery efficiency of 25% (in 2010) to 90% (in 2030) and destruction efficiency

of 98% in a VAM oxidation unit

.

• Technical Lifetime : 15 years



### II.1.3.6 Evaluation of Future Mitigation Option and Trends

Based on our review of existing abatement measures, technology improvements have the potential to

reduce the cos ts of VAM oxidation technology

. Despite its abatement potential, VAM oxidation is the measure with the highest abatement costs largely due to three key factors that include: (1) the equipment itself is large and costly; (2) the lack of a revenue source; and (3) only a handful of technologies have been

demonstrated at a comm ercial scale and as such economies of scale in production have not been realize d

. The development of an international carbon market like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ’s ( UNFCCC’s ) Clean Development Mechanism ( CDM ) or the Europea n Trading System ( ETS ) would provide a source of revenue from the sale of carbon reduction credits

. In addition, improvements in design and catalyst s have the potential to reduce the cost of oxidation over time

. All other abatement measures described in this chapter are assumed to be mature technologies

.



## II.1 .4 Mar ginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T his section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of CMM

abatement measures. Here we describe the modeling approach applied to the sector and highlight the unique facets of the modeling approach that are required to align with the general modeling framework described in the technical summary of this report.



### II.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis seeks to characteriz e the cost of abatement in the coal mining sector by developing project cost estimates for a series of representative mines that represent the population of activ e underground coal mines in a reference location , which is the United States. Abatement measure s are applied to the technically applicable st r eam of emissions (degasificatio n, or ventilation air streams). TheCOAL MINING

II

- 14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES MAC model calculates break

- even prices for each representative coal mine based on the facility

characteristics that include annual methane lib eration, presence of existing degasification operations,

mine ventilation air flow rate, and VAM concentration. Figure 1

- 3 illustrates the flow of emissions and the country and technology factors that determine the abatement potential.



### Figure 1-3: Flow Cha rt of the Coal Mining Sector MAC Modeling Approach

The MAC model internationalizes the abatement measures’ project costs by applying country

- specific factors to adjust individual components of the technology costs and expected benefits (i.e., capital, labor, energy and materials) to transpose costs from a United States context to the international country of interest. The MAC model then applies the general break

- even cost calculation using the internationalized costs and benefits to develop country

- spe cific abatement cost estimates.



### II.1.4.2 Assessment of Sectoral Trends

Abatement potential estimated in this report is limited to the subset of emissions from underground coal mining activities

. No abatement measures are considered for surface mining

, abandoned mines

, or post

- mining operations . T he analysis assumed that the majority of emissions from the coal mining sector come from underground coal mining activity. As a result, a significant proportion of the BAU emissions projected (see Table 1 -3 abov e) are available for abatement via the measures discussed in this chapter. This analysis considers country

- specific data when available to adjust the basic assumption that between

70 % and 98% of emissions are available for abatement (i.e., the quantity of emission s from underground mining activities). For countries for which no other information was available, expert judgment was used to assess the quantity of emissions eligible for abatement.COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 15 

### II.1

. 4.3 Definition of Model Facilities for the Analysis

A popul ation of representative underground coal mines was developed using publicly available data

for the U .S. active underground coal mines. The dataset included detailed information on over 100 active mines with average methane liberation rates greater than 0.1 million cubic feet per day. Information was

also available on the methane concentration in mine ventilation air.

The international population of facilities is defined through a representative dataset of underground mines with the accompanying mine

- specifi c characterization s

. This includes the gassiness of the mine and the concentration of methane present in the mine’s ventilation air

.



### II.1.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Mine characteristics for each mine in the facility database were used to estimate abatement project

costs and benefits. Appl y ing the costs described in Section II. 1.3, the CMOP project Cash Flow Model provided outputs including initial capital investment, annual recurring costs for operation and

maintenance

, and the qua ntity of energy saved or offset. The costs and benefits data are then used as inputs in the MAC model. The cost functions used in the CMOP model are assumed to be representative of typical projects in the United States. Please re fer to the CMOP model docum entation for additional

details on how costs are calculated

.

Table 1 -5 provides an example of how the break

- even price s are calculated for each abatement

measure. Project costs and benefits calculated for each coal mine are used in the calculation that sol ve for

the brea k- even price that sets the project’s benefits equal to its costs.

The break

- even prices presented in Table 1 -5 represent weighted average break

- even prices weighted by total annual methane liberated across the population of coal mines used for this analysis. Each coal

mine will have its own break

- even price based on the amount of methane recovered. Break

- even pric es will be higher for less gassy coal mines and lower (potentially negative) for most gassy mines. Complete international MAC results are presented in Section II. 1.4.5.



### Table 1-5: Example Break

- Even Price Calculation for Coal Mine Abatement Measures

Abatement Option Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 

### e) Annualized Capital
Costs b 

### ($/tCO 2 

### e) Net Annual
Cost a 

### ($/tCO 2 

### e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 

### e) Break

- Even
Price b 

### ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Energy End Uses

Pipeline Injection 99,629 $18.5

− $19.5 $3.76

− $4.69

Electricity Generation 130,338 $38.7

− $33.0 $7.84

− $2.18

On- Site Direct Use 249,175 $2.5

− $2.8 $0.50

− $0.85

Excess Gas Flaring

Enclosed Flare System 298,333 $1.7 $5.0 $0.35 $6.33

Combustion of VAM

VAM Oxidation 46,430 $37.5 $28.0 $7.61 $57.91

a Assumes tax rate = 40%; discount rate = 10%, technical lifetime = 15 years

b AEO 2010 Energy prices; dry natural gas ($/ Mcf); electricity $ /kWh); and coal ($/ton)COAL MINING

II

- 16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### II.1.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 400 and 468 Mt CO 2 e , respectively. Nearly 16 % of the

reduction can be achieved by implementing currently available technologies that are cost

- effective at projected energy prices. If an a dditional emission reduction incentive (e.g., tax incentive, subsidy, or

tradable emission reduction credit) above the zero break

- even price were available to coal mine operators, then additional emission reductions could be cost

- effectively achieved. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 1 -6 and Figure 1 -4 by major country and regional grouping at select break

even prices in 2030.



### Table 1-6: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices ($/tCO 2 

### e) in 2030

Country/Region Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

– 10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Australia 1.9 3.3 15.9 17.3 18.0 19.1 22.4 22.6 22.7 22.9

China 29.8 32.2 43.9 204.7 219.6 264.2 265.3 266.5 267.2 269.6 269.6

Russia 4.5 6.3 24.8 26.6 31.5 31.6 31.8 31.8 32.1 32.1

Ukraine 3.8 4.2 4.4 15.1 16.0 16.4 17.3 19.5 19.6 19.6 19.7

United States 3.4 3.6 4.5 23.8 25.4 27.4 28.5 33.5 34.0 34.2 34.5

Rest of Region

Africa 1.0 1.0 1.1 6.0 6.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7

Central and South America 1.6 1.6 1.9 6.7 7.8 8.0 8.3 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.0

Middle East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Europe 2.1 2.4 2.6 10.8 11.9 12.4 13.0 15.1 15.2 15.2 15.4

Eurasia 0.0 0.0 1.3 8.5 9.6 11.0 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.2 11.2

Asia 6.5 6.8 8.2 30.9 34.0 37.4 38.9 41.9 42.1 42.3 42.4

North America 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8

World Total 48.5 58.6 77.7 348.7 376.2 435.3 442.2 461.1 463.0 466.4 467.6COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 17 

### Figure 1- 4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters and Rest of World in 2030

II.1.4.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

Several key limitations in current data availability constrain the accuracy of this analysis. Successfully addressing these issues would improve development of the MACs and predictions of their behavior as a function of time. Some of these limitations include the following.

• Accurate Distribution of Mine Type for Each Country. Extrapolating from available information about individual mines to project fugitive emissions at a national level implies that the available data are representative of the country’s coal production not already included in the existing database. A more accurate distribution of representative mines would improve the accuracy of the cost estimates and the shape of each MAC. These data wo uld include mines of all sizes, emissions factors, and production levels. This lack of information becomes increasingly problematic when evaluating a country such as China, where the majority of mines are small and private mines are not represented in curr ently available data sources.

• Country

- Specific Tax and Discount Rates. In this analysis, a single tax rate was applied to mines in all countries to calculate the annual benefits of each technology. Similarly, the discount rate may vary by country. Improvin g the level of country

- specific detail will help analysts more accurately quantify benefits and break

- even prices.

• Improved Information on Public Infrastructure. A more detailed understanding of each country’s natural gas infrastructure would improve the e stimates of costs associated with transporting CH 4 from a coal mine to the pipeline. Countries with little infrastructure will have a much higher transportation cost associated with degasification and enhanced degasification technologies. -$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) Australia

Russia

China

Ukraine

United States

Rest of WorldCOAL MINING

II

- 18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES • Concentrations for VAM in International Mines. The effectiveness and applicability of VAM technology depends on VAM concentration and mine

- specific coal production rates. Improved data on the VAM concentration levels for individual mines would enhance the accuracy of cost estimates. This information would also help to more accurately identify the minimum threshold concentration levels that make VAM oxidation an economically viable option.COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 19 

## References

Global Methane Initiative (GMI)

. 2010

. Coal Mine Methane Country Profiles

. This document provides individual profiles for 37 countries that covers coal production and coal mine methane markets.
Available at: http://www.globalmethane.org/tools

- resour ces/coal_overview.aspx

. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ). January 7, 2010. 2008 Mine Data. Personal communications with Chad Hancher at MSHA. Coal Mine Data, methmine08nma.xls.

S omers, J. M and L. Schultz. 2009.“Coal Mine Methane Ventilation Ai r Methane: New Mitigation Technologies.” Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cmop/resources/vam.html

. U.S. Energy Information Administration ( USEIA ) . 2011. International Energy Outlook 2011 . Coal Over view. DOE/EIA

- 0484(2011). Washington, DC: EIA. Available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ). 2012

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA.

U .S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ). 2011a

. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks : 1990

- 2009. Annex 3 Methodological Descriptions for Additional Source or Sink Categories. USEPA

#430 -R- 11

- 005

. Washington, DC: USEPA

. Obtained on May 5, 2011

, at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011b

. User’s Manual for Coal Mine Methane Project Cash Flow Model (Version 2)

. Obtained January 25, 2010

, at : http://www.epa.gov/ cmop/docs/cashflow_user_guide.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Coal Mine Methane Project Cash Flow Model (Version 2)

. Obtained on January 25, 2010, at: http://www.epa.gov/cmop/resources/index.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). July 2008a. U.S. Surface Coal Mine Methane Recovery Project Opportunities . USEPA #430 -R- 08 -0 01. U.S. EPA Coalbed Methane Outreach Program. Obtained on January 7, 2011

, at: http://www.epa.gov/cmop/docs/cmm_recovery_opps_surface.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE PA). September 2008 b. (Revised January 2009). Identifying Opportunities for Methane Recovery at U.S. Coal Mines: Profiles of Selected Gassy Underground Coal Mines

2002

- 2006

. EPA 430 -K- 04

- 003

. U.S. EPA Coalbed Methane Outreach Program . Obtained January 7,

2010

, at http://www.epa.gov/cmop/docs/profiles_2008_final.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Identifying Opportunities for Methane Recovery at U.S. Coal Mines: Profiles of Selected Gassy Underground Coal Mines 1999

– 2003 . EPA 430 -K- 04

- 003. Washington, DC: Office of Air and Radiation. Available at : http://www.epa.gov/cmop/docs/profiles_2003_final.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). November 1998. Use of Coal Mine Methane in Coal Dryers

. (US) EPA Coalbed Methane Outreach Program Technical Options Series . USEPA # 6202J

. Washington, DC: USEPA. Obtained on January 7, 2011

, at: http://www.epa.gov/cmop/docs/ 016red.pdf

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 21 

# II. 2. Oil and Natural Gas Systems

II. 2 .1 Sector Summary

Figure 2- 1: Emissions Projections for the Oil and Natural Gas Systems Sector: 2000

– 2030

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 a

ONG system emissions are projected to grow 26 % between 2010 and 2030 with Brazil and Iraq experiencing the highest rate of growth at 128 % and 100% , respectively

, over the same time period.

A number of abatement measures are available to mitigate CH 4 losses from activities associated with or directly from the operation of equipment components common across the ONG system segments of production, processing, transmission, and distribution

. These abatement options in the ONG system segments generally fal l into three categories: equipment modifications /upgrades ; changes in operational practices

, including direct inspection and maintenance (DI&M) ; and installation of new equipment . The abatement measures may be applied to component s and equipment used in ON G operations

, including compressors/engines, dehydrators, pneumatics/controls, pipelines, storage tanks, wells, and other

processes and equipment commonly used in some or all of the ONG system segments. The global abatement potential associated with the suite of abatement measures applicable for ONG systems is illustrated in the marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve s for 2010, 2020, and 2030 presented in Figure 2 -2. 1,441 1,677 1,912 2,113

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

2000 2010 2020 2030MtCO2e

Year Uzbekistan

Kuwait

Iraq

United States

Russia

ROW 

# O il and n atural gas ( ONG ) systems are a leading source of anthropogenic CH 4 emissions, emitting 1,677 Mt CO 2 e or 23% of total global CH 4 emissions in 2010 (USEPA, 20 12 a ). Russia, the United States, Iraq , Kuwait, and Uzbekistan account ed for more than half of the world’s

CH 4 emissions in this sector in 2010

. Figure 2

- 1 presents the business

- as

- usual baseline projections for the

ONG sector between 2000 and 2030.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 22 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Figure 2-2: Global Abatement Potential in Oil and Natural Gas Systems: 2010, 2020, and 2030

Note: Figure 2

- 2 does not show the entire MAC curve, an additional 10% of abatement potential is available at prices > $60/tCO 2 e.

Global abatement potential in the ONG sector is 60 % of the sector emissions in 2010, or 997 Mt CO 2 e

. The a batement potential increases over time, growing to 1,103 and 1, 218 Mt CO 2 e in 2020 and 2030 respectively (representing 58% of each years’ BAU emissions)

. Nearly 70 % of the abatement potential is achievable at a carbon prices below $5

. In addition, over 6 1 % of abatement (7 47 Mt CO 2 e in 2030) is cost

effective at current energy prices ( i.e. a carbon price ≤ $0 /t CO 2 e).

The following section briefly explains CH 4 emissions from ONG s ystems . This is followed by

international CH 4 emissions projections . Subsequent se ctions characterize the abatement technologies and present the costs and potential benefits. Finally, t his chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC analysis and the regional results.



## II. 2.2 Met hane Emissions : Oil and Natural Gas Systems

CH 4 is the principal component of natural gas

. 1 Fugitive CH 4 is emitted through activities and components associated with the natural gas production, processing, transmission

, and distribution

. Oil production and processing upstream of oil refineries can also emit CH 4 in significant quantities through

1 CH 4 concentrations typically increase as the natural gas moves from production to distribution. Typically CH 4
concentrations in non

- associated gas are assumed to be 80% at production, increasing to 87% in processing, and 95%

in transmission and distribution. Associated gas typically has a lower concentration (between 65 and 75%) depending on the presence of other hydrocarbons in the gas mix. -$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2020 $20 2010

2030OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 23 routine venting , flaring

, and other fugitive sources associated with the production, transmission, upgrading, and refining of crude oil and distribution of crude oil products (IPCC, 2006)

. Figure 2 -3

identif ies t he facilities and equipment associated with the ONG system segments.



### Figure 2

- 3: Segments of Oil and Natural Gas System s

Source: Adapted from American Gas Association (AGA) and Natural Gas STAR Program.

Table 2

- 1 provides examples of the typical facilities and equipment that comprise ONG systems. Fugitive CH 4 emissions result from equipment leaks, system upsets, process venting

, and deliberate flaring at oil and gas production fields, natural gas processing facil ities, natural gas transmission lines and compressor stations, natural gas storage facilities, and natural gas distribution lines ( USEPA, 2012a ).



### Table 2

- 1: Emissions Source from Oil and Natural Gas Systems Segment Facility Equipment at the Facility

Production Wells, central gathering facilities Separators, pneumatic devices, chemical injection pumps, dehydrators, compressors, heaters, meters, pipelines, liquid storage
tanks

Processing Gas plants Vessels, dehydrators, compressors, acid gas removal (AGR) units, heaters, pneumatic
devices

Transmission and storage Transmission pipeline networks, compressor stations, meter and pressure

- regulating stations, underground injection/withdrawal facilities, liquefied natural gas (LNG)
facilities Vessels, comp ressors, pipelines, meters/pressure regulators, pneumatic devices, dehydrators, heaters

Distribution Main and service pipeline networks, meter and pressure

regulating stations Pipelines, meters, pressure regulators, pneumatic devices, customer meters Production & Processing

1. Drilling and Well Completion

2. Producing Wells

3. Gathering Lines

4. Gathering and Boosting Stations

5. Gas Processing Plant 3 1

2

4

5

6

7

8 10a
10b

10c

10d 9 Natural Gas Transmission & Storage

6. Transmission Compressor Stations

7. Transmission Pipeline

8. Underground Storage

Distribution

9. Distribution Mains

10. Regulators and Meters for:

a. City Gate

b. Large Volume Customers

c. Residential Customers

d. Commercial CustomerOIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 24 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### II.2.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

Emissions from ONG systems are closely correlated with the quantity of ONG produced and

consum ed

. Globally, production and consumption of natural gas are expected to incr ease in both the near term and long term

. Between 2008 and 2035, natural gas supplies are expected to increase by almost 60 trillion cubic feet, or roughly 1.6 % per year (EIA [U.S. Energy Information Administration], 2011a)

. The majority of production growth is projected to occur in n on

- Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development ( OECD ) countries most notably, in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa regions, where production growth rates average 2.8, 2.5

, and 2.4 % p er year, respectively

. Figure 2 -4 presents projected global gas production by major region from 2008 to 2035. Growth in natural gas production f rom n on

OECD countries between 2015 and 2035 is projected to be twice the growth in production from OECD

countries

. Expanded production in n on

- OECD countries is expected to exceed regional demand allowing for net exports to OECD countries.



### Figure 2

- 4: Global Natural Gas Production: 2015

– 2035

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2011a). International Energy Outlook 2011

. Table G1. World total natural gas production by region, Reference case, 2008

– 2035.

Another trend in the international gas market is the increased production of unconventional gas resources (i.e., tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane). Preliminary inte rnational estimates suggest that the quantity of “technically recoverable shale gas resources” is equal to all existing proven natural gas reserves worldwide (EIA, 2011b). Although the unconventional gas resources have not been fully assessed, energy exper ts are projecting significant increases in production over 2035 time horizon. The most notable increases are expected in the United States, Canada, and China, where unconventional gas is expected to account for 47, 51, and 72% of domestic production, respe ctively, in 2035 (EIA, 2011a). Technology advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have enabled the United States to tap into its vast unconventional gas resources

. Emerging research on extraction techniques from shale gas formations su ggests there are different emissions profiles compared with conventional gas production. 110 124 134 145 158 169

Non-OECD

OECD

0 50 100 150 200

2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035Natural Gas Production(Trillion cubic feet)OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II -25 

### II

. 2.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

This section briefly discusses the historical and projected emission trends globally and presents the baseline emissions used in the MAC analysis



### . 2



### Historical Emissions Estimates

Emissions from ONG systems globally grew by 31% between 1990 and 2010 with an average ann ual growth rate of 1.4%

. Key factors that contribute d to the growth in emissions include expansions in ONG production and increases in natural gas consumption.



### Projected Emissions Estimates

Worldwide CH 4 emissions from ONG systems are projected to increase by 26 % between 2010 and 2030 ( an average annual rate of 1 .2 %), slightly lower than in early years (1990

– 2010)

. By 2030 , t he top 5 emitting countries are projected to account for 55% of global emissions in this sector. Although Russia

and the United States remain the largest emitters in this sector, their relative share of the world’s

emissions is expected to fall slight ly as the ONG industry in Africa and the Middle East expands in future

years

. Table 2-2 presents the projected baseline CH 4 emissions for the top 5 emitting countries and remaining country groups by world region.



### Table 2-2: Projected Baseline CH 4 

### Emissions for Oil and Natural Gas Systems by Country /Region : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)
Top 5 Emitting Countries

Russia 332.0 341.9 382.8 401.8 417.9 1.2%

United States 247.8 258.3 281.6 307.2 313.1 1.2%
Iraq 94.1 109.2 157.8 172.9 187.9 3.5%

Kuwait 106.0 106.9 103.8 108.2 115.9 0.4%

Uzbekistan 84.7 95.8 102.7 104.9 107.3 1.2%
Rest of Regions

Africa 274.5 292.2 291.1 302.9 315.1 0.7%

Central and South America 58.0 59.7 67.7 75.8 84.2 1.9%

Middle East 131.5 138.6 131.4 136.1 137.9 0.2%
Europe 42.8 41.6 40.9 41.3 42.4 0.0%

Eurasia 90.8 104.8 112.0 115.7 120.4 1.4%

Asia 128.4 141.1 149.7 156.7 164.8 1.3%

North America 86.6 88.2 90.2 97.2 106.1 1.0%

World Total 1,677.3 1,778.3 1,911.8 2,020.6 2,112.9 1.2%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

So

urce: USEPA

, 201 2a.

2 For more detail on baseline development and estimation methodology, we refer the reader to the USEPA’s Global

Emissio ns Projection Report available at: h ttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. Note that national emissions inventories are often recalculated when new data become available. The Inventory of U.S. Emissions and Sinks (the source of United States emissions estimate presented in this report) has been updated since this analysis was conducted, and the revised 2010 value for oil and gas methane emissions is 174 MtC O 2 e.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 26 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

## II.2 .3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

Within the four segments of ONG system s , a number of abatement measures can be applied to mitigate CH 4 losses from activities associated with or directly from the operation of equipment and
components

. The abatement measures

, such as inspection and maintenance programs for leaks or equipment retrofits or modifications, may be applied to ONG processes and equipment

, including compressors/engines, dehydrators, pneumatics/controls, pipelines, storage tanks, and wells

.

Abatement measures available to mitigate CH 4 losses from activities associated with or directly from the operation of equipment components common across the ONG system segments of production, processing, transmission, and distribution. These abatement options in the ONG system segments generally fall into three categories: equipment modifications/upgrades ; changes in operational and

maintenance practices including DI&M ; and installation of new equipment. ONG i ndustry -related voluntary programs such as the Global Met hane Initiative (GMI) and USEPA ’s Natural Gas STAR Program , which are aimed at identifying cost -effective CH 4 emission reduction opportunities, have developed a well

- documented catalog of potential CH 4 abatement measures that are applicable across the

segm ents of the ONG system

. Abatement measures documented by the USEPA’s Natural Gas STAR

P rogram serve as the basis for estimating the costs of abatement measures used in this analysis

. It is important to note that although abatement measures identified by the Natural Gas STAR Program are

cited as cost

- effective based on Industry Partner

- reported experiences , t he abatement measure’s cost

effectiveness is determined by the component’s e missions rate and the value of energy recovered

. This analysis uses average emission factors when estimating the break

- even prices for each measure

. In many

cases , these average emission rates are lower than the case study examples cited in the Natural Gas STAR Program’s documentation

. As a result, abatement measures cited as cost

- effective by the Natural Gas

STAR Program’s Partners may not necessarily be the lowest cost options in th e MAC analysis

. This section discusses the abatement measures considered for this analysi s and presents the costs, benefits, technical applica bility, reductions efficiency, and the expected technology lifetime of each

measure. The abatement measures presented in Tables 2.3 through 2.6 provide an overview of the options considered in each segment of the oil and gas sector. A more complete list o f the abatement measures

included in the Oil and Gas Sector MAC model is provided as A ppendix D to this chapter.



### II

. 2.3.1 Oil and Natural Gas Production

The production segment of the ONG system consist s of wells, compressors, dehydrators, pneumatic devices, chemical injection pumps, heaters, meters, pipeline

, liquid storage tanks

, and central gathering /storage facilities. Table 2

- 3 presents the list of abatement measures applied to the production
segment of ONG systems. In addition, this section characterizes two important abatement measures

considered in the production segment: r educed emissions from hydraulically fractured gas well completions and i nstall ation of vapor recovery units (VRUs) on crude oil storage tanks

.



### Reduced Emissions **for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Well Completions** 

Reduced emissions completion (REC) is a method designed to capture 9 0% of the gas that would otherwise be flared or vented during new well construction and workovers on existing wells that are hydraulic ally fractured

. E quipment includes a sand trap, separator, and a gathering line to route gas to sales pipeline s or reserve tanks. Depending on the well field operations and frequency of well completions, it may be more cost

- effective to rent rather than purchase capital equipment (USEPA,

2011 a)

. The use of RECs will result in increased sales of recovered gas. Furthermore, condensate may alsoOIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 27 

### Table 2

- 3: Abatement Measures Applied in Oil and Gas Production Segments

Abatement Measure Component Total
Installed Capital Cost ($2008) Annual
O&M ($2008) Time
Horizon Technical
Effectiveness a Directed Inspection & Maintenance at
Gas Production Facilities Chemical Injection Pumps — 6,675 1 40%

Installing Surge Vessels for Capturing
Blowdown Vents Compressor BD 158,940 28,078 15 50%

Installing Electronic Starters on Production Field Compressors Compressor
Starts 2,649 5,849 10 75%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at
Gas Production Facilities Deepwater Gas
Platforms — 50,000 1 95%

Install Flash Tank Separators on dehydrators Dehydrator Vents 6,540

— 5 30% to 60%

Optimize glycol circulation rates in dehydrators Dehydrator Vents

— 15 1 33% to 67%

Installing Catalytic Converters on Gas
Fueled Engines and Turbines Gas Engines

- Exhaust Vented 7,924 4,374 10 56%

Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas
Wells Gas Well
Workovers 5,646 (13,855) 5 80%

Replace Gas

- Assisted Glycol Pumps with Electric Pumps Kimray Pumps 2,788 1,949 10 100%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at
Gas Production Facilities Non

- associated
Gas Wells — 817 1 95%

Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas
Wells Non

- associated
Gas Wells 5,646 (13,855) 5 80%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance on
Offshore Oil Platforms Offshore Platforms, Deepwater oil, fugitive, vented
and combusted — 50,000 1 43%

Flaring Instead of Venting on Offshore
Oil Platforms Offshore Platforms, Shallow water Oil, fugitive, vented
and combusted 165,888,859 4,976,666 15 98%

Installing Vapor Recovery Units on Storage Tanks Oil Tanks 473,783 161,507 15 58%

Using Pipeline Pump

- Down Techniques
to Lower Gas Line Pressure Before
Maintenance Pipeline BD

— 1,352 1 90%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at
Gas Production Facilities Pipeline Leaks

— 82 1 60%

Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls to
Instrument Air Pneumatic Device
Vents 72,311 24,321 10 50% to 90%

Replacing High

- bleed Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry Pneumatic Device
Vents 165

— 10 8% to 17%

(continued)OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 28 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Table 2

- 3: Abatement Measures Applied in Oil and Gas Production Segments (continued)

Abatement Measure Component Total
Installed Capital Cost ($2008) Annual
O&M ($2008) Time
Horizon Technical
Effectiveness a Directed Inspection & Maintenance at
Gas Production Facilities Shallow water
Gas Platforms — 33,333 1 95%

Reduced Emission Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas
Wells Unconventional
Gas Well Completions — 30,038 1 90%

Reduced Emission Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas
Wells Unconventional
Gas Well
Workovers — 30,039 1 90%

Installing Surge Vessels for Capturing
Blowdown Vents Vessel BD 158,940 28,078 15 50%

Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas
Wells Well Clean Ups (LP Gas Wells) 5,646 (13,855) 5 40%

a T echnical effectiveness reflects the percentage reduction achievable from implementing the abatement measure considering the presence of complementary options. Technical effectiveness is the product of three separate factors

—

the reduction efficiency, tech nical applicability, and market penetration.

b Low er technical effectiveness is due to limited applicability at LP gas wells.

be sold, generating additional revenue. The actual savings generated from these sales also depends on the market price of gas and gas liquids

. Although hydraulically fractured natural gas well completions are currently limited to the United States and Canada, the analysis assumes that this technology will be adopted by other countries over time.

• Capital cost : Th is analysis assumes th at natural gas producers rent the REC equipment from a

third

- party service provider hence there are no initial capital costs

. If a well operator were to be purchase equipment

, the capital cost of the equipment w ould be approximately $500,000 or more depend ing on the complexity of the REC set

- up (USEPA, 2011a).

• Annual operation and mainte nance (O&M) cost : Cost of implementing this abatement measure represents the incremental cost of REC to recover the gas over the traditional well completion

cost. The equipment rental costs range between $700 and $6,500/per day (equivalent to $815 to $7,568 in 2008 dollars). Completions typically take between 3 and 10 days. This analysis assumes 7 days for well clean

- up and completions at a cost of $30,000 in 2008 dolla rs

.

• Annual benefits : Revenues may be derived from gas sales from avoided venting/flaring operations

. Additional benefits could come from the sale of recovered natural gas condensate

. In
the United States, an average of 34 barrels of condensate are recovered during each completion or recompletion (USEPA

, 2011b)

. Although the value of the recovered gas condensate would be determined by the gas composition, based on an a ssum ed price of $70 per barrel (bbl)

, the recovered gas condensate would contribute an additional $2,400 in revenues per completion or recompletion

.

• Applicability: This technique applies to hydraulically fractured gas well completions and

workovers.

• Technical Effectiveness : This analysis assumes a technical effectiveness is 5 4% which is the product of the 90% reduction efficiency and a technical applicability of 60% and market penetration of 100%

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 29 • Technical lifetime : 1 implementation event per year per hydraulically fractured well.



### Install Vapor Recovery Units (VRUs)

Crude oil a nd condensate storage tanks are widely used to stabilize the flow of oil or condensate between wells and transportation sites. Inside these tanks, light hydrocarbons ( often with a heavy

concentration of methane ) dissolve d in the crude oil or condensate flash out of solution and collect between the liquid and the roof of the tank. As liquid levels fluctuate, vapors are often vented into the atmosphere

. VRUs can capture 95% of these light hydrocarbon vapor emissions (USEPA, 2006a )

. T he

recovered vapors can be sold or used on site as fuel.

• Capital costs : Capital costs range from $ 40 ,000 to $ 12 0 ,000 (equivalent to $50,000 to $140,000 in 2008 dollars)

, depending on the capacity of the unit (between 25 and 500 Mcf per day ) , sales line pressure, number of tanks, size and type of compressor, and the degree of automation

. Installation costs range from 50 to 100 % of the capital equipment cost and vary depending on the

location of the tanks and the size of the VRU required

.

• Annual costs : Incremental annual O&M costs are about 15% of initial cost. The annual costs are determined by the capacity of the VRU, as well as the location (weather), electricity costs, and the type of oil produced

.

• Annual benefits : VRUs can reduce the hydrocarbon vapor emissions of hydrocarbon liquid
storage tanks by about 95 % . The vapors that are recovered can be used in s everal different ways. They can be used on site as fuel (where their value is equal to the price of the fuel they displaced). Alternatively, the vapors can be pipe d to a natural gas gathering pipeline or to a processing plant that separates the natural gas liquids and the methane and sells them separately. Because the recovered vapors generally have a higher Btu content than pipeline quality natural gas, the

vapors are more valuable and sell for a higher price on an energy content basis

.

• Applicability : Applied to crude oil and condensate storage tanks

• Technical Effectiveness : The technical effectiveness of this option is 58% based on a reduction efficiency of 95%, te chnical applicability of 61 %, and a market penetration of 100 %.

• Technical Lifetime : 15 years For detailed discussion of other options available to the ONG production segments

, we refer the

reader to USEPA ’s Natural Gas STAR Program website.



### II.2.3.2 Gas Processing and Transmission Segments

The processing segment of the natural gas system consist s of gas plant facilities that incorporate the use of vessels, dehydrators, compressors, acid gas removal (AGR) units, heaters, and pneumatic devices. The transmission segment consists of transmission pipeline networks, compressor stations, and meter and pressure

- regulating stations. Table 2-4 and Table 2 -5 present the list of abatement measures applied

to the gas processing and gas transmissions segment of a natura l gas system. Similar to the previous section, this section briefly characterizes four important abatement measures considered in the gas processing and transmission segment.



### Directed Inspection & Maintenance (DI&M) **on Processing Plants and Booster Station s** 

DI&M is a cost

- effective approach to reduce methane emissions from leaking components throughout the oil and natural gas industry including at natural gas processing plants. The activities include a four

part process that identifies, prioritizes

, and implements the most cost

- effective emissions reduction s. Step 1 of the process is to identify and measure the leaks using leak detection and measurement techniques.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 30 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Table 2- 4: Abatement Measures for the Natural Gas Processing Segment

Abatement Measure Component Total
Installed Capital Cost ($2008) Annual
O&M ($2008) Time
Horizon Technical
Effectiveness a

Installing Surge Vessels for Capturing

Blowdown Vents Blowdowns/Venting 158,940 28,078 15 50%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at Processing Plants and Booster

Stations - Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (dry seals) — 15,581 1 12%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at Processing Plants and Booster

Stations - Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (wet seals) — 6,131 1 12%

Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (wet seals) 380,804 (102,803) 5 66%

Installing Catalytic Converters on Gas Fueled Engines and Turbines Gas Engines - Exhaust Vented 7,924 4,374 10 56%

Replace Gas

- Assisted Glycol Pumps

with Electric Pumps Kimray Pumps 2,788 1,949 10 100%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at Processing Plants and Booster

Stations Plants

— 10,134 5 95%

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at Processing Plants and Booster

Stations - Compressors Recip. Compressors — 6,131 1 10%

Early replacement of Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing Rings Recip. Compressors 7,800 0 5 1%

Fuel Gas Retrofit for BD valve - Take Recip. Compressors Offline Recip. Compressors 2,365 — 5 21%

Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing (Static- Pac) Recip. Compressors 5,696

— 5 0%

a Technical effectiveness reflects the percentage reduction achievable from implementing the abatement measure considering the presence of complementary options. Technical effectiveness is the product of three separate factors: the reduction efficiency, technical applicability, and market penetration.

Steps 2 and 3 are to assess the measurements to determine which leaks are most cost

- effective to repair by comparing the value of the natural gas lost through leakage to the overall cost of repair. Lastly, in S tep 4 a survey plan is developed for future DI&M to focus efforts on those sources most likely to be leaking and reduce the cost of subsequent programs. Although the initial expense of the survey can be relatively high,

it was found that the costs can be r ecovered in the first year through reductions in gas leakage. USEPA (2003a) documentation suggests the initial baseline survey cost is typically between $1 and $2 per component on average. Depending on their size, typical processing facilities may have bet ween 14,000 and 55,000 components. Subsequent follow

- up surveys are found to cost significantly less compared with the initial survey, because they are more targeted to the components that are most likely to leak and the most beneficial to repair.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 31 

### Table 2- 5: Abatement Measures for the Natural Gas Transmission Segment

Abatement Measure Component Total
Installed Capital Cost ($2008) Annual
O&M ($2008) Time
Horizon Technical
Effectiveness a Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor Stations
- Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (dry seals) — 15,581 1 13% to 14%

Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (wet seals) 380,804 (102,803) 5 71% to 77%

Install Flash Tank Separators on dehydrators Dehydrator Vents 9,504

— 5 67%

Optimize glycol circulation rates in dehydrators Dehydrator vents

— 15 1 67%

Installing Catalytic Converters on Gas Fueled Engines and Turbines Engine/Turbine Exhaust
Vented 7,924 4,374 10 56%

Directed Inspection and Maintenance

at Gate Stations and Surface Facilities M&R (Trans. Co. Interconnect) — 1,741 1 72%

Directed Inspection and Maintenance on Transmission Pipelines Pipeline Leaks

— 41 1 60%

Using Pipeline Pump

- Down Techniques to Lower Gas Line
Pressure Before Maintenance Pipeline venting

— 1,352 1 90%

Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls to
Instrument Air Pneumatic Devices 72,311 24,321 10 50% to 90%

Replacing High

- bleed Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry Pneumatic Devices 165

— 10 8% to 17%

Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor Stations
- Compressors Recip Compressor

— 15,581 1 10% to 12%

Early replacement of Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing Rings Recip Compressor 7,800

— 5 1%

Early replacement of Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing Rings and
Rods Recip Compressor 41,068

— 5 1% to 74%

Fuel Gas Retrofit for BD valve

- Take Recip. Compressors Offline Recip Compressor 2,365

— 5 36% to 39%

Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing (Static

- Pac) Recip Compressor 5,696

— 5 6% to 9%

Installing Surge Vessels for Capturing
Blowdown Vents Station venting 158,940 28,078 15 50%

Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor Stations Stations

— 1,398 1 85%

Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Storage Wells Wells (Storage)

— 651 1 95%

a T echnical effectiveness reflects the percentage reduction achievable from implementing the abatement measure considering the presence of complementary options. Technical effectiveness is the product of three separate factors: the reduction efficiency, technical applicability, and market penetration.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 32 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES DI&M analysis parameters include:

• Capital costs: There is no capital costs associated with this option.

• Annual costs: Initial survey design and leak detection, measurement, and repair. This analysis

ass umes a $1 to $2 cost per component for leak detection and repair. The analysis assumes an average processing plant has approximately 14,000 components.

• Benefits: Gas savings from emission reductions.

• Applicability : Applicable to gas processing, gas gat hering and booster stations, gas storage wells, gate stations and surface facilities, and transmission compressor stations.

• Technical Effectiveness : This analysis assumes a technical effectiveness of 95% based on a 95% reduction efficiency, a 100% technica l applicability factor, and a 100% market penetration factor.

• Technical Lifetime : This analysis assumes a 1 year technical lifetime.



### Identify and Repla **ce or Retrofit**  **High**

**- Bleed Pneumatic Devices** 

P neumatic devices are widely used as controllers and monitors in the production sector , pressure regulators and valve controllers in the processing sector

, and actuators and regulators in the transmission

sector of the natural gas industry. When driven by natural gas, pneumatic devices release or bleed natur al gas into the atmosphere and th us are a leading source of methane emissions in the natural gas industry. Replacing high

- bleed devices with low

- bleed devices and installing low

- bleed retrofit kits on operating

devices can reduce emissions by between 50 an d 90% (USEPA, 2006 b ).

• Capital costs: Capital costs are the main component of replacement and retrofitting and vary greatly among the options. Multiple options can be employed at once to reduce gas bleed. Some typical options include replacing high

- bleed le vel and pressure controllers with low -bleed

controllers

, reducing supply pressure

, and repairing leaks. This analysis assumes the capital cost
to be $ 165, which represents the incremental cost between a high bleed device and a low bleed device (USEPA, 2011 b).

• Annual costs : Some improved maintenance costs are recurring. Maintenance costs are small relative to the cost of equipment. Replacing and retrofitting devices can potentially reduce annual

maintenance costs

. For this analysis the incremental operatio n and maintenance ( O&M ) cost is
assumed to be $0.

• Benefits: Revenue from gas savings of reduced methane leakage. R eductions in methane emissions range from 45 to 260 Mcf per device annually depending on the device and application.

• Applicability : Applicable for high to moderate bleed pneumatic devices in the gas transmission
segments.

• Technical Effectiveness : Technical effectiveness for this option ranges between 8 % and 16 % depending on the gas bleed rate

. This analysis assumes a reduction efficien cy of 9 % (low bleed), 23% (medium bleed) and 25 % (high bleed ) . The technical applicability of 50%, 75%, and 90% for

low -, medium -, and high

- bleed devices

, respectively. Market penetration rate is assumed to be

100% for all devices.

• Technical Lifetime : 10 years



### Reducing Methane Emissions from **Compressor Rod Packing Systems**

In natural gas compressors, the packing system s are used to maintain a tight seal around the piston

rod , preventing unwanted gas leakage while allowing the rod to move freely (USEPA, 2 006)

. Leak rates depend on the fit, alignment of the packing parts, and wear. New packing systems installed on smo oth,OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 33 well

- aligned compressor rod s can be expected to leak as little as 11.5 scfh

. Leak rates increase as the
system ages because of wear on th e packing rings and piston rod

. Regularly monitoring and replacing these systems can result in cost savings and emissions reductions. This abatement measure is applied to compressors in the gas processing and transmission segments of the natural gas system

. Packing systems comprise flexible rings that are secured around the compressor shaft. Packing cups hold the rings in place, and a nose gasket reduces leaks around the packing cups

. Conventional packing rings have a life expectancy of about 3 to 5 years, but when the packing breaks down, leaks tend to increase so dramatically t hat it may be desirable to replace packing rings even more frequently. A new, well

functioning system could leak as little as 11 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh), compared with wo rn compressor rod packing systems that have leak rates as high as 900 scfh (USEPA, 2006 c).

• Capital costs: Replacement compressor rod packing systems range from $ 7,8 00 per unit to replace the packing rings to over $41,000 for replacement of the piston rods and packing rings.

• Annual costs: There are no annual costs for these options.

• Benefits: Revenue from gas savings of reduced methane leakage

.

• Applicability : Applies to reciproc ating compressors located at processing plants and compressor stations in the transmission segment

• Technical Effectiveness : Technical effectiveness for this option is 1.5%, based on a reduction efficiency of 10% a technical applicability of 15 %, and a mark et penetration of 100 %.

• Technical Lifetime : 5 years

. 

### Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors

Centrifugal compressors are used in the production , processing, and transmission of natural gas. The seals located on the rotating shafts to reduce methane leakage have traditionally been “wet” (oil) seals. Replacement of wet seals with dry seals leads to substantially reduced emissions and operating costs. The dry seals are the only piece of capital equipment required and may be installed duri ng a scheduled downtime. The lifetime of dry seals may be double that of wet seals

, and they also emit significantly

lower emissions

. It has been estimated that the wet seals may pay for themselves in as little as 11 months (USEPA, 2006 d)

. Other benefits include lower electricity requirements and maintenance costs and increased operating efficiency of the compressor and pipeline, which may also lead to higher gas sales.

• Capital costs: This analysis assumes a capital cost of $381,000 in 2008 dollars for wet seal replacement on a compressor with a shaft beam size of 6 inches. Cost of dry seals ($15,200 per shaft inch) represents 48% of initial capital costs ; equipment testing services (~ 0.5 % of equipment cost) ; engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) services were assumed to be 100% of equipment and testing costs.

• Annual costs: O &M costs of dry seals are expected to be less than O&M costs for wet seals

because of reduced electricity requirements, increased operating efficiency of the compressor,

incr eased reliability of the compressor, and potentially lower maintenance costs. Hence, incremental recurring costs are assumed to equal a cost savings of just over $ 100 ,000 each year

. These incremental cost savings are added to the annual benefits resulting from increased gas

sales.

• Benefits: Revenue from gas savings of reduced methane leakage . Other annual cost savings due to lower operation and maintenance costs are captured in the annual costs.

• Applicability : Applies to c entrifugal compressors located at gas processing plants and compressor stations in the transmission segment.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 34 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES • Technical Effectiveness : Technical effectiveness for this option is 66 % . This value is based on a reduction efficiency of 85% , a technical applicability of 78 % and a market potent i al of 100%.

• Technical Lifetime : 5 years



### II.2.3.3 Gas Distribution Segment

The distribution segment consists of main and service pipeline networks, meter and pressure

regulating stations, pneumatic devices, and customer meters. Table 2-6 presents the list of abatement measures applied to the distribution segment of a natural gas system

. DI&M activities ’ cost and benefit components are discussed below.



### Table 2 -6: Abatement Measures for the Distribution Segment

Abatement Measure Component T otal
Installed Capital Cost ($2008) Annual
O&M ($2008) Time
Horizon Technical
Effectiveness a

Directed Inspection and Maintenance
at Gate Stations and Surface Facilities M&R <100 — 1,604 1 30% to 80%

Replace Cast Iron Pipeline Mains

—

Cast Iron 373,633 182 5 95%

Replace Unprotected Steel Pipeline Mains

— Unprotected steel 373,633 182 5 95%

Replace Unprotected Steel Service
Lines Services

— Unprotected steel 418,023 311 5 95%

a T echnical effectiveness reflects the percentage reduction achievable from implementing the abatement measure considering the presence of complementary options. Technical effectiveness is the product of three separate factors: the reduction efficiency, technical applicability, and market penetration.



### DI&M **at Gate Stations and Surface Facilities**

Leaking meters, pipes, valves, flanges, fittings, open

- ended lines, and pneumatic controllers at gate stations and surface facilities are a significant source of met hane emissions. DI&M is a proven and cost

effective way to detect, measure, prioritize, and repair equipment leaks to reduce methane emissions and achieve gas savings (USEPA, 2003b ) . To implement DI&M, first, a baseline survey identifies and quantifies lea ks at gate stations and surface facilities. The results of this survey are then used to direct repairs toward the components that were identified as being most susceptible to leaking and the most profitable to repair. Then, the results of the initial surve y are used to guide subsequent inspections and

maintenance.

• Capital costs: There are no capital costs associated with this option.

• Annual costs: The costs associated with starting a DI&M program are the cost of labor and equipment for identifying leaking c omponents and estimating the mass leak rate of those components; the labor cost for recording survey information; the labor cost of pinpointing leaking components that are cost

- effective to repair; the cost of parts, labor, and equipment

downtime to fix th e leaks; and the cost of labor for developing a plan that directs future inspection and maintenance. Costs differ depending on the type of screening and measurement equipment used and the characteristics of the staff who conduct the surveys and repairs.

Ma intenance and repair are ongoing, so most costs are recurring. Annual costs vary depending on the frequency and comprehensiveness of the surveys and repairs. Over time, the scope and frequency of the surveys can be fine

- tuned , as patterns emerge. This ana lysis assumes an average
annual cost of $1,600 in 2008 dollars.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 35 • Benefits: Gas savings and methane emissions reductions vary widely depending on the number of stations involved in the DI&M program and how long the program has been operating.

• Applicability : Applies to components inside gate stations and surface facilities.

• Technical Effectiveness 30 % to 80 % ; higher efficiency for facilities handling higher volumes of natural gas

. Technical effectiveness measure assumes reduction efficiency between 30 % and 80 %

, technical applicability of 90 % to 100% and a market penetration of 100%

.

• Technical Lifetime : 5 years



## II.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the methodological approach used to conduct the international MAC analysis

in the ONG sector.



### II.2.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis approach consists of four sequential steps

. Step 1 was to assess the sectoral trends

, which entail ed reviewing recent international energy statistics for oil and gas

. The s econd step was to develop source

- level emission estimates that could be used to build different model ONG system s . These model systems reflect country

- specific variations in production process techniques, level of maintenance

, and vintage of the existing infrastructure

. Step 3 was to estimate country

- specific abatement costs and benefits based on the relative cost factors for labor, energy, and non

- energy inputs. Step three was to compute the break-even prices for each country

- specific abatement measure . Finally, the MAC model

comp ute s the abatement potential as a cumulative reduction for each measure assuming full (system

wide) implementation

. Sorting the break

- even prices lowest to highest, the incremental reductions are cumulated to construct the MAC curve presented in Section II .2 .4.2.



### Assessment of Sectoral Trends

The objective in assessing the sectoral trends is to understand how emissions differ across countries and how they vary over time

. This not only considers aggregate growth or decline in emissions but also any potential shift in sector emissions across the oil and gas segments

. To this end

, we reviewed the current international gas and oil industry activity data for 2010. Statistics reviewed included gross natural gas production, oil production, LNG imports, and gas proc essing throughput (EIA, 2011 ; Oil & Gas Journal , 2011). In the absence of real infrastructure data, these statistics provide insights on the relative importance of segments internationally

. Table 2 -7 presents t hese key statistics for the 10 largest emitting

countries in 2010

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 36 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Table 2

- 7: International Statistics on Key Activity Drivers: 2010

Country 2010 Emissions (MtCO 2 

### e) Dry Natural Gas
Production a



### (Bcf/year) Crude Oil
Production b 

### (Mbbl/day) Gas Processing
Plant Throughput c 

### (MMcfd) Gas
Transmission Pipelines d 

### (km)

Russia 332.0 22,965 10,146 926 160,952

United States 247.8 26,858 9,688 45,808 548,665

Kuwait 106.0 422 2,450 1,034 269
Iraq 94.1 596 2,408 1,550 3,365
Angola 84.9 364 1,988 137

-
Uzbekistan 84.7 2,123 105 NA 10,253
Libya 77.4 1,069 1,789 2,567

- Canada 53.3 6,695 3,483 29,154 75,835

Iran 47.2 7,774 4,252 10,509 20,725

Venezuela 30.2 2,510 2,375 3,555 5,347

a EIA. I nternational Energy Statistics: Gross Natural Gas Production.

b EIA. I nternational Energy Statistics: Total Oil Supply.

c Oil & Gas Journal [ OGJ ]. June 6, 2011

. Worldwide Processing Survey

. d CIA. 2011. The World Factbook.

e E IA. 2012. Country analysis Brief

– Uzbekistan. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=UZ

Although differences in annual production and throughput provide some indication of the size of a country’s ONG system, considerations of age and the condition of the infrastructure are major factors in

determin ing the rate of source

- level emissions and in turn the abatement potential associated with each abatement measure. In general, countries with aging infrastructure will have “leakier” components and in turn have a greater abatement potential. Conversely, countries with newly developed infrastructure will have less abatement potential.

Another important trend to consider is the expansion of unconventional gas (shale gas) production

. The growth in unconventional gas production (e.g.

, the United States, Canada, and China) is likely to

result in an increased frequency of hydraulically fractured gas well completions and related workovers

. In the absence of any regulatory or voluntary actions to reduce emissions from these sources, this trend suggests that the gas production segment will represent an even greater proportion of these nations’

baseline emissions over time.



### Defining International **Mod el Facilities for the Analysis** 

For this analysis, we developed model ONG system s for each segment based initially on the USEPA

ONG system emissions inventory

. Scaling factors were developed based on country

- specific activity factors developed from the international statistics illustrated in Table 2

- 6. Where reliable data were available

, international adjustments we re ma de to reflect specific countr y system s. For countries for which data were not available, this analysis assumed the gas and oil system was similar to that in the United States in terms of the distribution of emissions (total BAU emissions for each country i s exogenous to the MAC model obtained from USEPA, 2012a ). The relative international factor was multiplied by the percentage share of U.S. gas and oil CH 4 emissions inventory at the segment/component source level (e.g., compressors, valves, connections, pn eumatic devices). The resulting “Technical Applicability” (TA) factor is used to allocate a fraction of the national baseline emissions to each component source in the

ONG inventory (e.g., wells, tanks, compressors, valves).OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 37 Multiplying the TA factor by th e baseline emissions yields the subset of emissions available for reductions from each component source and abatement measure

. The TA factor comprise s two parts

. The

U .S. 20 10 GHG emissions inventory serves as the basis for the distribution of emissions ac ross the constituent components (see USEPA, 2012 b , Annex 3)

. The second component of the TA factor is the
country - and segment- specific relative activity factor ( e.g., total oil production, gross natural gas production)

. 

### Regulatory Considerations for the U.S. Natural Gas and **Oil System**

Special considerations were made for the U nited States to reflect the New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) regulation that was in effect starting in year 20 12

. This regulation will affect the production and processing seg ments of the ONG system by requiring the use of abatement measures included in this analysis to control for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from major new and

modified emitting sources in the United States

. This mitigation is no longer considered additional and

thus should be removed from the U .S. domestic MAC curve. Fo r the purposes of this analysis

, we have removed emissions sources covered under the NSPS regulation and any subsequent abatement potential

that would have come from these sources

. Figure 2 -5 illustrates the key elements that led us to the resulting distribution of emissions.



### Figure 2 -5: Diagram of BAU Emissions for the United States Oil and Natural Gas SystemOIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 38 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES To capture the impact of the NSPS regulation for model years 2015 and beyond, we needed to

estimate the relative distribution of emissions that will be associated with controlled and uncontrolled

sources. W e start with the 2010 U .S. inventory ( US EPA, 2012) , which is the basis of our analysis

. Next, we identify all components in the inventory subject to the NSPS in the production and processing segments.

For the NSPS controlled sources , we appl ied controls to these components using the reduction efficiency ( %) for each abatement measure from the MAC model to estimate the level of abatement achieved by the NSPS rule . In Figure 2

- 5, controlled emissions equals the sum of reductions achieved

across the NSPS sources. The residual emissions from NSPS sources are a ssumed to be included in the projected baselines (2015 to 2030).

For the purposes of this analysis, we estimated residual emissions from controlled sources were 11% of projected emissions, while emissions from uncontrolled sources were 89% of projected emi ssions . We applied these shares to the baseline projections for years ≥ 2015

. This approach assumes a fixed distribution of emission over time in the MAC model. We recognize the limitations of this assumption and would ideally like to apply a trend to the shares for model years beyond 2015. Unfortunately, at the time of writing this report, data to develop this trend were not available. Any future work related to the U.S. MAC curve should consider developing a more dynamic trend that more accurately estimat es the level of NSPS

- controlled emissions and the subsequent distribution of emissions in the baseline projections over time.

Ba sed on the analysis described here, the United States’ abatement potential presented in the MAC

model ing results can be summariz ed in the following expression:

Abatement Potential ( USA ) = � Uncontrolled Emissions i

, t ∗ Tec h nical Effectiveness i

, j

, t

w here:

Tech nical Effectiveness i,j,t = Reduction Efficiency i,j,t * Tech Applicability i,j,t * Market Penetration i,j,t

i = Uncontrolled emissions source
j = Abatement technology

t = Modeled year


### Estimate Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Turning to the abatement measures discussed in Section II. 2.3, the analysis begins with t echnology

costs for the United States as repor ted in the USEPA Lesson Learned documentation . We applied the

Nelson

- Farrar 3 Oil Field and Refinery Operation cost indices to convert from reported- year costs to 20 08 dollars (USD) for capital and O&M costs , respectively

. Next, we applied the country

- specific relative price factors for labor, energy, and nonenergy components of annual cost s and benefits

. This final step yielded country

- specific costs and benefits used to compute the break-even price for each abatement

measure

. Abatement measure costs and technical efficiencies were applied to estimate the break-even prices

. Table 2

- 7 presents the break- even prices for selected ONG system abatement measures for the

United States in 2010

. For this analysis

, we u se d the abatement measure costs, revenue, and reduction efficiency as described in S ection II. 2.3 to estimate the break- even price for each abatement measure. A complete list of ONG system abatement measures is presented in Appendix C.

3 Nelson

- Farrar Annual Cost Indices are available in the first issue of each quarter of the Oil and Gas Journal

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 39 The first step is to estimate the reduced emissions on a per unit basis for each technology

. This value is calculated by multiplying the abatement measure’s technical efficiency by the annual emissions per unit of the component or process to which the abatement measure is bei ng applied

. The resulting annual

reduced emissions serve as the denominator in the break -even price calculation.

In T able 2 -8 we present abatement cost and revenues per metric ton of CO 2 equivalent (t CO 2 e )

reduced for the abatement measures with the larges t national emissions reductions. Costs include the annualized total installed capital cost and annual O&M costs

. Offsetting these costs are the annual revenue in terms of gas savings and the tax benefit of depreciation

. The break-even prices reported in

Table 2 -8 are calculated by subtracting the annual revenues from the annualized costs

. 

### Table 2 -8: Example Break -E ven Price Calculation based on 2010 MAC for the United States

Abatement Measure System Component/

Process Reduced
Emissions

per Unit (tCO 2 e) An nualized Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Annual
Revenue ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit
of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e) National
Incremental
Reduction s

(MtCO 2 e)

Production

Convert Gas Pneumatic
Controls to Instrument Air Pneumatic Device
Vents 71.0 $335.68 $441.41 $10.01 $82.50 $684.58 15.29

Reduced Emission Completions for Hydraulically
Fractured Natural Gas Wells Unconventional Gas Well Completions 2,703.96 $0.00 $11.11 $10.01 $0.00 $1.10 8.82

Replacing High

- bleed
Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry Pneumatic Device
Vents 9.7 $7.38 $0.00 $10.01 $1.81

− $4.44 2.30

Processing

Directed Inspection & Maintenance at Processing
Plants and Booster Stations Plants 1,109.0 $0.00 $9.14 $10.01 $0.00

− $0.87 0.50

Fuel Gas Retrofit for BD
valve
- Take Recip. Compressors Offline Recip. Compressors 351.9 $2.96 $0.00 $10.01 $0.90

− $7.95 1.34

Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors Centrifugal Compressors (wet seals) 5,000.8 $33.48 −$ 20.56 $10.01 $10.15

− $7.24 2.53

Transmission

Convert Gas Pneumatic
Controls to Instrument Air Pneumatic Devices 89.9 $2,898.32 $3,811.28 $10.01 $712.36 $5,987.24 2.88

Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor
Stations Stations 3,655.9 $0.00 $0.41 $10.01 $0.00

− $9.60 6.61

Fuel Gas Retrofit for BD
valve
- Take Recip. Compressors Offline Recip Compressor 1,014.8 $1.07 $0.00 $10.01 $0.32

− $9.26 5.65

Distribution

Directed Inspection and
Maintenance at Gate Stations
and Surface Facilities M&R >300 511.6 $0.00 $3.40 $10.01 $0.00

− $6.60 1.58

Directed Inspection and
Maintenance at Gate Stations
and Surface Facilities M&R 100

- 300 220.2 $0.00 $7.90 $10.01 $0.00

− $2.10 2.48

Replace Cast Iron Pipeline Mains

—

Cast Iron 91.7 $1,790.73 $1.99 $10.01 $543.06 $1,239.65 2.54

Note: Break

- even price assumes a 10% discount rate and a 40% tax rate

. Annual energy benefits are based on a natural gas price of $ 4 /McfOIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 40 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES From Table 2 -8 , the annualized capital cost are calculated using the total installed capital costs

discussed in S ection II. 2.3 and expressed in the following equation:

Annualized Costs = Total Capital Cost

ER

∙ (1

− TR )

∙ ∑ 1 (1 + DR ) t T t=1

Where:

ER = Annual reduced emissions per unit (e.g. compressor, well, dehydrator, etc.)

TR = Tax rate
T = Technology lifetime in years

DR = Discount r ate

Annual O&M costs and expected revenues are calculated using the following equations.

International variation in break-even prices is achieved by using regionally adjusted prices for energy labor and materials when computing the country specific annual costs and benefits

.

Annual O & M Costs = Annual O & M Costs

ER

Annual Revenues = Annual Revenues

ER

The tax benefit of depreciation is calculated for each option using the following equation:

Tax Benefit of Depreciation = Total Capital Costs

ER ∙ T ∙ TR (1

− TR )

Fin ally, the break-even price is calculated by subtracting the benefits from the costs as shown in the equation below.

Break

- even Price

= Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O & M Cost

− Annual Revenues

− Ta x Benefit of Depreciation



### II.2.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

As highlighted at the beginning of this chapter, global abatement potential related to ONG systems equates to approximately 58 % of total annual emissions. MAC curve results are presented in Table 2 -9

and Figure 2 -6

. M aximum abatement potential for ONG systems is 1,2 18 Mt CO 2 e in 2030

. For the year
2030, the results suggest that 842 Mt CO 2 e or 40 % of CH 4 reductions in the ONG sector can be achieved at carbon prices less than or equal to $5/t CO 2 e . Furthermore over 35% of the 2030 emission reductions ( 747

Mt CO 2 e) are cost

- effective at c urrent energy prices (carbon prices ≤ $0/t CO 2 e)

. However, because natural gas prices vary greatly by region, the break -even price and quantity of cost effective reductions varies by
country.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 41 

### Table 2 -9: Abatement Potential by Region a t Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030

Country/Region Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Iraq 69.2 71.9 73.9 76.0 80.3 80.9 80.9 85.1 85.2 89.9 110.0

Kuwait 37.3 44.0 46.7 47.6 47.7 50.1 50.7 51.1 55.2 58.6 73.5

Russia 37.3 37.3 138.3 185.7 187.0 189.6 205.3 205.8 219.5 232.8 266.9

United States 79.1 81.0 84.4 93.3 93.4 98.5 98.8 99.2 105.5 109.7 140.5

Uzbekistan 9.9 9.9 35.4 47.6 47.9 48.5 52.4 52.6 57.8 59.6 68.3

Rest of Region

Africa 116.3 124.0 124.1 129.4 135.8 136.2 141.4 142.2 145.0 149.3 178.8

Central and South
America 31.8 32.7 32.8 34.2 36.2 36.3 37.4 38.3 38.4 40.6 49.4

Middle East 43.2 51.6 53.3 55.3 57.8 58.5 58.7 60.7 61.2 63.6 78.4

Europe 15.0 16.0 16.3 16.8 17.2 17.4 18.0 18.2 18.8 19.8 26.1

Eurasia 22.9 23.3 42.6 51.0 52.3 53.5 56.9 57.0 61.6 64.2 76.7

Asia 40.4 55.8 59.2 62.7 69.4 71.0 72.1 73.6 75.1 76.7 90.6

North America 29.9 32.0 39.3 42.7 43.3 44.4 44.9 45.2 46.5 47.7 59.6

World Total 532.2 579.3 746.5 842.3 868.1 884.9 917.5 928.9 969.8 1,012.4 1,218.6



### Figure 2

- 6

: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 50 100 150 200 250$/tCO2e

Non

- CO2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) $20 Iraq

Russia

Kuwait

United States

UzbekistanOIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 42 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES The MAC illustrates the cumulative abatement achievable at incrementally higher carbon prices. At extremely high break- even prices (> $ 500/t CO 2 e ), the MAC becomes inelastic or unresponsive

. The point at which the MAC becomes unresponsive to any price change can also be considered the technical potential associated with the suite of abatement measures considered. Thus, it can be inferred that additional reductions beyond approximately 58 % of the projected baseline in 20 3 0 would be unlikely

without additional policy incentives or technology improvements

. Economies of scale have an impact on the cost

- effectiveness of the abatement options. Hence,

abatement measures m ay have a lower break- even price when applied to facilities with higher CH 4 emission rates and h igher break-even price at facilities with a lower emissions rate

.



### II.2.4. 3 Uncertainties and Limitations

S everal key areas of uncertainty constrain the accuracy of this analysis

. Addressing these uncertainties would improve the develop ment of the MACs and predictions of their behavior as a

function of time

. Two primary limitations are discussed below.

Improved information on the distribution of emissions in international baselines

. This analysis relies on historical activity factors to adjust the distributi on of U.S. baseline emissions to develop projections by country

. Improvements to information on how gas and oil baselines are changing over time and across segments would improve the accuracy of abatement potential estimates.

C omplete information on curren t abatement technologies use d in the gas and oil industry internationally. Additional information on the current and planned implementation of abatement measures internationally would improve the international estimates of abatement

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 43 

## References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories : Volume 2 Energy . Chapter 4 Fugitive Emissions. Obtained from: http://www.ipcc

nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html.

U.S. Energy Info rmation Administration (EIA). (2011 a ). International Energy Outlook 2011 . DOE/EIA

— 0484(2011). Washington, DC: EIA

. Obtained from : http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/nat_gas.cfm

. U.S. Energy Informa tion Administration (EIA). (2011 b ). World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States

. Washington

, DC : EIA. Obtained from: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2011 c ). International Energy Statistics: Gross Natural Gas
Production. Washington

, DC : EIA. Obtained from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=3&pid=3&aid=1

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2011 d ). International Energy Statistics: Total Oil Supply. IEA: Washington D.C

. Obtained f rom: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (201 2 ). Country An a lysis Brief
– Uzbekistan. W ashington

, DC : EIA. Obtained from: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country

- data.cfm?fips=UZ

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gas Research Institute (USEPA /GRI ). ( 1996 )

. Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry Volume 2: Technical Report . EPA

- 600/R

- 96

- 080b. Washington,
DC: USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2003 a , October). Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Processing Plants and Booster Stations

. Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

. (2003 b, October ). Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gate Stations and Surface Facilities. Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partn ers. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006 a , October). Installing Vapor Recovery Units on Storage Tanks . Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006 b , October). Options for Reducing Methane Emissions f

rom Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry . Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006 c , October). Re ducing Methane Emissions f rom Compressor Rod Packing Systems . Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006 d , October). Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compresso rs . Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2010 )

. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rep orting from the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry

. Background Technical Support Document. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart

W_TSD.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2011a ). Reduced Emission Completions for Hydraulically
Fractured Natural Gas Wells . Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 1b ). Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution

— Background Technical Support Document for Proposed Standards . EPA

- 453/R

- 11

- 002. Washington

, DC : USEPA

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

II

- 44 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2a)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

. ( 201 2b )

. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 20 10

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 001

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2c ) . 2011 Annex 3: Methodol ogical Descriptions for
Additional Sourc e or Sink Categories. Sections 3.4 and 3.5. In 201 2 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2009

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 001

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. 

### Natural Gas Star Program Lessons Learned Documents Referenced in Model

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Reducing Methane Emissions from Compressor Rod Packing Systems: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Reducing Emissions When T aking Compressors Offline: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Replacing Glycol Dehydrators with Desiccant Dehydrators: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Optimize Glycol Circulation and Install Flash Tank Separators in Dehydrators: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2003. Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Compressor Stations: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2003. Directed Inspection and Maintenance at
Gate Stations and Surface Facilities: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2003. Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Processing Plants and Booster Stations: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Replacing Gas

- Assisted Glycol Pumps with Electric Pumps: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Using Pipeline Pump

- Down Techniques
to Lower Gas Line Pressure Before Maintenance: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa. gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Composite Wrap for Non

- Leaking Pipeline Defects: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

.OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES II

- 45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Using Hot Taps for In Service Pipeline
Connections: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Sta r Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Convert Gas P neumatic Controls to
Instrument Air: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Options for Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star

Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006 a , October). Installing Vapor Recovery Units on Storage Tanks . Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Reduced Emission Completions for Hydraulically
Fractured Natural Gas Wells: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommen ded.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2006. Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas
Wells: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Options for Removing Accumulated Fluid and Improving Flow in Gas Wells: Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners. Washi ngton

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Install Electric Motor Starters: Partn er Reported Opportunities (PROs) for Reducing Methane Emissions. PRO Fact Sheet No. 105. Washington

, DC : USEPA . Obtained on April 2, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

.

# I II

. WasteSectorLANDFILLS



# III.1. Landfill Sector

III.1.1 Sector Summary 

# L andfills produce methane (CH 4 ) in combination with other landfill gases (LFG s ) through the natural process of bacterial decomposition of organic waste under anaerobic conditions. LFG is generated over a period of several decades , with gas flows usually beginning 1 to 2 years after the waste is put in place. CH 4 makes up approximately 50% of LFG. The remaining 50% is carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) mix ed with small quantities of other gases, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) . The

amount of CH 4 generated by landfills per country is determined by a number of factors that include population size

, the quantity of waste disposed of per capita, comp osition of the waste disposed of , and

the waste management practices applied at the landfill. Changes in these key factors drive projected

trends in CH 4 emissions. For a number of countries, LFG is one of the largest anthropogenic sources of

CH 4 emissions. Despite efforts to control large landfill emissions

, the landfill sector remains a significant

source of CH 4 emissions because of increasing waste streams in developed countries

. In developing

countries

, the shift toward sanitary landfills and increased use of abatement measures is a key driver

toward CH 4 mitigation.

In 2010, global CH 4 emissions from landfills accounted for approximately 850 Mt CO 2 e . Emissions

from landfills are moderately concentrated in several countries

. Over 50 % of emissions in 2010 c ome from just ten countries

. Figure 1- 1 displays the business

- as

- usual (BAU) emissions for the landfill sector and

identifies the top five emitting countries . Landfill emissions are projected to grow 13 % between 2010 and

2030 . In 2030, emissions from landfills represent 10 % of the global total CH 4 from all sources.



### Figure 1- 1: Emissions Projections for the Landfill Sector: 2000

– 2030

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200MtCO2e 770 847 905

2000 2010 2020
Year 959

2030 Malaysia

Russia

China

Mexico

United States

ROW

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 201 2

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-1LANDFILLS

Several abatement measures are available to control landfill CH 4 emissions and they are commonly grouped into three major categories: (1) collection and flaring, (2) LFG utilization systems (LFG c apture for energy use), and (3) enhanced waste diversion practices (e.g., recycling and reuse programs). Although flaring is currently the most common abatement measure, energy recovery options may be

more cost

- effective. Similarly, under favorable market conditions, recycling and reuse or composting alternatives may provide additional means for reducing emissions from landfills

. Note that options may not be mutually exclusive in that recycling can reduce the quantity of methane generated

, which

, in turn,
will affect the economics of utilization systems.

G lobal abatement potential in the solid waste landfill sector is estimated to be approximately 589

Mt CO 2 e of total annual emissions in 2030, or 61% of the baseline emissions

. The m arginal abatement cost ( MAC ) curve results are presented below in Figure 1-2 . These curves suggest that there are s ignificant opportunities for CH 4 reductions in the landfill sector at carbon prices below $ 20

. Furthermore there are approximately 7 0 to 8 0 Mt CO 2 e of reductions that are cost

- effective (no regret options) at current energy prices.



### Figure 1-2: Global Abatement Potential in Landfill Sector : 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0$/tCO2e

50 100 150 200 250 300

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 350 2010

2020

2030

The following section briefly explains CH 4 emissions from landfills. This is followed by the

international baseline CH 4 emissions projections from landfills. Subsequent sections characterize the abatement technologies and present the costs and potential benefits. Th e chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC analysis and the regional results.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-2LANDFILLS



## III.1 .2 Met hane Emissions from Landfills

T his section discusses the characteristics of landfills and how these characteristics affect CH 4 emissions. In this section, we also describe historical and projected trends that influence baseline emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. By volume, LFG is about half CH 4 and half CO 2

. Typically, LFG also contains small amounts of nitroge n, oxygen, and hydrogen; less than 1% non

- CH 4 volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs); and trace amounts of inorganic compounds. The amount and

rate of CH 4 generation depend on the quantity and composition of the landfilled material, as well as the site design and resulting physical conditions inside the fill.

Organic waste is initially decomposed by aerobic bacteria after being landfilled. When the oxygen in the landfill cell (section of a landfill) is depleted, the remaining waste is broken down by anaerobic bacteria through decomposition. Fermentation creates gases and short

- chain organic compounds that form the substrates, which provide for the growth of methanogenic bacteria, which in turn generates a biogas consisting of approximately 50% CO 2 and 49% CH 4 , by volume. Measurable gas volumes are generally available between 1 or 2 years after the waste is landfill ed and continue to be generated for 10 to 60 years.

The amount and rate of CH 4 production over time at a landfill depends on five key characteristics of the landfill material and surrounding environment:

• Quantity of Organic Material: The quantity of organic material, such as paper, food, and yard waste, is crucial to sustaining CH 4

- producing microorganisms. The CH 4 production capacity of a

landfill is d irectly proportional to its quantity of organic waste. CH 4 generation increases as the waste disposal site continues to receive waste and then gradually declines after the site stops receiving waste.

• Nutrients: CH 4

- generating bacteria need nitrogen, phosph orus, sulfur, potassium, sodium, and calcium for cell growth. These nutrients are derived primarily from the waste placed in the

landfill.

• Moisture Content: The bacteria need water for cell growth and metabolic reactions to convert

cellulose to CH 4

. Landfills receive water from incoming waste, water produced by decomposition

, surface water infiltration ( precipitation ), groundwater infiltration (in unlined

landfills ) . In general, CH 4 generation occurs at slower rates in arid climates than in nonarid

cl imates.

• Temperature: Warm temperatures in a landfill speed the growth of CH 4

- producing bacteria. The temperature of waste in the landfill depends on landfill depth, the number of layers covering the
landfill, and the regional climate.

• pH: CH 4 is produced i n a neutral acidic environment (close to pH 7.0). The pH of most landfills is between 6.8 and 7.2. Above pH 8.0, CH 4 production is negligible.
The methodology for estimating CH 4 emissions from municipal solid waste landfills in this analysis is

based on th e first order decay model (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ IPCC], 2006).

The key characteristics described above can vary considerably across the different type s and features of the waste disposal site , and this

, in turn

, influences landfill CH 4 generation. This analysis considers abatement measures’ impacts on three model facilities representing the solid waste management

alternatives with different levels of methane generating capacity. The following are the model facilities

considered:

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-3LANDFILLS

Open dump sites : defined as solid waste disposal facilities where the waste is left uncompacted and

without cover . The waste in open dump sites is relatively shallow, therefore promoting aerobic biodegradation. This model facility is particularly relevant to deve loping countries where solid waste management practices are not well established. These facilities generate relatively small amounts of methane and for this, and safety reasons, have more limited applicability of mitigation technologies

, which are less eff ectiveness where applicable.

Basic landfills (also referred to as managed dump sites ): defined as solid waste disposal facilities where the waste is compacted and covered but do not have additional engineered systems. These facilities generate methane and in some cases can be modified to support an oxidation system and/or a gas collection and flaring or energy recovery system. However, the collection efficiency 1 may not be as efficient with a capture efficiency of approximately 75 %

. These facilities represent the baseline in most developing countries.

Engineered sanitary landfills: defined as facilities that include not only waste compaction and cover but they also are designed and constructed with gas and leachate collection systems. The higher degree of engineering at these facilities generally allows for more efficient gas collection and control than basic sanitary landfills. Engineered landfills typically have a collection effi ci ency of around 8 5%

. These facilities represent the majority of baseline emissions in major industrialized countries.



### III.1.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

This section discusses the historical and projected activity factor data that determine CH 4 generation

at solid waste di sposal sites and policies set to improve waste management practices. Historical and projected changes in population and household income are used as indicators of changes in the quantity and type of consumption, which are directly linked to the quantity an d type of waste generated by

countries.

For developing and emerging economies, the projected baseline emissions reflect assumptions about population growth, economic growth , and changes in waste management practices over time in (USEPA,

2012 )

. Continued growth in population along with increased household income and improvements in waste management practices will result in the growth of both waste generated and waste disposed of in managed and engineered landfills.

For developed countries with stable or decl ining growth in population and income, consumption is assumed to result in only small increases in emissions over time. Developed countries are also assumed to increasingly engage in waste diversion practices (e.g., recycling and composting) that divert

bi odegradable waste from landfills, ultimately changing the composition of landfilled waste and lowering the annual methane generated over time.

1 Collection efficiency refers to the amount of methane generated in the landfill that is captured by the collection system. In contrast, the reduction efficiency refers to the share of collected methane that is destroyed. For example flare have a reduction efficiency of approximately 98%.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-4LANDFILLS



### III.1

. 2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

This section briefly discusses the historical and projected emission trends globally and presents the

2 baseline emissions used in the MAC analysis



### .

**Historical Emissions Estimates**

Emissions from landfills were estimated to have grown by 13% between 1990 and 2010. Key factors that contribute to the growth in landfill emissions include population growth, growth in personal income, increased industrialization, and improvements in waste management practices (USEPA, 20 12 ).



### Projected Emissions Estimates

Worldwide CH 4 emissio ns from landfills are expected to increase at an average long run annual rate

of 0.6% (USEPA, 20 12 ) . Although some of the largest economies in the world continue to emit significant quantities of CH 4 , developing and emerging economies are projected to acco unt for majority of growth in

CH 4 emissions

. Table 1- 1 presents the projected baseline CH 4 emissions for the top five emitting countries and remaining country groups by world region.



### Table 1-1: Projected Baseline Emissions for MSW Landfills by Country: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 47.1 48.2 49.0 49.4 49.3 0.2%

Malaysia 29.9 32.5 35.1 37.8 40.3 1.5%

Mexico 56.4 59.5 62.5 65.2 67.7 0.9%

Russia 47.2 46.1 44.8 43.4 42.1

− 0.6%

United States 129.7 128.4 127.7 128.0 128.0

− 0.1%

Rest of Regions

Africa 101.2 106.5 111.9 117.3 122.4 1.0%

Central & South America 71.4 74.2 76.8 79.1 81.1 0.6%

Middle East 67.3 72.3 77.1 81.7 86.1 1.2%

Europe 87.2 92.4 96.8 100.9 104.6 0.9%

Eurasia 55.8 58.6 61.5 64.3 66.8 0.9%

Asia 133.2 135.1 138.4 141.5 144.4 0.4%

North America 20.3 21.9 23.3 24.8 26.5 1.3%

World Total 846.7 875.6 905.0 933.3 959.4 0.6%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: USEPA. 20 12

.

2 For more detail on baseline development and estimation methodology, we refer the reader to the USEPA’s Global Emissions Projection Re port available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-5LANDFILLS

The United States is the largest emitter of landfill CH 4 , accounting for over twice the emissions of the

second largest emitter, Mexico. Although emissions from t he top 4 emitters observed in 2010 are projected to remain relatively constant

, emissions from developing regions including Africa, non

Organi s ation for Economic Co

- Operation and Development (OECD) Asia, and the Middle East are all projected to have annual grow rates of greater than 1%. This trend reflects higher population growth

rates , changing consumption patterns

, and improved waste management systems among developing

nations.



## III.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

This analysis consid ers two types of abatement measures: mitigation technologies and diversion alternatives (see Table 1-2 ). It is important to note the distinction between these two approaches to emission reductions. Mitigation technologies represent add

- on technologies that can be applied to one or more landfill types (i.e., open dump, basic landfill , engineered landfill) intended to capture and destroy

the CH 4 generated at the facility. Diverting organic waste from the landfill for alternative uses is the second approach to reduce the quantity of LFG generated at existing landfills

. As noted previously, these measures are not mutually exclusive

. By changing the composition of waste that is landfilled, diversion options lower the methane

- generating potential of remaining waste that is landfilled. Diversion alternatives are covered in this analysis but are distinguished from landfill

- based mitigation technologies.

This section discusses the abatement measures considered for this analysis. Each technology is briefly characterized followed by a discussion of abatement measures’ implementation costs, potential benefits, and system design assumptions used in the MAC analysis.



### Table 1-2: Summary of the Engineering and Cost Assumptions for Abatement Measures at Landfills

A batement Option Total Installed Capital Cost ( millions 2010 USD) Annual
O&M Cost ( millions 2010 USD) Time
Horizon (Years) Reduction Efficiency 

### (%) a
LFG Mitigation Options
LFG collect and flaring system 1.7 0.3 15 85%
LFG for electricity generation 85%

Internal combustion engine 6.3 0.8 15 85%
Gas turbine (> 3 MW) 5.6 0.6 15 85%

Micro

- turbine (< 1 MW) 4.1 0.1 15 85%
Combined heat and power production 7.9 0.8 15 85%
Direct gas use 2.6 0.5 15 85%

Enhanced oxidation systems 5.4 0.0 50 44%
Waste Diversion Options
Composting 1.8 0.7 15 95%

Anaerobic digestion 16.9 1.7 20 95%

Mechanical biological treatment 15.4 1.8 20 95%
Paper recycling 34.9 8.9 20 95%

Waste to energy 165.7 8.0 20 100%

a Reduction efficiency reflects the abatement measures ability to mitigation/avoid methane generation. However this does not reflect the total mitigation potential.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-6LANDFILLS



### III.1.3.1 Landfill CH 4 

### Mitigation Technologies

This section characterizes the mitigation tec hnologies that can be applied to landfills to reduce CH 4 emissions. Mitigation options considered for this analysis include collection of LFG for flaring, collection for electricity production, collection for direct use, and enhanced oxidation systems.



### LFG **Collection and Flaring**

Most basic landfill s and engineered landfills have (or are applicable for) LFG collection systems for both public health and facility safety concerns to prevent high concentrations of LFG in the fill

. These systems prevent the migra tion of CH 4 to on

- site structures and adjacent property and prevent the release

of non

- CH 4 organic compounds (NMOCs) to the atmosphere. W ells and gathering lines may be

constructed in advance or installed after waste has been landfilled. LFG collection usu ally begins after a portion of a landfill is closed. Collection systems are configured either as vertical wells (which are most common), horizontal trenches (which are primarily used for deeper landfills and landfill cells that are actively being filled), or a combination of the two. Trench e s or wellheads are connected to lateral piping that transports the LFG to a collection header. Typically there is a collection system monitor installed to allow operators to adj ust the gas flow (USEPA, 2010).

Flares igni te and burn LFG. Large landfills have historically collected CH 4 and flared the gas. 3 Flare designs include open and enclosed flares. Enclosed flares are more expensive but provide greater control of combustion conditions, allow for stack testing, reduce l ight and noise nuisances, and might have higher combustion efficiencies (USEPA, 2010)

.

• Capital Cost: Capital cost includes the construction of wells, wellheads, and laying of gathering lines that make up the collection system, as well as the flare system w ith monitoring and control systems. Costs were derived from the USEPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Project Cost Estimation Model. The capital costs assume one well per acre installed at an average

installation cost of $150/ft. Installation of t he wellheads and gathering lines is approximately $17,000 per acre. Installed cost of the knockout blower and flare system is based on open flares

with the maximum expected flow of LFG per minute ($963/maximum c ubic feet per meter [ cfm ] ).

• Annual Op eration and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Typical annual O&M costs for collection systems are $2,250 per well and $4,500 per flare. Electricity costs to operate the blower for a 600

cfm active gas collection system average $44,500 per year 4 (USEPA, 2010), assumi ng an electricity price of 7 cents/kWh and consumption rate of 0.002 kWh per ft 3

.

• Annual Benefits: No economic benefits (energy production) are associated with this option.

• Applicability: This option applies to all basic landfill s and engineered landfills

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 7 5% for basic landfills and

of 85% for engineered landfills and a flaring efficiency of 98%.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years

3 Flares are typically a required component of energy recovery projects. In energy recovery proj ects, the flare system is used to control LFG emissions during energy generation startups and downtime and may also be used to control excess gas production.

4 For this analysis we assume an electricity price of 7.5 cents/kWh and an energy consumption rate of 0.002 kWh/ft 3



### .

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-7LANDFILLS



### LFG **Collection for Electricity Generation**

Converting LFG to electricity offers a potentially cost

- effective way to use the gas being generated by the landfill. Often, revenue from the sale of energy produced can provide a cash flow that more than offsets the implementation costs of this option. This option requires a LFG collection and flare system as described earlier in this section, as well as the electricity generation system. Components of the electricity generation system include the equipment for generating energy (e.g., internal combustion engine, gas

turbin e, or microturbine) and the interconnections for transmitting electricity produced to the energy grid.

LFG is extracted from landfills using a series of vertical or horizontal wells and a blower (or vacuum) system. This system directs the collected gas to a central point, where it can be processed and treated depending on the ultimate use of the gas. LFG treatment removes moisture and other contaminants (e.g., siloxanes) that may disrupt the energy generation equipment (USEPA, 2010). Treatment requirements depend on the end

- use application.

This analysis considers four alternative technologies under this abatement measure that include internal combustion engine, gas turbine, micro

- turbine, and combined heat and power (CHP) approach.

Table 1-3 summarizes the typical costs for the alternative electricity

- generating technologies.

• Capital Cost: Capital cost includes the costs of the collection and flare system discussed and the treatment system, energy generation equipment, and interconnection equipment for selli ng electricity to the power grid. Costs were derived from the USEPA LMOP Project Cost Estimation
Model, which is available at USEPA’s LMOP web page . Costs ranged from $1,400 to $5,500 per
Kwh (see Table 1- 3).

• Annual O&M Cost: Typical annual O&M costs for e nergy generation systems are between $130

an d $380 per kilowatt of capacity.

• Annual Benefits: Annual revenues are derived from the sale of electricity.

• Applicability: This option applies to all basic landfill s and engineered landfills

.

• Technical Efficiency : This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 75% for basic landfills and

8 5% for engineered landfills and combustion efficiency of 98%.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### Table 1-3: Electricity Generation Technology Costs
Capital Cost Annual O&M Costs Technology (2010 $/kW) (2010 $/kW)

Internal combustion engine ( > 0.8 MW) $1,700 $180

Small IC engine ( < 1 MW) $2,300 $210

Gas turbine (> 3 MW) $1,400 $130

Microturbine (< 1 MW) $5,500 $380

CHP with IC engine (< 1 MW) $2,300 $210

Source: USEPA 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 2010. Project Development Handbook . Chapter 3. Project Technology Options. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Obtained from: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications

- tools/#one

. Note: Costs include the cost of the basic treatment system typically required with each type of technology.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-8LANDFILLS



### LFG Collection for Direct Use

Direct use provides an alternative use of LFG with minimal treatment . Under this option, LFG collected at the landfill is pumped to a nearby (< 5 miles) end user. The gas delivered can serve as a

medium

- BTU fuel for boiler or drying operations, kiln operations, and cement and asphalt production. 5 Although little condensate removal and filtration is needed, combustion equipment might need slight modifications to run with LFG (USEPA, 2010). However these modification cost s are not considered part of the technology costs.

There is no cost

- effective way to store LFG, so ideally the LFG consumer has a steady annual gas demand compatible with the landfill’s gas flow. If a landfill does not have adequate flow, the LFG can be used to power only a portion of the machinery or mixed with other fuels. The cost for a gas compression

and treatment system includes compression, moisture removal, and filtration equipment necessary for transporting and using the gas.

• Capital Cost: 6 The capital costs for direct use include the equipment and installation cost of a

skid

- mounted filter, compressor, and dehydrator, and the cost to construct a gas pipeline to carry the gas to a nearby (< 5 miles) end user(s). Filter, compressor, and dehydrator costs are scaled to the project’s expected minimum LFG flow and equal to approximately $300 per cfm . Pipelin e construction costs are assumed to be $320,000 per mile

.

• Annual Cost: Annual O&M costs include the cost of electricity and maintenance of the filters, compressors, and dehydrators. The electricity costs are calculated by multiplying electricity price

time s the energy required to power the equipment and transmit gas to end users, assuming a system power demand of 0.002 kWh/ft 3 . Non energy

- related O&M costs are scaled to LFG project volumes assuming a cost of $0.0014/ft 3

.

• Benefits: Annual revenue accrues to the project through the sale of LFG to an end user at an assumed price that is 80% of the current natural gas price; the discounted price reflects the lower BTU content of the gas. There may also be local or national policies such as tax incentives, loans, and grants available to landfill operators to incentivize LFG utilization.

• Applicability: This option is available to all basic landfill s and engineered landfills

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 7 5% for basic landfills and

8 5% for engineered landfills and an end

- use combustion efficiency of 98%.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### Enhanced Oxidation Systems

Enhanced oxidation systems are considered mitigation technologies that exploit the propensity of some naturally occurring bacteria to oxidize CH 4

. 7 By providing optimum conditions for microbial

5 Other direct use applications include use in infrared heaters, greenhouses, artisan studios, leachate evaporation, and biofuel production.

6 It is important to note that direct use of LFG may require equipment modifications at the end

- user site to handle the lower BTU content of LFG or additional treatment systems to improve the energy content; these costs are not considered part of this abate ment measure’s project costs. Including these costs would increase project costs by more than $200,000 (USEPA, 2010).

7 Oxidation of methane entails mixing the gas (CH 4 ) with oxygen (O 2 ) and converting the CH 4 to CO 2 and water
(H 2 O).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-9LANDFILLS

habitation and efficiently routing landfill gases to where they are cultivated, a number of bio

- based systems, such as temporary or long

- term biocovers, passively or actively vented biofilters, and biowindows, have been developed that can alone, or with gas collection, mitigate landfill CH 4 emissions. The previous non

- CO 2 mitigation report (USEPA, 2006) evaluated the use of a biocover consisting of a clay cap to pped by a soil cover.

• Capital Cost: Capital costs are the incremental costs of enhanced oxidation systems above the traditional clay/soil cover. These costs assume an incremental cost of $6 million for 100 acres of cover. The cost of designing and construc ting the biocover assumes $3/yd 3 for earth moving, a compost price of $5/tonne, 8 and an average cover depth of 3 feet.

• Annual O&M Cost: The O&M cost is assumed to be less than 0.1% of installed capital costs

.

• Annual Benefits: No revenues are associated with this option.

• Applicability: This option applies to basic landfill s and engineered landfills

.

• Technical Efficiency: This option analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 44% of the remaining 15% of methane not collected by LFG collection system (Weitz , 2011)

.

• Technical Lifetime: 50 years



### III.1.3.2 Diversion Alternatives

Di version alternatives redirect biodegradable components of the waste stream from the landfill for reuse through recycling or conversion to a value

- add product (e.g. energy or compost)

. Diverting organic waste components such as yard waste, paper, and food waste lowers the amount of methane generated at

the landfill. These measures derive benefits through the sale of recyclables (both organic and non

organic), electricity, and cost savin gs in avoided tipping fees. Although these options were considered in the previous mitigation report (USEPA, 2006), all diversion options were not included in the final mitigation estimates reported. The following diversion alternatives were considered for this analysis:

• composting

• anaerobic digestion (AD) for electricity production from gas

• mechanical biological treatment (MBT)

• paper recycling

• waste to energy



### Composting

Composting consists of the aerobic digestion of the fermentable organic fraction of MSW to produce a reusable product. In the presence of oxygen, microorganisms decompose the biodegradable organic matter to form compost, which contains nutrients and trace elements, and is used in agriculture as soil conditioner. The composting process emits a gas basically formed by CO 2 and H 2 O, while traces of (VOCs are also present. This analysis considers three types of composting processes

— windrow composting,

aerated st atic pile (ASP) composting, and in

- vessel composting

— but cost and emissions data were only obtained for windrow composting because it is the most common type.

Windrow composting processes occur in the open, usually in long rows of triangular cross

- sections

, these being turned periodically to introduce air into the process. The material received by the composters is processed, formed into a windrow, turned (using portable diesel

- powered equipment), and screened

8 The c ompost price a ssumes a weight by volume of 0.32 tonnes/yd 3 (DST Model Documentation).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 10LANDFILLS

prior to sale. A typical facility will accept b oth green material and wood waste from residential curbside programs and an increasing number of composting facilities are beginning to accept food scraps from residential curbside programs, as well as from dedicated commercial routes or large generators. Windrow composting processes may have CH 4 emissions from anaerobic decomposition and nitrous oxides (N 2 O) emissions from NO
x denitrification during the latest composting stages. T he IPCC (2006) provides representative CH 4 emissions of 4 to 10 g/Kg of waste (dry weight) and N 2 O emissions of 0.3 to

0.6 g/kg waste (dry weight).

• Capital Costs : Capital cost includes the purchase of land and equipment, site preparation and facility construction equal to $ 1.8 million (2010 USD ) . Capital costs were obtained from th e composting process model documentation of the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW DST) (MSW DST Documentation), which presents this cost for 100 tons/day facilities producing marketable high

- quality compost products as opposed to nonmarketab le, low

- quality compost product (e.g., used as landfill cover).

• Annual Cost: The O&M cost of the windrow composting facility includes the labor, overhead, fuel, electricity, and equipment maintenance costs. 9 This analysis assumes an O&M cost of
$1 9/ tonne

- yr (obtained from the composting process model documentation of the MSW DST (MSW DST Documentation).

• Annual Benefits: Revenue from compost is from sale s and cost savings from avoided landfilling. The composting process is not perfectly efficient

, and this analysis assumes that 80% of the incoming organic waste is converted to marketable compost product. A compost price of
$5/tonne 10 was used to estimate the revenue from compost sales. A tipp ing fee of $29/tonne is used to estimate the costs savings of avoided landfilling.

• Applicability: This option applies to yard and food components of the waste stream.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes reduction efficiency of 95% , which represents the

avoided methane potential

.

• Technical Lifetime: 15 years



### A **naerobic Digestion (AD)**

AD is a complex biological process that us es anaerobic microorganisms to hydroly z e complex organics to simple monomers and hence to volatile fatty acids; the volatile fatty acids are converted to

CH 4 and CO 2 in the biogasification step. The biogas can be recovered and used to generate energy. Existing AD facilities are most commonly located at wastewater treatment plants, but the process is equally applicable for solid waste . A few of these facilities supplement their operations wi th other types of organic waste.

Solid waste AD facilities come in different shapes and sizes. Most digesters have vertical tanks, but some are horizontal. AD mechanisms vary considerably

, and a number of patented processes exist. Processes may operate at high or low solids content, operate at mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures,

be one

- or two

- stage systems, and be continuous or batch processes. The process could also differ

9 This analysis assumes that no precomposting screening will take place. Therefore, there will not be organics rejects from the process needing disposal at a landfill facility, which i s consistent with the data provided for high quality compost production in the composting process model documentation of the MSW DST (MSW DST Documentation).

10 Represents the lower end price $15 to 34/yard 3 assuming a 0.35 tonne/yard 3 . Prices reported in R ecycle.cc’s

December 2011 newsletter. Obtained at: http://www.recycle.cc/compostprices.pdf

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 11LANDFILLS

according to the type of product produced

, so some processes only produce electricity, others produce combined electricity and heat, and some produce gas upgrad ed for use as vehicle fuel. This analysis considers AD that produces electricity using a gas engine, which is the most common product. A small

amount of CH 4 may be released a s fugitive emissions during the digestion process

. T his analysis assumes

CH 4 emissions of 1 to 2 g/kg of waste (dry weight) as reported in IPCC (2006).

• Capital Costs : The plant’s capital cost includes the cost of land, the digestors, the gas engine, and air pollution control and monitoring devices. The capital cost for this analysis is $4 7 2/design tonne was considered in this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008), which describes this

cost for facilities of 20,000 to 30,000 tonne s /yr in the United Kin gdom (UK).

• Annual Cost : The O&M cost of the AD facility includes the labor, overhead, fuel, electricity, and

maintenance cost. A n O&M cost of $5 5 /ton ne yr -1 (reported as £ 35 GBP /tonne) was considered in this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008), which presents costs typical of UK facilities. This analysis assumes that no predigestion screening will take place and that the digested solids are
not commercialized. Therefore, there will be no organics rejects from the process needing disposal at a landfill facility.

• Annual Benefits: Revenue from the sale of electricity generated with the biogas is sold to an end user. The biogas recovery from the digestion process is not perfectly efficient and assumed to be

75% of total value

, and the biogas composition is assumed 60/40% CH 4 /CO 2 according to Eunomia (2008). Similarly, the efficiency of the biogas conversion to electricity in the gas engine is assumed to be 37% as reported by Eunomia (2008). The electricity produced per tonne of waste

can be then estimated a ccording to the CH 4 yield (2, 781 ft 3 CH 4 /wet ton) of the incoming waste. The market price of electricity is used to estimate the revenues.

• Applicability: This option a ssumes removal of wood, paper

, and food waste

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a capture efficiency of 75 % and a reduction efficiency of 95%.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



### Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

MBT can be defined as the processing or conversion of solid waste with biologically degradable

componen ts via a combination of mechanical and other physical processes (for example, cutting or crushing, sorting) with biological processes (aerobic composting , anaerobic digestion ). The primary objective is to reduce the mass and the volume of the waste. A seco ndary objective is a low er environmental impact of the waste after its deposition ( i.e.

, low emissions of landfill gas, small amounts of leachate, and a reduced settlement of the landfill body ) . Furthermore, MB T includes the separation of useful waste components for industrial reuse, such as metals

, plastics

, and refuse

- derived fuel (RDF).

There are three main types of biological treatment process es : (1) an aerobic stabilization system in

which the stabilized output is assumed to be sent to a landfill or used for land remediation/recovery projects, (2) a n aerobic biodrying system producing an RDF with the reject stream sent to a landfill (after undergoing an aerobic stabilization process)

, and (3) s ystems combining aerobic and anaerobic

treatments in which the anaerobic process is used to produce biogas, followed by an aerobic process that produces a stabilized output that can be sent to a landfill. Because of the similarities that can be found

between O ption (1) and composting

, and O ption (3) and AD, this analysis focuses on O ption (2) in which the RDF is destined for energy generation.

To produce RDF, both windrow and box systems are applied. In box systems, the waste is treated aerobically for only 1 week but with high aeration rates. The result is a drie d material with a slightly

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 12LANDFILLS

reduced organic content. Only the most easily degradable compounds are metabolized so that the loss of caloric value is low. The dry material can be fractionated very easily, because adhesive substances were

eliminated in the bio

- process. Iron and nonferrous metals, as well as glass and minerals

, are separated for material recovery. The remaining material has a calorific value of 15 to 18 MJ/kg, mainly due to the high content of plastics, wood, and paper. It can be used as a subst itute for fossil fuels in power stations and

cement kilns and in the production of process gases. Similar to the composting process, there is a small

level of fugitive CH 4 emissions that accompany the aerobic degradation process as well as some N 2 O

emissio ns from NO
x denitrification during the curing stages of the stabilization process. Representative

CH 4 emissions of 0.01 kg/tonne of waste and N 2 O emissions of 0.02 kg/tonne of waste were obtained from Eunomia (2008).

• Capital Costs : The plant’s capital cost includes the cost of land, facility, equipment, and air pollution control and monitoring devices. The a nalysis assumes a capital cost of $ 15 million based on reported facility costs of $2 44 /design tonne (reported as £ 150 British p ounds /tonne) was

used for this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008). Cost s are reported for a 6 0,000 tonne/yr facility in the UK.

• Annual O&M Costs: The O&M cost of the MBT facility is $ 2 million in 2010. This cost includes the labor, overhead, taxes, administration, insurance, indirect costs, energy, and maintenance

cost s . It does not include residues disposal. A 2007 annual O&M cost of $22/tonne (reported as

£ 13 British p ounds /tonne) was considered in this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008),

w hich presents costs typical of UK facilities.

• Annual Benefits: Annual revenues from the sale of RDF and recyclables that are produced from the MBT process are sold to an end user (i.e.

, cement kilns or coal

- fired utility). According to Eunomia (2008)

, RDF is produced at a typical rate of 0.48 tonne/tonne of waste. Eunomia (2008) also reports that 1 tonne of RDF can be assumed to replace 0.90 tonne of coal used to fuel a cement kiln and 0.38 tonne of coal for power generation. The m arket coal price of $40/to nne is used to estimate the revenues. Similarly, Eunomia (2008) reports an 80% recovery rate for ferrous metals, 70% recovery rate for nonferrous metals

, and 70% recovery rate for glass. Sale prices of
$352 /tonne for ferrous metals (USGS, 201 2), $1,881/ tonne 11 for nonferrous metals, and $25/tonne for glass were used to estimate the revenues from recyclables sale.

• Applicability: This option applies to a ll landfill types

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 95%.

• Technical Li fetime: 20 years



### Paper Recycling

Recycling typically consists of two major processes: the separation process at a material recovery facility (MRF) and the remanufacturing process where recyclables are used to produce new products. For consistency with othe r mitigation option included in this report , the costing component of this analysis only considers the separation process. The different types of MRFs vary according to the type of waste they receive and the destination of the recyclables ( e.g., mixed waste MRF, commingled recyclables MRF, presorted recyclables MRF, co

- collection MRFs, and front

- end MRFs to other waste diversion alternatives such as composting )

. Because it is the most common, t his analysis considers a mixed waste MRF.

11 Price obtained from MetalPrices.com at http://www.metalprices.com/FreeSite/metals/al_scrap/al_scrap.asp#Tables

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 13LANDFILLS

Under the mixed waste MRF design, mixed waste is typically collected at curbside and dumped on a tipping floor at the MRF. It is then loaded onto a conveyer by using a front

- end loader or Bobcat. This conveyer feeds a bag opening station because most waste is collected in bags. Undesirable items in the waste (e.g., white goods, bulky items) are removed from the mixed waste before and after the bag opening point in the MRF. Bags can be opened either manually or mechanically

, and this analysis considers mechanical bag opening. Loo se waste from the bag opening operation is then conveyed into an elevated and enclosed sorting room where the recyclables are recovered. Newsprint, old corrugated cardboard, and other paper can be picked from the mixed waste as individual components. Because other paper components are present in small quantities and are likely to be wet and contaminated, they can only be recovered as mixed paper. Metal cans remain in the refuse on the conveyer at the end of the sort room. Separation of aluminum cans can be manual or automated

, and this analysis assumes manual separation. Ferrous metal is assumed to be recovered by a magnet.

Apart from power consumption, n o residual greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions are assumed

, and the MRF facility costs are divided into three components: capital cost, O&M cost

, and revenue from recyclables sale.

• Capital Costs . The capital cost for this option is $ 35 million in ( 2 010 USD)

. The c apital cost consists of construction, engineering, and equipment cost s

. It assumes a handling capacity of 100,000 tonnes of waste per year

. This analysis relies on a $ 297 /tonne of annual capacity (2006 prices) , which is an average of reported capital costs from Cal Rec ycle (200 9 ) for similar sized

facilities

.

• O&M Cost . The O&M cost of the MRF facility includes wages, overhead, equipment and building maintenance, and utilities

. An O&M cost of $ 66 /tonne of annual waste capacity before residue disposal, based on reported operating costs used in Cal Rec ycle (20 09 ) report. The cost of disposal of the MRF rejects can be estimated assuming a n MRF separation efficiency of 55% of the incoming organic waste and that the rejects are sent to a regular landfill with a tipping fee of $29/tonne, which represents a U .S. national average tipping fee obtained from Municipal Solid Waste Facility Directory (Chartwell, 2004).

• Annual Benefits: Annual benefits come from the sale of recyclables and decreased waste

. The recyclables that are separated at the MRF are sold to an end user (e.g., a remanufacturing facility)

sometime s through brokers. The 55% separation efficiency and recyclables sale prices were used to estimate the revenues from recyclables sale. The following prices were used in the analysis:

m ixed paper 12

— $140/tonne; scrap m etals 13

— $1, 307 /tonne; and scrap g lass

— $25/tonne. Tonnage sold for reuse avoids landfilling costs. Annual cost savings are equal to tonnage sold for reuse times the tipping fee of $29/tonne.

• Applicability: This option a pplies to the entire waste stream.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 95% of potential methane

.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years

12 Prices were obtained from: http://www.recycle.cc/freepapr.htm

.

13 Assumes a weighted average price of aluminum can scrap and ferrous metal scrap prices. The aluminum can scrap price was obtained from http://www.metalprices.com/ . The ferrous metal price was obtained from 2012 U SGS Mineral Commodities Summary: Iron & Steel Scrap at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_scrap/

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 14LANDFILLS



### Waste

**- to** 

**- Energy (WTE)** 

WTE is a combustion process ; thus, its main emissions include CO 2 , CO, NO
x , and non

- CH 4 volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). Municipal waste is incinerated to reduce its volume to save landfill costs and recover energy from its combustion either for heating and/or electricity generation. The two most widely used and technically proven incine ration technologies are mass

- burn incineration and modular

incineration. Fluidized

- bed incineration has been employed to a lesser extent, although its use has been expanding and experience with this relatively new technology has increased. RDF production a nd

incineration ha ve also been used, primarily in Europe, but the number of successful cases is limited. This analysis considers WTE using mass

- burn incineration and electricity recovery, which is the most common WTE design. Representative CH 4 emissions of 0.2 to 60 kg/Gg of waste (wet weight) and N 2 O emissions

of 41 to 56 g/ton of waste (wet weight) were obtained from IPCC (2006). WTE facility costs are divided into three components: capital cost, O&M cost

, and revenue from electricity generation.

• Capital Costs . The plant’s capital cost of $ 165 million includes the facility design engineering and construction. Capital equipment includes the cost of land, incinerators, ash handling system, turbine, and air pollution control and monitoring devices. Costs assu me $ 829 /tonne of design capacity. This cost was derived from Eunomia (2008), which describes this cost for a 200,000 tonne/yr facility in the UK.

• O&M Cost . The annual O&M cost of the WTE facility is $ 8 million, approximately 4 % of installed capital costs. Annual costs include labor, overhead, taxes, administration, insurance, indirect costs, auxiliary fuel cost, electricity cost

, and maintenance cost. It does not include the cost for disposing of the combustion residue and spray dryer residue. Cost is based on annual O&M cost
of $ 41 /tonne/yr. Annual avoided landfilling is also included as a cost savings. The cost of disposal of the fly and bottom ash from the incineration process assumes an estimated 15% of the incoming organic waste will be converted to ash (MSW DST Documentation). No reuse of the bottom ash (e.g., in construction projects) is assumed and the bottom and fly ash will be mixed

and sent to a landfill. Both the avoided landfilling costs and residual waste landfilling costs assume a tipping fee o f $29/tonne.

• Annual Benefits : Annual revenue from electricity sales. Electricity that is generated by

recover ing heat from combusti ng waste is sold to an end user. The recovery of the heat is not perfectly efficient. This inefficiency is represented by the heat rate of the plant, reported as 18,000 (B TU /kWh) in the WTE process model documentation of the MSW DST (MSW DST Documentation). The electricity produced per tonne of waste can then be estimated according to the heat value of the waste incinerated ( 4,7 50 BTU/tonne of waste). The m arket price of electricity

is used to estimate the revenues.

• Applicability: This option a pplies to entire waste stream.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes reduction efficiency of 100%.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



## III. 1 .4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T he MAC analysis assimilates the abatement measures’ technology costs, expected benefits

, and emission reductions presented in above to compute the net cost /benefit of abatement for each project

. Similar to the approach used in other non

- CO 2 sectors of this report, we compute a break

- even price for each abatement project (abatement measure by facility type)

. Project break

- even prices are then weighted by emission abatement potential to construct M AC curves illustrat e the technical, net GHG mitigation

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 15LANDFILLS

potential at specific break

- even prices for 2010 to 2030

. MAC curves are produced for 195 countries using country specific parameters, such as wage rates and energy prices.

This section describes the general modeling approach applied in th e landfill sector as well as the approach used to define the international facility populations and the assessment of sectoral trends

. These factors serve as additional inputs to the MAC analysis that adjust the abatement project costs

, benefits

, and the technical abatement potential in each country.



### III.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

The overarching modeling framework applied in the landfill sector is captured in two basic steps. The

first is to calculate the break

- even price for each mitigation measure for each facility type by country. The second is to determine the country

- level abatement potential.

The break

- even price, as defined in the technical summary to this report, estimates the costs and expected benefits of each technology based on the characteristics of the model facility and relative international prices (equipment, labor

, and energy)

. Country abatement potential reflects the number of abatement measures available and technical effectiveness of each option. Figure 1-3 illustrates the conceptual modeling for estimating the abatement potential in the landfill sector.

The MAC model uses a three

- step approach to allocating a fraction of the BAU emissions to each facility and technology considered. The model start s by splitting the BAU emissions out to our three landfill types ( open dump, basic landfill , engineered landfill ). Ne x t the model uniformly distributes BAU emissions by the number of abatement measures considered. Finally, the model estimates abatement potential by multiplying the BAU emissions (indexed by facility type and technology) by each technology’s technical effectiveness. Summing over all abatement measures and facility type indicates this product yields a country’s abatement potential.

It is im portant to note that depending on the scenario considered in the model, diversion options may or may not be included. As shown in Figure 1-3 , if diversion options are considered, BAU emissions (indexed by facility type) are uniformly distributed by the tot al number of technologies (N = 12). If diversion options are omitted, BAU emissions are distributed by the number of landfill

- based mitigation technologies (N = 7).



### Assessment of Sectoral Trends

Underlying the general modeling approach, the MAC analysis al so incorporated additional international considerations to capture shifts in the share of BAU emissions allocated to the three model landfill types defined earlier in Section III.1 .2 (i.e.

, open dump, basic landfill, and engineered landfill).

Table 1- 4 pre sents the facility share of BAU emissions over time. In the United States and the EU, we assumed advanced waste management practices were already in place. Reflecting this assumption, we

assume d zero emissions coming from open dumps in these countries and assumed all emissions come

from basic and engineered landfill s . Given the existing level of infrastructure in place there is very little change in the assumed distribution over the 20

- year modeling horizon.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 16LANDFILLS



### Figure 1

- 3: Conceptual Model for Estimating Mitigation Potential in the MSW Landfill Sector

For emerging economies and developing countries the analysis assumes a greater share of emissions is represented by open dumps in 2010. Over the next 20 years, this distribution is projected to shift away from open dumps as countries begin to adopt advanced waste management practices with greater shares of total waste going to basic sanitary and engineered landfills. These shares were developed using expert judgment after reviewing existing literature on waste disposal trends and abatement opportunities provid ed through various studies by the World Bank, USEPA’s LMOP program, and the Global Methane Imitative (GMI)

. 

### Define Model Facilities for the Analysis

Seeking to improve the specificity of the break

- even prices calculated for each country, this analysis developed an international population of model facilities. This step of the analysis consisted of defining the characteristics of the model facilities specific to countr ies and regions. The characteristics of interest

included the

• average annual waste acce ptance rates by facility type,

• average waste depth by facility,

• decay constant (k) based on climate and moisture content in waste landfilled , and

• potential CH 4 generation capacity (L 0 ) of the typical waste managed in a given model facility

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 17LANDFILLS



### Table 1-4: Mode l Facilities Share of BAU Emissions: 2010

– 2030

2010 2020 2030

Dump Basic Engineered Dump Basic Engineered Dump Basic Engineered Country/Region Sites LF LF Sites LF LF Sites LF LF

China 20% 60% 20% 10% 60% 30% 10% 50% 40%

Brazil 10% 60% 30% 10% 50% 40% 0% 50% 50%

Mexico 10% 60% 30% 10% 50% 40% 0% 50% 50%

Russia 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 10% 40% 50%

Ukraine 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 10% 40% 50%

Australia 10% 30% 60% 10% 30% 60% 0% 30% 70%

Canada 10% 30% 60% 10% 30% 60% 0% 30% 70%

Japan 10% 30% 60% 0% 30% 70% 0% 20% 80%

Turkey 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 10% 40% 50%

United States 0% 20% 80% 0% 20% 80% 0% 10% 90%

India 20% 60% 20% 10% 60% 30% 10% 50% 40%

South Korea 10% 30% 60% 0% 30% 70% 0% 20% 80%

EU

- 27 0% 20% 80% 0% 20% 80% 0% 10% 90%

Africa 40% 40% 20% 30% 40% 30% 20% 40% 40%

Central & South
America 10% 60% 30% 10% 50% 40% 0% 70% 30%

Middle East 20% 60% 20% 10% 60% 30% 10% 60% 30%

Eurasia 20% 60% 20% 10% 60% 30% 10% 60% 30%

Asia 20% 60% 20% 10% 60% 30% 10% 60% 30%

Source: Based on expert judgment in consultation with World Bank ( 2010 ) and USEPA ( 2009

, 20 11 ).

Various data sources were consulted to define the characteristics of the model facilities in the different countries and regions

, and a proxy country approach was used when data were not found for a given country. Under this approach, countries for which no data w ere available were paired with a representative proxy country based on similarities in socioeconomic and technology development trends

that are closely correlated with a countr y’s waste composition. Furthermore, waste composition is the only parameter that affects both L 0 (CH 4 generation rate) and k constant (decay rate), two key factors used to estimate gas generation from the model facilities.

To ensure project costs and benefits were comparable

, we assumed annual waste acceptance rates (WAR) were fixed at 100,000 tonnes / yr, and the average depth of waste was assumed to be between 25 and 50 feet. Open dumps have shallower w aste depths sprawling over large areas. In contrast, basic and engineered landfills concentrate the disposed waste over a smaller area and at increased depths of

between 40 and 50 feet. Facility m ethane r ecovery (also referred to as capture efficiency), also varies by landfill type and range from 10% for open dumps to 85% for engineered landfills

. Table 1- 5 summarizes the standardized model facility assumptions.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 18LANDFILLS



### Table 1-5: Model Facility Assumptions for International LFG Mitigation Options

No. Years Annual WAR Project Design Waste Depth Facility CH 4 Facility Type Open (tonnes/yr) Acreage (ft) Recovery
Engineered landfill 15 100,000 40 50 85 %

Basic landfill 15 100,000 50 40 75%
Open dump 15 100,000 80 25 10%

T o improve the heterogeneity in the break

- even options across countries, we developed a dataset of
country

- specific data of L 0 (methane generation potential ) and k constant (decay rate) values, the two key parameters in the first order decay model, which is used to estimate landfill gas generation

. Both
parameters we re calculated based on the composition of the waste being landfilled

, which is determined by the c ountry

- specific socioeconomic conditions, consumption patterns

, and waste management practices

. Therefore, the methane generation results and

, consequently

, the amount of methane potentially mitigated by each landfill gas control measure are driven by the waste composition, which is related to consumption patterns and socioeconomic conditions. We grouped the countries according to
the follow ing logic:

First, w e identified t he decay constant (k) and CH 4 generation potential of waste (L 0 ) for 16 countries that included at least 1 country within the each major region (Africa, Asia, Caribbean / Central & South America, Eurasia, Europe, Middle East, and North America). This information was obtained from a

number of sources

, including international studies conducted by the World Bank, USEPA ’s voluntary program, the MSW Decision Support Tool (DST), and other peer

- reviewed literature.

Second, w e then us ed expert judgment

, taking into consideration trends of socioeconomic and technological development to associate countries with other countries for which we have methane generation data ( e.g., we have methane generation data for Jordan and considered that Algeria, Egypt,

and South Africa have s imilar socioeconomic and technological conditions ) . Alternatively, we have methane generation data for Guinea, but we think that the socioeconomic and technological conditions in Egypt, Algeria, and South Africa are c loser to those in Jordan than to those in Guinea.

Table 1-6 presents the data used to characterize the model facilities for specific countries identified for this analysis.

The international assessment of other OECD countries assumes waste management practices and landfill designs similar to those in the United States. For this reason, we leverage the existing United

States

- based landfill population, scaling the landfill size and emissions to meet projected baselines . For all

non

- OECD countries for whi ch we had no data, we developed three model facilities to represent the allocation of waste to each type of waste management facility (i.e., engineered landfill, sanitary landfill, and open dump). Each facility type was assumed to have similar characterist ics in terms of capacity, average depth of waste in place, and annual waste acceptance rates.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 19LANDFILLS



### Table 1-6: CH 4 

### Generation Factors by Country

Country Region 1 k Constant (1/yr) L 0 (ft 3 /short ton) Data Source

Guinea Africa 0.18 4

, 690 WB

China Asia 0.11 1

, 532 LMOP

India Asia 0.11 3

, 988 Zhu et al. ( 2007 )

Japan Asia 0.11 4, 620 WB

Nepal Asia 0.04 6

, 890 WB

Pakistan Asia 0.11 3, 193 WB

Philippines Asia 0.18 1

, 922 MSW DST

Argentina CCSA 0.11 4, 122 WB

Belize CCSA 0.12 2

, 499 MSW DST

Colombia CCSA 0.11 2, 948 LMOP

Nicaragua CCSA 0.11 2

, 627 MSW DST

Panama CCSA 0.11 3, 236 MSW DST

Bosnia and Herzegovina E urasia 0.06 4

, 295 WB

Ukraine E urasia 0.06 4

, 886 LMOP

Jordan Middle East 0.02 5

, 984 WB

United States North America 0.04 3

, 055 LMOP

1 CCSA = Central & South America

Sources: WB

— World Bank Studies by Country; LMOP

— USEPA’s LMOP country

- specific landfill gas models; MSW DST

— decision support model; and Zhu et al. ( 2007 ) “Improving municipal solid waste management in India.”



### Estimate Abatement Project Costs and Ben **efits**

This analysis leveraged the USEPA LFG to e nergy project costs model to estimate abatement project

costs and benefits for the landfill

- based mitigation technologies (with the exception of enhanced oxidation). Key model facility characteristics discuss ed above were used as inputs to estimate the project

costs across countries. For waste diversion alternatives

, we assume d that waste was diverted from

landfills and sent to alternative facilit ies for separation and reuse. Any residual waste from these faci lities is then sent to a landfill for final disposal. Model facilities reflect the recycling or reuse facility’s annual waste processing capacity as described in Section III.1. 3. 2.

Table 1-7 and Table 1-8 provide example break

- even prices for model landfills and diversion facilities using U.S. parameters and costs

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 20-

- LANDFILLS



### Table 1-7: Example Break -E ven Prices for MSW Landfill Technology Options

Option by Landfill Type Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Annual
Revenue ($/tCO 2 e) Annual Tax
Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break
Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Open Dump

Direct use 7,475 $50 $28 $11 $10 $57

Combined heat and power 7,475 $86 $31 $10 $17 $89

Engine 7,475 $55 $30 $10 $11 $64

Microturbine 7,475 $54 $31 $7 $11 $67

Turbine 7,475 $57 $29 $8 $12 $66

Flare 7,475 $38 $27 $0 $8 $58

Basic Landfill

Direct use 56,061 $6 $4 $11 $1

− $2

Combined heat and power 56,061 $17 $6 $10 $4 $10

Engine 56,061 $12 $6 $10 $2 $6

Microturbine 56,061 $11 $4 $7 $2 $6

Turbine 56,061 $13 $5 $8 $3 $7

Flare 56,061 $4 $3 $0 $1 $6

Engineered Landfill

Direct use 63,536 $5 $4 $11 $1

− $4

Combined heat and power 63,536 $16 $6 $10 $3 $8

Engine 63,536 $11 $5 $10 $2 $4

Microturbine 63,536 $10 $3 $7 $2 $4

Turbine 63,536 $12 $4 $8 $3 $6

Flare 63,536 $3 $2 $0 $1 $5

Note: B ased on USA CH 4 generation parameters : L 0 = 3,204 and k = 0.04. Assuming model landfill standardized size assumptions from
Table 1- 5. Break

- even price is calculated using a discount rate of 10% and a tax rate of 40% and assumes energy prices of $3.2/Mcf and $ 0.07 / kWh for gas and electr icity

.



### Table 1-8: Break -E ve n Prices of Waste Diversion Options

Annualized Annual Tax
Reduced Capital Annual Annual Benefit of Break
Emissions Costs Cost Revenue Depreciation Even Price Waste Diversion Options (tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e)
Composting 5,222 $119 $121 $185 $24 $31

Anaerobic digestion 4,658 $1,626 $360 $330 $277 $1,380

Mechanical biological treatment 18,605 $414 $68 $263 $70 $148

Paper recycling 6,164 $1,613 $1,249 $1,028 $275 $1,559

Waste to energy 55,816 $2,247 $142 $284 $383 $1,722

Enhanced oxidation systems 10,483 $143 $1 $0 $11 $132

Note: Assuming model sizes as described in Section III.1.3 . Present values calculated using a discount rate of 10% and a tax rate of 40%.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 21-

– – LANDFILLS



### III.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

The MAC curve results are presented in Table 1- 9 and Figure 1-4 by major emitting country and rest of regional country groups

. The MAC curves illustrate the increase in abatement achievable at higher

carbon prices. In 2030, the MAC curves show that approximately 589 Mt CO 2 e , or 61 % of global baseline

CH 4 emissions from landfills, can be abated by adopting mitigation and avoidance options presented in

Section III.1. 3.

Approximately 112 Mt CO 2 e , or 19 % of global abatement potential has a break

- even price of zero or

less

. These mitigation options are sometimes referred to as “no regret” options because the benefit cost analysis implies that they would have a positive return

. However, as discussed previously, there may be

transaction costs not captured in this analysis that are currently limiting their adoption

.

At break

- even prices between $ 20 /t CO 2 e to $ 50 /t CO 2 e most countries MAC curves become non responsive ( vertical )

. This is because there are few options within this break

- even range

. Between
$ 50 /t CO 2 e to $ 100 /t CO 2 e a n additional 20% of abatement potential becomes economically viable

. And, a t
break

- even prices (> $100/t CO 2 e) the remaining set of emission reduction options are economically
viable, but at extremely higher prices. The point at which the MAC becomes unresponsive to any price change can also be considered the full technical potential associated with the suite of abatement measures considered. Thus, it can be inferred that additional reductions beyond ap proximately 60 % of the projected baseline in 2030 would be unlikely without additional policy incentives or technology improvements.



### Table 1- 9: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region Break Even Price ($/ tCO 2 e)

10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 2.4 2.4 2.4 9.0 11.7 17.3 17.3 17.3 23.8 37.0

Malaysia 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 8.7 19.6

Mexico 3.7 7.8 20.1 20.1 20.1 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1 34.8 53.0

Russia 1.3 8.2 11.4 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.3 20.7 32.0

United States 1.3 1.5 1.7 7.1 10.3 11.1 12.1 13.6 14.3 14.5 14.6

Rest of Region

Africa 5.6 5.6 5.6 9.7 26.1 31.3 42.7 42.7 43.2 60.3 95.4

Central and South America 1.6 4.4 8.7 8.8 8.8 9.1 16.3 16.4 16.4 27.6 50.9

Middle East 3.5 4.0 7.5 20.1 20.8 23.2 25.0 26.3 27.0 36.2 55.7

Europe 22.8 36.0 49.0 70.9 82.6 86.7 91.8 92.7 93.1 98.8 110.4

Eurasia 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.8 12.9

Asia 2.9 6.7 11.8 15.8 17.5 19.1 29.7 30.1 30.1 48.7 86.3

North America 1.5 1.6 4.2 8.7 10.8 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.1 15.0 21.5

World Total 43.0 70.0 112.4 171.9 217.4 252.2 295.7 300.1 302.8 394.9 589.4

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 22LANDFILLS



### Figure 1- 4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 30.0 China

Mexico

Malaysia

Russia

United States



### III.1 .4. 3 Uncertainties and Limitations

Uncertainty and limitations persist despite attempts to incorporate all publicly available information. Additional country

- specific detailed information would improve the accuracy of the MAC projections.

• Energy prices are negotiated on a case

- by

- case basis and may not be as high as the wholesale price used in the analysis.

• National/regional or l ocal policies for permitting projects may differ; also incentives such as tax credits, grants, loans and other financial incentives for LFG projects differ across states.

• Additional data characterizing specific landfills are necessary for a more accurate financial analysis of each technology or specific project at a specific site. Costs can vary depending on the depth area, waste composition, and annual waste in place.
Efforts to reduce landfilling (e.g., recycling, composting) can also reduce CH 4 emission s and will have an effect on the most appropriate type of project and its cost

- effectiveness at a given landfill

. In general

, additional country specific information would be useful in determining which abatement measures would be most likely to be adopted over time.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 23LANDFILLS



## References

CalRecycle. 2009. Life Cycle Assessment and Economic Analysis of Organic Waste Management and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Options. Obtained March 8, 201, at : http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/Events/LifeCycle/2009/default.htm

. Chartwell Information Publisher Services. 2004. Chartwell Municipal Solid Waste Facility Directory

. Solid Waste Market Intelligence, Analysis, and Strategy Services

. Eunomia. 2008. Development of Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for the Waste Sector. United Kingdom: Committee on Climate Change

. Defra and Environment Agency

. Available at : http://www.theccc.org.uk/pdfs/Eunomia%20Waste%20MACCs%20Report%20Final.pdf

Huber

- Humer, M., J. Gerber

, and H. Hilber. 2008. “ Biotic Systems to Mitigate Landfill Methane
Emissions .” W aste Management & Research 26: 33

- 46. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual (Volume 5

- Waste). Available at : http://www.ipcc

nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html . As obtained on March 4, 2011. RTI International. Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. MSW DST Documentation. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Obtained at: https://mswdst.rti.org/

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model. Washington, DC: USEPA, Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). O btained at: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications

- tools/index.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006

. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

. Washington, DC: USEPA. EPA 430 -R- 06

- 005. O btained on Feb ruary 18, 2011, at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).2008. Background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills . EPA/600/R

- 08

- 116. Washington, DC: USEPA

. Available at : http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/db 02s04.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures . Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. O btained

on March 3, 2011, at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 2010. Project Development Handbook . Chapter

3. Project Technology Options. Landfill Methane Outreach Program

. Available at : http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications

- tools/#one

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990

– 2011 . Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. O btained

on March 7, 2011, at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA.

U.S. Geologic Survey ( USGS ) . 2012. Mineral Commodities Summary: Iron & Steel Scrap

. Available at : http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_scrap/

. Unnikrishnan, S., and A. Singh . 2010. “ Energy Recovery in Solid Waste Management through CDM in
India and Other Countries .” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(10) : 630

- 640. doi:16/j.resconrec.2009.11.003

Van Haaren, R

. , N. Themelis, and N. Goldstein. 2010. “17th Annual BioCycle Nationwide Survey: The State of Garbage in America .” BioCycle October. Weitz, K. 2011. “Updated Research on Me thane Oxidation in Landfills.” Technical memorandum providing an update to previous (March 2006) research on methane oxidation rates in landfills. Prepared for Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, Climate Change D ivision. January. World Bank Group. 2010. 2009

— World Development Indicators: Table 2.1 Population Dynamics

. O btained on March 8, 2011 , at: http://data.worldbank.org/data

- ca talog/world

- development

- indicators

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 24LANDFILLS

Zhu, D., P.U. Asnani, C. Zurbrügg, S. Anapolsky and S. Mani

. 2007. “Improving Municipal Solid Waste Managem ent in India .” Washington DC : The World Bank

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III- 25WASTEWATER



# III.2. Wastewater

III.2.1 Sector Summary 

# D omestic and industrial wastewater treatment activities can result in deliberate venting and fugitive emissions of methane ( CH 4 ). In addition, domestic wastewater is also a source of

nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions

. CH 4 is produced when the organic material present in the wastewater flows decompose s under anaerobic conditions

. Although most developed countries rely on centralized aerobic wastewater treatment systems, which limit the level of CH 4 generated, less deve loped countries often rely on a broader suite of wastewater treatment technologies with a significant proportion of wastewater flows handled by anaerobic systems such as septic tanks, latrines, open sewers

, and lagoons (USEPA, 2012a ).

W orldwide CH 4 from wastewater accounted for more than 500 Mt CO 2 e in 20 10 . Wastewater is the fifth largest source of anthropogenic CH 4 emissions, contributing approximately 4% of total global CH 4 emissions in 20 10

. China, Nigeria, Mexico, India, and the United States, c ombined account for 60% of the

world’s CH 4 e missions from wastewater (see Figure 2-1 ). Glob al CH 4 emissions from wastewater are expected to grow by approximately 19 % between 2010 and 2030

.



### Figure 2 -1: CH 4 

### Emissions from Wastewater: 2000

– 2030

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700MtCO2e 428 512 565

2000 2010 2020

Year 609

2030 United States

India

Mexico

Nigeria

China

Rest of World

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a

.

N 2 O emissions from human sewage are a second significant source of GHG emissions within the wastewater sector, contributing an additional 2% of global N 2 O emissions in 2010

. Figure 2-2 illustrates the growth in N 2 O emissions out to 2030 for the wastewater sector

. China, the United States, Brazil,

Russia , and India are projected to be the five largest emitters of N 2 O in 2030, representing 36 % of total

N 2 O emissions in the wastewater sector

. Growth in N 2 O emissions between 2010 and 2030 is expected to

be 16 %, slightly lower than the projected growth in CH 4 emissions over the same time period.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 27WASTEWATER



### Figure 2 -2: N 2 

### O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater: 2000

– 2030

0 20 40 60 80 100 120MtCO2e 76 86 93

2000 2010 2020

Year 100

2030 India

Russia

Brazil

United States

China

Rest of World

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a

.

Global abatement potential 1 of CH 4 in wastewater treatment is 138 and 218 Mt CO 2 e in 2020 and 2030

, respectively

. 2 These corresponding sectoral MAC curves are shown in Figure 2-3

. As the marginal abatement cost ( MAC ) curves show, high

- cos t mitigation measures in the wastewater treatment sector

constrain the level of abatement achievable at low er carbon prices (less than $3 0 t CO 2 e -1 ) to less than 5%

of CH 4 emissions in 2030

. Maximum abatement potent ial ( 218 Mt CO 2 e ) is 36% of total CH 4 emissions in

the wastewater sector in 2030.

The following section provides a brief explanation of sector activity, how CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are generated, and projected emissions from wastewater from 2010 to 2030. Subsequent sections characterize the abatement measures available to the wastewater sector and present the costs of their implementation and operation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC analysis approach unique to this sector and presents the regional MAC results.

1 This analysis only assesses abatement measures to reduce CH 4 emissions. Mitigation potentials reported in this chapter do not consider potential reductions in N 2 O emissions, because of limited information on abatemen t measure

costs.

2 Vertical axis is scaled to limited range of prices between $0 and $800/t CO 2 e. This scale was chosen because it shows

sufficient detail in the MAC curves at lower break

- even prices. Only 45% of the total abatement is visible in the figur e simply due to the price limits chosen for the vertical axis when reporting the data.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 28WASTEWATER



### Figure 2 -3: Global MAC for Wastewater: 2010, 2020, and 2030

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 100 120 2010

2020

2030



## III.2.2 GHG Emissions from Wastewater

T his section discusses how CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are produced in wastewater treatment and disposal activities and the current projections of baseline emissions between 2010 and 2030

.



### III.2.2.1 CH 4 

### Emissions from Domestic and Industrial Wastewater

CH 4 is emitted during the handling and treatment of domestic and industrial wastewater.

W astewater CH 4 emissions are produced through the anaerobic decomposition of organic material present in the wastewater

. Three key factors that determine the CH 4 generation potential are the quantity of degradable organic material present in the wastewater, the temperatu re , and the type of treatment
system us ed ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ IPCC ]

, 2006)

. The organic content of wastewater is typically expressed in terms of either biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or chemical oxygen demand (COD) (IPCC, 2006; USE PA, 2012a ). CH 4 generation is positively related to temperature

so that higher temperatures result in a great amount of CH 4 produced. The third key factor that

determines CH 4 generation is the type of treatment system us ed and more specifically the amount of decomposition occu rring under anaerobic conditions which is positively related the quantity of CH 4 generated.

Types of centralized systems that can result in CH 4 emissions include 1) aerobic systems that are either improperly operated or designed to have periods of anaerobic activity and 2) anaerobic lagoons (USEPA, 2012 b)

. M ost developed countries currently use centralized aerobic wastewater treatment facilities with closed anaerobic sludge digester systems to process m unicipal and industrial wastewater

, minimizing CH 4 emissions

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 29WASTEWATER

The IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas reporting identifies five major industrial

wastewater sources for CH 4 emissions

, which include pulp and paper manufacturing, meat and poultry

proc essing (slaughterhouses), alcohol/beer and starch production, organic chemicals production, and other drink and food processing ( e.g., dairy products, vegetable oil, fruits and vegetables, canneries, juice making ) (IPCC, 2006). The significance of CH 4 emis sions from the various industrial sources will depend on the concentration of degradable organics present in the wastewater flow, volume of wastewater generated, the quantity of wastewater treated in anaerobic treatment systems (e.g.

, anaerobic lagoons).



### I II.2.2.2 N 2 

### O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater

— Human Sewage

N 2 O is produced during both the nitrification and denitrification of urea, ammonia, and proteins. These waste materials are converted to nitrate (NO 3 ) via nitrification, an aerobic process converting

ammonia

- nitrogen to nitrate. Denitrification occurs under anoxic conditions (without free oxygen) and involves the biological conversion of nitrate into dinitrogen gas (N 2 ). N 2 O can be an intermediate product of both processes but is more often associated with denitrification (Sheehle and Doorn, 200 2 ).



### III.2.2.3 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

This section discusses the historical and projected baseline emissions for the wastewater sector

. 3

Historical emissions are characterized as those emissions released between 1990 and 20 10

. P rojected

emissions estimates cover the 20

- year period starting in 2010 and ending in 2030.



### Historical Emissions Estimates

Between 1990 and 20 05

, CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from wastewater increased by 20 % from a c ombined

total of 421 Mt CO 2 e in 1990 to 5 05 Mt CO 2 e in 20 05

. The primary driver of both CH 4 and N 2 O emissions

associated with wastewater is population growth

. Country

- level CH 4 emissions are particularly sensitive to population growth in countries that rely h eavily on anaerobic treatment systems such as septic tanks, latrines, open sewers

, and lagoons for wastewater treatment ( USEPA, 2012a ).

The share each countries total emissions that is attributed to domestic versus industrial wastewater

sources is determined by the level of industrial activity and types of domestic wastewater treatment systems employed. In developing countries, domestic wastewater sources account for the majority if not

all of CH 4 emissions from wastewater

. In countries with industr ial wastewater sources

, the contribution of industrial wastewater emissions will depend on the level of production and the commodity produced (e.g. paper, sugar, alcoholic beverages, and processed meat/poultry/fish). Based on the UNFC C C’s national reporting inventory database of GHG emissions, only a small number of developed countries have historically reported CH 4 emission from Industrial sources. For these 24 countries reporting

industrial and domestic CH 4 emissions the share of emissions reported for in dustrial wastewater ranged from less than 2% to nearly 70% of total CH 4 emissions from all wastewater sources. Section III.2 .4

discusses these distributions of emissions to domestic and industrial sources in more detail.



### Projected Emissions Estimates

Worldwide CH 4 emissions are projected to increase by approximately 19 % ( 97 Mt CO 2 e) between 2010

and 2030

. N 2 O emissions are projected to increase by a similar proportion, up 16% ( 14 Mt CO 2 e) over the same time period

. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present the CH 4 and N 2 O emissions projections for the wastewater

sector.

3 For more detail on baseline development and estimation methodology, we refer the reader to the USEPA’s Global Emissions Projection Report available at: http://www.epa.gov \ climatechange \ economics \ international.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 30WASTEWATER



### Table 2 -1: Projected CH 4 

### Baseline Emissions from Wastewater : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 132 135 137 138 138 0.2%

Nigeria 56 62 67 73 78 1.7%

Mexico 48 51 54 56 58 0.9%

India 42 45 47 50 52 1.1%

United States 25 26 27 29 30 0.9%
Rest of Regions

Africa 27 29 32 35 38 1.9%

Central & South America 47 50 53 56 59 1.1%

Middle East 22 23 25 26 28 1.2%

Europe 19 19 20 20 20 0.2%

Eurasia 26 25 25 24 23

− 0.5%

Asia 68 72 76 81 84 1.1%

North America 0 0 0 0 0 0.7%

World Total 512 539 565 588 609 0.9%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2012a

.



### Table 2 -2: Projected N 2 

### O Baseline Emissions from Human : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 17 17 17 17 17 0.2%

United States 5 5 6 6 6 0.9%

Brazil 5 5 5 5 6 0.9%

Russia 4 4 4 4 4 1.1%

India 3 3 3 3 4

− 0.6%
Rest of Region

Africa 11 13 14 15 17 1.8%

Asia 5 5 6 6 6 1.0%

Central & South America 4 5 5 5 6 1.0%

Eurasia 14 14 14 14 14 0.1%

Europe 3 3 3 3 3 0.0%

Middle East 12 13 14 14 15 1.3%

North America 3 3 3 3 3 0.9%

World Total 86 90 93 97 100 0.7%

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2012a

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 31WASTEWATER

As shown in Table 2 -1 , Africa and the Middle East are two regions projected to experience significant growth in CH 4 emissions over the next 20 years, increasing by 50% and 33%, respectively. CH 4 emissions growth in Asia and the Central and South American regions is also expected to be significant, growing by 25% over the same time period.

N 2 O emissions are expected to grow by similar proportions across all regions with the exception of Eurasia, where emissions are expected to remain relatively unchanged over the next 20 years. The primary driver of this trend is Russia’s 11% drop in N 2 O emissions between 2010 and 2030. Despite this decline, Russia still ranks as one of the top five emitters in 2030.



## III.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

T his section characterizes the abatement measures considered for the wastewater sector. This analysis

focused on domestic wastewater treatment and implementation of abatement measures aimed at reducing CH 4 emissions, which can be mitigated through investment in infrastructure and/or equipment. Conversely, there are no proven and reliable technologies for mitigation o f N 2 O emissions. Mitigation steps to limit N 2 O emissions from wastewater treatment are operational, and include careful control of dissolved oxygen levels during treatment, controlling the biological waste load

- to

- nitrogen ratio, and limiting operating sys tem upsets. These measures require technical expertise and experience rather than an engineered solution, thus they fall outside the scope of an engineered cost analysis.

It is important to couch the discussion of greenhouse abatement measures for municipa l wastewater

in the appropriate context. In practice, changes to wastewater management strategies in developing countries are unlikely to be driven by the mitigation of greenhouse gases. Factors such as economic resources, population density, government, a nd technical capabilities are all important in determining both the current state and the potential for improvement to a country’s wastewater sanitation services. Figure 2- 4 is an illustration of the sanitation ladder, which relates the level of available wastewater sanitation to the population and cost for treatment. The transition from a latrine to a sewer/ wastewater treatment plant ( WWTP) /anaerobic digester can increase the operation and maintenance wastewater treatment cost per person by a factor 20 (Guchte and Vandeweerd

, 2004). This does not account for the capital cost that would be required in such large scale projects.

T he reader should bear in mind throughout the analysis that the wastewater sanitation technology is likely to be fixed by these external factors, and improvements in technology will be driven by the population’s desire /capacity for improved sanitation and hygiene, with any improvements to greenhouse gas emissions a secondary result of the change. Thus, although abatement measures are presented in this chapter, they should not be considered to be a viable control measure that could be implemented for the sole purpose of reducing a country’s GHG emissions, but rather a byproduct of a country’s position on

the sanitation ladder.

This analysis considers abatement measures that may be applied to one of five existing wastewater

treatment systems currently being utilized in a given country. Scenarios 1 and 2 correspond to the upper

half of the sanitation ladder

, while scenarios 3 through 5 correspond to the lower half the sanitation

ladder. The five baseline scenarios for the existing sta tus quo are presented in Figure 2

- 5. In actuality, there are many more than five baseline technology scenarios that may be utilized throughout the wor ld, within a country, or even within a municipality. For example, a population may utilize aerobic or
anaerobic ditches for centralized treatment of wastewater, which could be viewed as an intermediate option between scenarios 1 and 2 in Figure 2- 5. These baseline scenarios are not meant to be an

exhaustive list of the actual existing treatment technologies employed worldwide, but rather an attempt

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 32WASTEWATER



### Figure 2 -4: Sanitation Ladder for Improvements to Wastewater Treatment

Figure 2 -5: Five Existing Scenarios Evaluated for Given Wastewater Discharge Pathways Based on Technology Level

, Treatment Alternative, and Collection Method

Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Treated

(1) Centralized

WWTP Untreated

(2) (Open)

Sewer No centralized
collection

Treated

(3) Septic tank (4) Latrine (5) Other
system

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 33WASTEWATER

to broadly categorize and quantify technologies that represent the major classes of treatment technologies employed throughout the world.

Discharge pathways 1 and 2 (in Figure 2-5 ) as sume the existence of a collection system for all wastewater generated and are grouped according to the final disposal/treatment approach. Pathways 3, 4,

and 5 are the scenarios fo r which no existing centralized treatment exists and the waste is treated on site with latrines or septic tanks. For each of the five pathways and corresponding treatment systems, a mitigation approach is evaluated for CH 4 reduction. The analysis considers three abatement measures that include both mitigation technologies as well as complete shifts in wastewater management, that is, a jump up the sanitation ladder.

It is important to note the distinction between the two types of abatement measures

. M itigation technologies represent add

- on t echnologies that can be applied to existing wastewater treatment systems (such as an anaerobic digester with cogeneration) intended to capture and destroy the CH 4 generated at the facility. The second type of abatement measure represents a shift away from an existing anaerobic wastewater treatment approach to an aerobic system which in turn will reduce the volume of CH 4 generated during the treatment process. This shift in wastewater treatment approaches will require the construction of a new facility that fundamental l y changes the existing wastewater management approach. This approach usually requires construction of new infrastructure and

, therefore

, will require s ignificant capital investment. As demonstrated in th e cost analysis, the construction and operation and maintenance cost per person is dependent on the population density of the region. For a collection system, more rural areas require the more material (per person) to be used to build a system to collect a nd transport the

waste.



### III.2.3.1 Overview of Abatement Measures

This section discusses the abatement measures considered for this analysis. Each technology is briefly

characterized and followed by a discussion of abatement measures’ implementation costs, potential benefits, and system design assumptions used in the MAC analysis. Table 2-3 compares the three abatement alternatives for an example population of 400,000 people, population density of 3,000/km 2 , and wastewater generation rate of 340 L/person/day

. 

### Table 2 -3: Abatement Measures for the Wastewater Sector

Abatement Option Total Installed Capital Cost (2010 10 6 USD) Annual O&M
Cost (2010 10 6 USD) Time
Horizon (Years) Technical Efficiency
Anaerobic biomass digester with CH 4 collection and cogen. 21.1 5.0 20 60

– 80%

Aerobic wastewater treatment plant ( WWTP ) 97.2 4.7 20 60

– 80%

Centralized wastewater collection (+ aerobic WWTP) 55.9 (153.1) 1.6 (6.3) 50 60

– 80%

For this analysis, abatement measures are assigned based by on the existing wastewater treatment system pathway in place

. For example, a population considering the addition of an anaerobic biomass digester will already have an existing collection system and aerobic WWTP in place

. There is no technology selection in the current an alysis because we have identified one abatement measure for each type of treatment system

. The following subsections characterize each of the three abatement measures and the assumptions regarding applicability and costs. In reality, feasible mitigation measures will vary

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 34

### Figure 2 -6: Mitigation Technology Approach for Developing Countries with Decentralized Treatment

Domestic

wastewater

No centralized

collection

Treated

Septic tank Latrine Other system Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Treated

Centralized
Aerobic WWTP 

### Mitigation Technology WASTEWATER

due to the wide range of wastewater disposal options currently employed in each country and the external factors that govern a country’s ability to transition from one technology to another. In addition, as discuss above regarding the baseline scenarios, there are dozens of wastewater technology options available to a population; this discuss ion highlights three major categories that represent shifts in water management or add

- on technology.



### III.2 .3. 2 CH 4 

### Mitigation Technology for Existing Decentralized Treatment

This section characterizes the reduction in CH 4 emissions by adding a collection system and centralized treatment facility in developing countries where the current practice is decentralized

wastew ater treatment. As shown in Figure 2-6 , this approach necessitates two large

- scale capital investments: the construction of a sewerage system for centralized collection and the construction of an

anaerobic WWTP.



### Wastewater Collection System

— New Construction

For areas of the developing world without centralized wastewater treatment, latrines and/or septic tanks are typically used to dispose of domestic wastewater. In both of these cases, the organic matter in the wastewater will undergo anaerobic degradation to produce CH 4 . The construction and implementation of a collection system and subsequent treatment at a centralized facility w ould significantly reduce CH 4 formation because transporting wastewater through sewers promotes aerobic conditions and reduces the fraction of organic content that undergoes anaerobic digestion.

The design and size of a wastewater collection system depend on the population served, the service area size, and water use characteristics of the population. Wastewater collection systems link all household and commercial discharges through underground piping, conveying the water to either a centralized treatment facility or directly to an outfall point where it is released into the environment. Pipelines can vary from 6 inches in diameter to concrete

- lined tunnels up to 30 feet in diameter. Collection systems are built with a gradient so gravity can facilitate the water flow; where there are large

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 35WASTEWATER

distances that must be covered, periodic pump stations (also called lift stations) are sometimes used to pump the sewage to a higher elevation and again allow gravity to transport the sewage. Sewage pumps are typically centrifugal pumps with open impellers, designed to have a wide opening to prevent the raw sewage from clogging the pump

. This scenario evaluates the impact of installing a sewer collection system without a centralized treatment facility

.

• Capital Cost: The cos t estimation model Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies Appropriate for Reuse (WAWTTAR) (Finney and Gearheart, 2004) was used to determine the capital cost of the sewer construction. The model is used by engineers, planners, decision makers,

and fin anciers to estimate the costs of mak ing improvements to wastewater treatment systems while minimizing impacts to water resources. The capital cost curve for wastewater collection systems is based on the population density: Capital Cost ($MM/km 2 ) = 360.54 × D p -0.844 , where D p is population density in ( persons /km 2 ).

• Annual Operation and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Annual O&M costs for collection systems were scaled from the capital cost and assumed to be a factor of 0.028 × initial capital cost, which

for this case gives the following cost curve, based on population density: O&M Cost ($MM/km 2 ) =

-0.844

. 10.095 × D p

• Annual Benefits: No benefits are associated with this option.

• Applicability: This option applies to all scenarios having no existing centralized colle ction
system.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes an initial collection efficiency of 60%, which increases by 10% each year , due to an assumed improvement in technical efficiency.

• Technical Lifetime: 5 0 years



### Aerobic WWTP

— New Construction

Contamina nts in wastewater are removed using a variety of physical, chemical, and biological methods. A WWTP typically comprise s many unit operations from each of these broad categories. Wastewater treatment technologies are also divided into stages of treatment, e ach of which comprise s one or more individual treatment processes. A brief summary of each of these classifications is as follows:

• Pretreatment : This stage involves the removal of wastewater constituents. These constituents can include rags, sticks, floata bles, grit, and grease that may cause maintenance or operational problems with the treatment operations, processes, and ancillary systems. Screening methods are employed here, suing bars, rods, grates, or wire meshes.

• Primary treatment : This stage focuses on the removal of a portion of the total suspended solids ( TSS ) and organic matter from the wastewater. Primary treatment is a physical unit process in which the sewage flows into large tanks, known as primary clarifiers or primary sett ling tanks. A settling tank is constructed of concrete and designed so that the residence time of the wastewater is such that the flow slows down enough so that readily settleable particles are collected at the

bottom of the tank.

• Secondary treatment : This stage focuses on the removal of biodegradable organic matter (in solution or suspension) and TSS by aerobic or anaerobic biological treatment. Disinfection is also typically included in the definition of conventional secondary treatment. Secondary treatme nt is a biological process that cultivates and uses a consortium of microorganisms to degrade the organic wastes and reduce nutrient levels in wastewater. Secondary treatment can either be aerobic (with oxygen) or anaerobic (without oxygen)

. By far, the mo st common approach used in WWTPs is the activated sludge process. This process is an aerobic suspended

- growth system

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 36WASTEWATER

containing a biomass that is maintained with oxygen and is capable of stabilizing organic matter found in wastewater. During the activated sludge process , the effluent flows into a concrete tank where air or oxygen is bubbled through the wastewater to encourage microbial degradation of the organic material. The treated effluent flows to a secondary settling tank, where it is separated

from th e biomass. Most of the biomass collected at the bottom of the settling tank is removed for further dewatering and stabilization before final disposal. A small fraction of the biomass is recycled back into the bioreactor to maintain the population. It is im portant to monitor proper control of oxygen levels, pH, and the amount of sludge recycled back into the reactor to ensure that proper treatment levels of the wastewater are maintained.

• Tertiary treatment : This stage involves the removal of residual suspend ed solids (after secondary treatment), usually by granular medium filtration or microscreens. Disinfection is also typically a part of tertiary treatment. Nutrient removal is often included in this stage.
The cost breakdown for this mitigation approach is as follows:

• Capital Cost: Capital costs were estimated using EPA cost curves detailing the construction costs of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities ( US EPA 1980). The costs curves in this report are based on actual winning bids for treatment pla ns, which include detailed equipment and materials requirements, including labor, amortization, land, concrete, pumps, pipes, power, haulage, chemicals, and design fees. All cost curves were updated to year 2010 dollars. The cost

curve is based on the flow rate of the WWTP: Capital Cost ($MM) = 0.0174 × Q 0.73 , where Q is the

flow rate in m 3 /day.

• Annual Operation and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Typical annual O&M costs of an aerobic WWTP are due to electricity used to provide aeration and operation equipment, la bor to operate the plant, chemicals, and equipment replacement. EPA cost curves (updated to 2010 dollars) provides the following cost curve for an aerobic WWTP, based on the flow rate: 0.0002 × Q 0.8517

.

• Annual Benefits: None.

• Applicability: This option applies to all conditions when new WWTPs are constructed

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes an initial collection efficiency of 60%, which increases by 10% each year.

• Technical Lifetime: 2 0 years.



### III.2.3.3 CH 4 

### Mitigation Technology for Existing Collection System without
Treatment

This section characterizes the reduction in CH 4 emissions for the existing condition of a centralized collection system without a treatment facility

. Figure 2-7 i llustrates the step change in technical capab ility,

which in this case necessitates the construction of a new anaerobic WWTP.

As noted above, contaminants in wastewater are removed via a variety of physical, chemical, and biological methods. An anaerobic WWTP typically comprises many unit operations divided into stages of treatment: pretreatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, and tertiary treatment.

The cost breakdown for this mitigation approach is identical to that above and is as follows:

• Capital Cost: Capital costs were estimated using EPA cost curves detailing the construction costs of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities. The cost curve is based on the flow rate of the WWTP: Capital Cost ($MM) = 0.0174 × Q 0.73 , where Q is the flow rate in m 3 /day.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 37WASTEWATER



### Figure 2 -7: Mitigation Technology Approach for Developing Countries with Decentralized Treatment

Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Untreated

Direct Discharge Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Treated

Centralized
Aerobic WWTP 

### Mitigation Technology

• Annual Operation and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Typical annual O& M costs of an aerobic WWTP are due to electricity used to provide aeration and operation equipment, labor to operate the plant, chemicals, and equipment replacement. Capdetworks v2.5 was used to estimate O&M costs. Capdetworks is a planning level tool that enables the user to evaluate the costs associated with individual treatment units or entire systems. The costs are based on detailed equipment and materials database that utilizes published cost indices, including labor, amortization, and energy requireme nts. Capdetworks provides the following cost curve for an aerobic WWTP, based on

the flow rate: O&M cost ($MM) = 0.0002 × Q 0.8517

.

• Annual Benefits: None.

• Applicability: This option applies to all conditions when new WWTPs are constructed

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes an initial collection efficiency of 60%, which increases by 10% each year.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years.



### III.2.3.4 CH 4 

### Mitigation Technology for Existing Centralized Aerobic WWTP s

This section characterizes the reduction i n CH 4 emissions from adding an activated sludge digester

for CH 4 collection and energy generation

. This option is only applicable to existing centralized aerobic

WWTPs primarily found in developed countries (Figure 2

- 8)

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 38WASTEWATER



### Figure 2 -8: Mitigation Technology A pproach for Countries with Existing Centralized WWTPs

Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Treated

Aerobic

WWTP Domestic

wastewater

Centralized
collection

Treated

Aerobic WWTP w/sludge digestion +

CH 4 collection 

### Mitigation Technology

**Anaerobic Biomass Digester with CH**  **4** 

### Collection

The top of the technology ladder evaluated assumes an existing centralized WWTP is used to treat all wastewater generated in the region. The significant quantity of biomass generated during the decomposition of the sewage is a major operational component of WWTP operation. Typical approaches to sludge handling include dewatering to reduce the overall volume and further water re duction in open

air drying beds. The sludge is rich in organic matter and has the potential to produce high amounts of

CH 4 during degradation. Anaerobic digestion is an additional sludge

- handling step that can be employed to further reduce the sludge volume; it is a process that involves the decomposition of this organic material in an oxygen

- free environment to produce and collect CH 4 . Anaerobic digesters are large covered tanks that are heated to optimize the methane

- generating process. The tanks typicall y employ a mixing mechanism to ensure uniform conditions throughout the tank and are designed with headspace

to collect the gas generated, which is typically a mix of 60 to 70% CH 4 and the 30 to 40% CO 2 , along with trace gases. The remaining solid material is nutrient rich and is a suitable fertilizer for land application. The heat from the flared gas can be used to heat the digester, lowering the overall energy requirements of the system. Alternatively

, the gas can be used to produce electricity with a tur bine.

• Capital Cost: Costs were derived from EPA process cost curves for new construction of an anaerobic digester. The capital cost covers the construction of the tank with heater and cover and includes concrete, all equipment, process piping and steel required for digester construction. Costs were derived from CapdetWorks. The cost curve is based on the flow rate of the WWTP: Capital Cost ($MM) = 0.0004 × Q 0.92 , where Q is the flow rate in m 3 /day.

• Annual Operation and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Typical annual O&M costs for collection systems are based on CapdetWorks. Capdet W orks provides the following cost curve for aerobic
WWTP, based on the flow rate: O&M cost ($MM) = 0.00042 × Q 0.7939

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 39WASTEWATER

• Annual Benefits: Stabilized sludge can be land applied as fertilizer. The cogeneration option provides electricity. Flared gas can be used elsewhere at the plant to reduce overall energy requirements.

• Applicability: This option applies to all existing WWTP types.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes an initial collect ion efficiency of 60%, which increases by 10% each year.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



## III.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T his section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of CH 4 abatement

measures for wastewater trea tment systems

.



### III.2.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis is based on project cost s developed for a set of model facilities based on the technical and economic parameters discussed in Section III.2 .3. Similar to the steps taken in other sectors, we developed an inventory of facilities that are representative of existing facilities

. Next, we applied the abatement costs report ed above to calculate the break

- even prices for each option and wastewater

treatment sc enario. Finally, the model estimates the mitigat ion potential based on the country

- specific

share of emissions attributed to each wastewater treatment scenario

. Figure 2-9 shows the organization of

the domestic wastewater MAC model. The country

- specific di stributions are based on analysis conducted by USEPA ( 2012a ).



### Figure 2 -9: Domestic Wastewater MAC Analysis Flow Chart

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 40WASTEWATER



### Assessment of Sectoral Trends

The first step in the analysis is to assess the level of baseline emissions attributable to domestic versus industrial wastewater sources. The analysis allocates, when information is available, a percentage of annual emissions to domestic wastewater treatment. For each country, the remaining share of emissions

is allocated to industrial wastewater treatme nt.

Shares allocated to each source (domestic/industrial) were b ased on historical emissions data

obtained from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ’s ( UNFCCC’s ) GHG emissions reporting database

. D ata were limited to 2 4 Annex I countries accounting for 15% of emissions

in 2010

. For these 24 countries

, we calculated a 5

- year average share of CH 4 emissions attributable to domestic sources based on emissions reported between 2002 and 2007

. For all other countries, because o f

a lack of data , we assume d emissions projections are wholly attributable to domestic wastewater
treatment systems to be consistent with US EPA ( 2012a ) projections methodology. Figure 2- 10 presents the

average shar e of emissions attributed to domestic and industrial sources by country.



### Figure 2

- 10 : Share of Wastewater CH 4 

### Emissions to Domestic and Industrial Sources (Avg. 2002

– 2007)

34% 2% 29% 44% 2% 69% 14% 65%

19% 0% 41%

4% 31%

7% 53% 21% 89% 13% 23% 19% 59% 57%

60% 34%

66% 98% 71% 56% 98% 31% 86% 35%

81% 100% 59%

96% 69%

93% 47% 79% 11% 87% 77% 81% 41% 43%

40% 66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% United States of America Ukraine

Spain Slovenia Slovakia Russian Federation Romania Portugal

Poland Norway New Zealand Netherlands Latvia Japan

Italy Ireland Iceland Hungary

Greece Finland Czech Republic Croatia Bulgaria Australia

6.B.1 - Industrial Wastewater 6.B.2.1 - Domestic & Commercial (w/o human sewage)

Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ). Flexible Data Queries. Online Database. Available at : http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries/Event.do?event=hideProjection

.

The analysis also leverages estimated changes in wastewater disposal activity along each wastewater

t reatment pathway discussed earlier in this chapter. This data was obtained from previous USEPA analysis used to developed international wastewater projections. Trends in wastewater disposal activity are determined by population projections, distribution of population between rural and urban settings,

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 41- - WASTEWATER

population density, and wastewater flow rates per person. These parameters are used to estimate
country

- and technology

- specific abatement project costs.

Other trends applied for this analysis include increasing the technical applicability factor and technical effectiveness factor. The technical applicability factor is assumed to increase at 1% per year between 2010 and 2030. The technical effectiveness factor increases at a similar rate, growing from 60% to

80% over the 20

- year time period. These assumptions are based on expert judgment and intended to reflect increases in both the adoption of improved sanitation systems and improvements through learning best management practices for the alternative treatment sy stems that reduced CH 4 emissions.



### Estimate **A batement**  **Project Costs and Benefits**

Project costs were estimated based on the cost functions defined in Section III.2 .3. Country

- specific demographic information on wastewater flow rates and population density was used to estimate the initial capital costs for each population segment

. Table 2 -4 provides example abatement m easure cost
estimates for the United States and the corresponding break

- even prices associated with each option

. 

### Table 2 -4: Example Break -E ven Prices for Wastewater Abatement Measures in 2030 for the United States

Abatement Option Reduced
E missions

(tCO 2 e) Installed Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Present
Value of
Annual

Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Pres ent
Value of
After Tax
Benefits ($/tCO 2 e) Present
Value of Ta x

Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Rural

Septic to aerobic WWTP 6,493,070 $51,771 $3,080 $179 $4,106 $5,100

Latrine to aerobic WWTP 288,581 $25,886 $1,540 $179 $2,053 $2,541
Open sewer to aerobic WWTP — — — — — — Anaerobic sludge digester with

co

- gen 57,716 $6,929 $533 $154 $1,180 $720

Urban

Septic to aerobic WWTP 1,082,178 $10,936 $2,251 $179 $867 $1,224

Latrine to aerobic WWTP — — — — — — Open sewer to aerobic WWTP — — — — — — WWTP

— add

- on anaerobic sludge digester with co

- gen 2,056,139 $5,206 $255 $154 $886 $519

Note: Break

- even price was calculated using a 10% discount rate and 40% tax rate

.



### III.2.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential of CH 4 emissions in wastewater treatment is 36% of total annual emissions by 2030 . Table 2 -5 and Figure 2-11 present the MAC curve results for 2030 showing a cumulative reduction potential of 218 Mt CO 2 e

. The top five emitters contribute approximately 58% of total abatement potential

. Significant initial capital costs combined with no direct monetary benefits limits the abatement potential achieved at lower break

- even prices. As shown in Table 2 -5 , less than 20% of the total abatement potential is realized at prices below $50/t CO 2 e in 2030. These r esults do not reflect human health benefits or other positive externalities that accompany improvements in wastewater sanitation. If these additional social benefits were included, it would result in higher levels of abatement achievable at lower break

eve n prices.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 42WASTEWATER



### Table 2 -5: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break -E ven Prices in 2030

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)
Country/Region

– 10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — — — — — 2.9 2.9 11.1 11.1 13.0 49.7

Indonesia — — — — — 1.3 1.3 4.4 4.4 5.0 18.8

Mexico — — — — — — — — 3.8 3.9 20.9

Nigeria — 1.4 1.4 1.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 8.0 21.9

United States — — — — — — — — — — 14.3

Rest of Region

Africa 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 3.2 10.8

Asia — 0.7 0.8 0.9 2.0 2.6 2.6 3.3 5.7 6.8 21.1

Central and South America — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.8 9.9

Eurasia — — — — — 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 8.9

Europe — — — — — — — — 0.0 5.5 10.9

Middle East — 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.5 6.3 7.0 12.9 30.9

North America — — — — — — — — — — 0.2

World Total 0.2 2.6 3.4 4.0 9.3 15.5 17.1 32.4 41.0 61.2 218.3



### Figure 2 -11: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2020

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

0 5 10 15$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 20 China

Mexico

Indonesia

Nigeria

United States

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 43WASTEWATER



### III.2.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

The 2006 version of this report did not explicitly model any abatement measures

. This analysis makes an initial attempt at estimating the abatement potential that could be achieved in the wastewater sector

. The previous report identified two major factors preventing the modeling of abatement in this sector

. The first was data limitations on the type of treatment systems currently employed in each country

. The second was the overriding economic and social factors influencing wastewater treatment practices and investment throughout the world

.

T he analysis presented in this chapter attempts to address the data limitations issue b y estimating the quantities of wastewater treated in a number of alternative treatment systems

. For simplification

purposes , we have exogenously assigned abatement measur es to specific existing wastewater treatment
systems

. Ideally, one would have significantly more data on existing treatment pathway types to support the incorporation of substitutable abatement measures when the investment decision is driven by cost

minimi zation under country

- and system

- specific conditions.

The investment in large

- scale public infrastructure required to improve wastewater treatment systems would no t be determined solely by the carbon price associated with CH 4 emissions reductions

. The public health benefits of such large

- scale sanitation infrastructure projects greatly outweigh the potential benefits provided through any carbon market mechanism

. However, the analysis presented

here estimates the level of abatement that is technical ly achievable and the marginal costs of supplying reductions through these technologies

, ignoring other potential positive externalities derived from putting these systems in place.

Finally, this chapter does not consider the potential impact of abatement me asures applied to industrial wastewater treatment systems

. The authors acknowledge that CH 4 emissions from industrial sources can be significant

, and in some countries industrial wastewater emissions may represent mor e than half of total emissions associat e with wastewater

. However, d ata limitations, specifically information

on the types of treatment systems employed in specific industries and correspondingly the abatement

measures available to those systems is needed to estimate the abatement potential fro m industrial

sources. International partnerships like the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) have begun to assess the

level of CH 4 emissions available for recovery and use

. Any future attempt to model abatement potential

from the industrial wastewater sector would also r equire additional detail on the relative contribution of

CH 4 emissions coming from domestic versus industrial wastewater sources

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 44WASTEWATER



## References

Bogner, J., R. Pipatti, S. Hashimoto, C. Diaz, K. Mareckova, L. Diaz, P. Kjeldsen, S. Monni, A. Faaij , Q. Gao, T. Zhang, M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, R.T.M. Sutamihardja

, and R. Gregory. 2008. “ Mitigation of
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste : Conclusions and Strategies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) .” Waste Management Research 26:11.
Buchanan, J.R. 2010. Performance and Cost of Decentralized Unit Processes. Publication No. DEC2R08. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). O btained at: http://ndwrcdp.werf.org/documents/DEC2R08/DEC2R08web.pdf

. Finney, B.

, and R. Gearheart. 2004. WAWTTAR: Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies Appropriate for Reuse

. Obtained at : http://firehole.humboldt.edu/wawttar/wawttar.html

. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 5: Waste; Chapter 6: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

. Obtained at : http://www.ipcc

- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_6_Ch6_Wastewater.pdf

. Scheehle, E.A., and M.R.J. Doorn. 200 2

. “ Improvements to the U.S. Wastewater Methane and Nitrous
Oxide Emissions Estimates. ” Working paper. USEPA: Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012 b

. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990

– 2011 . Was hington, DC: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. O btained

at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sector: Options for
Methane Emission Mitigation (Draft). Methane to Markets Administrative Support Group. Obtained at: http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/events_steer_20090910_scoping.pdf

. U .S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Plants : 1973

- 1978 . Document EPA/430/9

- 80

- 003.
van de Guchte, C., and V. Vandeweerd. 2004. Targeting Sanitation. Our Planet, the Magazine of the United

Natio ns Environment Programme (UNEP). Issue: Water, Sanitation, People. 14 (4):19

- 21.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES III

- 45

# IV. I ndustrial Processes Sector0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160MtCO2e 135

118 125

2000 2010 2020

Year 142

2030 Ukraine

China

Brazil

South Korea

United States

Rest of World NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



# IV.1. Nitric and Adipic Acid Production

IV.1.1 Sector Summary 

# T he production of nitric and adipic acid results in significant nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions as a by -p roduct

. Nitric and adipic acid are commonly used as feedstocks in the manufacture of a variety of commercial products, particularly fertilizers and synthetic fibers ( USEPA, 2012a ).

C ombined global emissions of N 2 O from nitric and adipic acid production are shown in Figure 1- 1. Globally, emissions have declined by about 13% (17 MtCO 2 e) over the past decade ; however, over the next 20 years

— 2010 to 2030

— emissions are expected t o increase steadily (~20%) growing by 24 MtCO 2 e over the time period

. This trend is largely due to increased demand for fertilizer (nitric acid is an input) and increased demand for synthetic fibers (adipic acid is an input). In 2030, the United States, South
Korea, Brazil, China

, and Ukraine are expected to be five largest emitters of N 2 O from nitric and adipic acid production.



### Figure 1-1: N 2 

### O Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid: 2000

– 2030

Source: USEPA, 2012a

.

Over the coming decades, increased demand for adipic acid in Asia is expected to contribute to higher N 2 O emissions from adipic acid production, while abatement control technologies employed at adipic acid production facilities in the 1990s in the United States , Canada, and some countries of the EU are expected to reduce N 2 O emissions ( USEPA, 2012a ). Overall, increased global demand for adipic acid is expected to have the effect of higher annual N 2 O emissions resulting from adipic acid production. In addition, global N 2 O emissions from nitric acid are expected to increase as demand for nitrogen

- based fertilizer increases. Although concerns about nutrient run

- off have caused some countries to reduce their demand for nitrogen

- based fertilizer, growing world demand for agricultural commodities is expected to have the effect of increasing nitric acid produ ction and

, consequently , N 2 O emissions.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -1

## IV.1.2 N 2 

## O Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Production -$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 120 140 2010

2020

2030 NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

Global abatement potential of N 2 O in nitric acid and adipic acid production is 98 and 1 15 MtCO 2 e in

2020 and 2030

, respectively. These results are depicted in the sectoral marginal abatement cost ( MAC )

curves in Figu re 1- 2. As the MAC curves show, roughly 45 % of the maximum abatement potential in each year is achievable at relatively low carbon prices (between $2 and $10 tCO 2 e -1 ).



### Figure 1-2: Global MAC for Nitric and A dipic Acid: 2010, 2020, and 2030

The f ollowing section provides a brief explanation of the manufacturing processes that result in the

formation of N 2 O emissions. Next we discuss the projected emissions from these processes out to 2030. Subsequent sections characterize the abatement measures a nd present the cost of implementation and operation for each. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC analysis approach unique to this sector and the regional results.

N 2 O emissions are closely correlated with the production of nitric and adipic acid. The following section discusses global production activity data, typical emissions factors, and baseline emissions

estimates of N 2 O from nitric and adipic acid production. Th e MAC analysis presented here starts by assuming the projected emissions presented in US EPA’s 201 2 Global Emissions Report (201 2 a). This analysis then derives industry activity from the US EPA emissions projections based on current industrial activity

.



### IV.1.2.1 Nitric Acid Production and Emission Factors

Ammonium nitrate production represents the largest demand market for nitric acid, with the majority of nitric acid being consumed by ammonium nitrate producers. The demand for ammonium

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -2NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

nitrate products, especially fertilizer, is the main driver of nitric acid demand. Nitric acid production levels closely follow trends in fertilizer demand (Mainhardt and Kruger, 2000). Trends in fertilizer demand vary widely across different regions of the world. For example, in Western Europe, because of concerns over nutrient runoff and nitrates in the water supply, use of nitrogen

- based fertilizer has been significantly reduced in the past couple of decades ( USEPA, 2012a ). Despite this trend, the European

Fertilizer Manufact urers Association (EFMA) is predicting modest growth in demand of 1.3% annually

over this decade

. In other parts of the world, a continued desire to secure domestic fertilizer production capacity to supplant reliance on imports in combination with expansions in capacity for large fertilizer consuming countries are expected to result in a net increase in nitrogen

- based fertilizer production capacity between 2010 and 2015 ( IFA, 2011 )

. Globally, over the next several decades, increases in food consumption and demand for agricultural products will continue to put upward pressure on fertilizer
demand, which

, in turn, is expected to increase the demand and consumption of nitric acid.

The actual number of nitric acid produc tion p lants globally is unknown

. Previous reports cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) have suggested the number to be between 255 and

600. More recent estimates suggest that between 500 and 600 plants were in operation in 2010 (Kollmus and Lazarus, 2010). The actual number is uncertain because many nitric acid plants are often part of larger integrated chemical facilities that manufacture products using nitric acid

— in the production of a wide range of chemical products such as fertilizer and explosives ( Kollmus and Lazarus, 2010; Mainhardt and Kruger, 2000).

A s noted earlier, global nitric acid production is expected to increase over time

. Projections in nitric acid production levels by country are not publicly available

. The IPCC reports that N 2 O emissions factors for nitric acid production also remain relatively uncertain, because of a lack of information on manufacturing processes and emissions controls. The emissions factor is estimated, based on the average amount of N 2 O generated per unit of nitric acid produced, combined with the type of technology employed at a plant. The IPCC uses a default range of 2 to 9 kilograms N 2 O per ton of nitric acid produced. As a result, emissions factors for nitric acid production plants may vary signif icantly based on the operating pressure of the plant, the type of nitrogen oxide (NO
x ) control technology (if any) deployed on the plant, and whether N 2 O abatement has been implemented

. As shown in Table 1-1

, N 2 O emission rates increase as the plant operating pressure
increases. Furthermore, non

- selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR) is very effective at destroying N 2 O,

whereas other technologies u s ed to control NO
x emissions

, such as selective catalytic reduction ( SCR ) and extended absorption

, do not reduce N 2 O emissions.



### Table 1-1: IPCC Emissions Factors for Nitric Acid Production

Production Process N 2 

### O Emissions Factor (relating to 100 % pure acid)

Plants with NSCR a (all processes) 2 kg N 2 O/tonne nitric acid ±10%

Plants with process

- integrated or tailgas N 2 O destruction 2.5 kg N 2 O/tonne nitric acid ±10%

Atmospheric pressure plants (low pressure) 5 kg N 2 O/tonne nitric acid ±10%

Medium pressure combustion plants 7 kg N 2 O/tonne nitric acid ±20%

High pressure plants 9 kg N 2 O/tonne nitric acid ±40%

Source: IPCC, 2006.

a Non

- se lective catalytic r eduction (NSCR)

The IPCC notes that emissions factors as high as 19.5 kilograms N 2 O per ton of nitric acid produced have been previously estimated. In addition, some estimates indicate that 80 % of the nitric acid plants

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -3

### United States,

30% China, 22% Germany,

16%
France,

11% South Korea, 5%

Japan, 5%

Singapore, 4%

Brazil, 3%

Italy, 3%

Ukraine, 2% India, 0% NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

worldwide do not employ NSCR technology, which makes it more likely that the default range of potential emission s factors provided by the IPCC underestimates the true emissions baselines (Mainhardt

and Kruger, 2000)

. Therefore, the uncertainties associated with these emission factors may be higher than

listed in Table 1- 1. However, no uncertainty assessments other than the IPCC ’s have been published, so without more information, this analysis relies on t he published values above.



### IV.1.2.2 Adipic Acid Production and Emission Factors

Adipic acid is used primarily in the production of synthetic fibers, predominantly as a precursor for the production on nylon 6,6 ( The Chemical Company [CC], 2010a). As a resul t, production of adipic acid is closely correlated with the world ’ s nylon production. Worldwide, the largest single use of adipic acid is in carpet manufacturing, accounting for 30 % of the market ( USEPA, 2012a ; Chemical Week , 2007).

Global demand for adipi c acid is expected to increase over the next few decades, particularly in Asia, driven primarily by the growth in demand for synthetic fibers (i.e., nylon 6,6), particularly for use in carpet manufacturing. Nylon 6,6 accounts for approximately 90% of adipi c acid demand; demand for nylon is a strong indicator of future adipic acid demand (CC, 2010b). Future production of adipic acid is expected to closely following the demand trend for synthetic fibers. Figure 1-3 shows the share of adipic acid production ca pacity by country in 2010.



### Figure 1-3: Adipic Acid Production Capacity by Country: 2010

Global capacity in 2010 was approximately 3 million metric tons, concentrated in the United States (30%), the European Union (29%), and China (22%) (Schneider, Lazarus, and Kollmuss, 2010; USEPA, 2012b). In the same year, global production of adipic acid w as approximately 2.5 million metric tons (CC, 2010a). Plants in located in Canada and the United Kingdom were recently shut down and two of four facilities in the United States were idle in 2009 and assumed to remain so in 2010 (USEPA, 2012b).

The IPCC pro vides a default emissions factor of 300 kilograms ± 10% N 2 O per ton of adipic acid produced (IPCC, 2006). This emissions factor assumes that no N 2 O control system is in place. Additionally, this factor should be used only when national total data are avail able and plant

- level data

are deemed unreliable. This factor was developed using laboratory experiments measuring the

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -4NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

reactionary stoichiometry for N 2 O generation during the production of adipic acid (Mainhardt and Kruger, 2000). This emissions factor has been supported by some selected measurement at industrial plants. The IPCC recommends using plant

- specific data for those plants with abatement controls already in place and reliable plant

- level data (IPCC, 2006).



### IV.1.2.3 Emissions Estimates and Related A ssumptions

This section discusses the historical and projected baseline emissions from the production of nitric and adipic acid

. 1 Historical emissions are characterized as those emissions released from the 1990 to 2010 period and projected emissions estima tes cover the period from 2010 to 2030.



### Historical Emissions Estimates

Between 1990 and 2005, N 2 O emissions from nitric and adipic acid production decreased by 37%

down from 200 MtCO 2 e in 1990 to 126 MtCO 2 e in 2005. Key factors that influence emissions are the demand for final products that include intermediates of nitric and adipic acid such as carpet and

fertilizers. Although demand for and production of nitric and adipic acid increased over the 1990 to 2005 time period, N 2 O emissions actually decreased o ver the period

. The reductions in N 2 O emissions over this period we re mostly due to the install ation of abatement technologies in the adipic acid industry ( USEPA, 2012a ).



### Projected Emissions Estimates

Table 1-2 lists the combined projected N 2 O baseline emissions from nitric and adipic acid production by country /region and year. Worldwide N 2 O emissions are projected to increase by approximately 21 % (24 MtCO 2 e) between 2010 and 2030. South Korea, Canada, and Brazil are expected to experience the largest percentage increase in baseline emissions over the 2010 to 2030 period, with increases of 93, 77, and 68%, respectively. The United States is expected to have the second largest absolute increase (8

MtCO 2 e) in emissions, which represents a 28 % inc rease from 2010, while South Korea is expected to have the largest absolute increase (11 MtCO 2 e).



## IV.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

This analysis considered four abatement measures applied to the chemical processes used to produce nitric and adipic acid to reduce the quantity of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions released during the production process. Thermal destruction is the abatement measure applied to the adipic acid production process. The three remaining measures were applied to the nitric acid production process.

Nitric acid facilities have the option of using specially designed catalysts to control N 2 O emissions. The location of catalyst placement within the nitric acid production process determines the catalyst design, composit ion, and terminology. Abatement measures applicable to nitric acid are characterized by where in the production process they are implemented. These options include primary abatement, secondary abatement, and tertiary abatement. Primary abatement measures o ccur within the ammonia burner, preventing the formation of N 2 O. Secondary abatement measures such as homogeneous thermal decomposition and catalytic decomposition are installed at an intermediate point in the production process, removing the N 2 O formed th rough ammonia oxidation. Tertiary abatement measures, such as catalytic decomposition and NSCR units are applied to the tail gas streams at the end of the nitric acid

1 For more detail on baseline development and estimation methodology, we refer the reader to the USEPA’s Global Emissions Projection Report. A vailable at: http://www.epa.gov \ climatechange \ economics \ international.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -5NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



### Table 1-2: Projected N 2 

### O Baseline Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Production: 2010

– 2030

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR (2010

– 2030)
Top 5 Emitting Countries

United States 29 30 32 35 37 1.2%

South Korea 12 14 16 19 23 3.4%

Brazil 8 9 11 12 14 2.6%

China 7 8 9 10 10 1.6%

Ukraine 6 7 7 7 7 0.4% Rest of Region

Africa 3 3 3 4 3 0.1%

Central & South America 1 2 2 2 2 0.4%

Middle East 1 1 1 1 1 0.5% Europe 32 25 25 25 29 −0.5%

Eurasia 7 7 7 7 7 0.2%

Asia 9 10 10 11 12 1.3%

North America 2 3 3 3 4 2.3%

World Total 118 118 127 136 147 1.1%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

b Mexico is the only country included under North America, as Canada and the United States are reported individually above.
Source: USEPA, 2012a.

production process. The implementation of one technology over another is driven largely by facility design constraints and/or cost considerations. The high operating costs of NSCR units and improvement in modern facility design will drive most future abatement projects to adopt secondary or tertiary catalysts over NSCR units.

T his se ction briefly characterizes each abatement measure and the supporting technical assumptions that were used to compute the breakeven prices. Table 1-3 summarized the costs and technical assumptions for the four abatement measures. Abatement measure costs were derived from a variety of sources reporting in euros and dollars over a number of base years. For consistency, we assumed a fixed exchange rate of 1.32 (USD/EUR), and the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPI) was used to adjust costs for inflation. Consistent with other sectors evaluated in this study, the costs of abatement developed for this analysis exclude capital and O&M costs attributable to monitoring, reporting

, and verification (MRV) activities

.



### IV.1.3.1 Adipic Acid —N 2 

### O Abate ment Methods

Adipic acid facilities typically direct the flue gas to a reductive furnace in a thermal destruction process to reduce nitric oxide (NO X ) emissions. Thermal destruction is the combustion of off

- gases (including N 2 O) in the presence of methane. The combustion process converts N 2 O to nitrogen, resulting primarily in emissions of NO and some residual N 2 O (Ecofys, Fraunhofer ISIR, and Öko

- Institute, 2009). Facilities may also employee a catalytic decomposition method to abatement N 2 O generated. The EU Emissions Trading System [ETS] and CDM methodologies for this abatement measure suggest that heat generated from the decomposition of N 2 O can be used to produce process steam for utilization in local processes, substituting for more expensive steam gen erated using fossil fuel alone. For this analysis, we

assume the abatement measures’ conversion of N 2 O to nitrogen technical effectiveness is 95%. Costs presented below are based on a catalytic decomposition method.

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -6NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



### Table 1-3: Abatement Measures for Nitric and Adipic Acid Production

Abatement Option 2010 USD

Time
Horizon (Years) Technical Efficiency,% Annual Benefits Average
Reductions (tCO 2 

### e/yr) Total
Installed Capital

Cost Annual O&M
Cost Energy Non

energy
Adipic Acid Production a

Thermal/catalytic decomposition 11.4 2.2 20 96 % — 0.3 4,206,218

Nitric Acid Production b

Secondary Abatement —

Catalytic decomposition in the burner 1.3 0.4 15 85 % — — 779,571

Tertiary Abatemen t—

Direct catalytic decomposition 2.3 0.2 15 95 % — — 871,286

Tertiary Abatement —

Non

- select ive catalytic reduction unit 4.0 2.1 20 95 % — — 871,286

a Based on adipic acid plant capacity of 200 metric tons of adipic acid per day.

b Based on nitric acid plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO 3 /day.

• Capital Costs: Initial capital costs are $156 per metric ton of production capacity in 2010 dollars. This cost includes the costs of engineering design and process modifications in addition to equipment and installation costs. Assuming a plant with capacity of 200 tonnes adipic acid production per day, the initial capital cost would be approximately $11.4 million (2010 USD).

• Annual O&M Costs: Annual costs total $38 per metric ton of production in 2010 dollars , which

i ncludes the costs of annual energy requirements and system maintenance. Assuming a plant with capacity of 200 tonnes and a utilization factor of 80%, the annual operating cost would be $2.2 million (2010 USD). Catalyst consumption represents 60% of the annual costs.

• Annual Benefits: S team produced through the decomposition of N 2 O under this abatement measure can offset steam generated using more expensive energy sources providing a fuel cost savings . These annual benefits can equal up to 60% of operating co sts (Ecofys et al., 2009). This analysis assumes a more conservative estimate of 16% of operating costs or $5.6 per metric ton of adipic acid production based on CDM project documentation.

• Applicability: This option applies to adipic acid production facilities that do not currently

control N 2 O emissions. Based on recent analysis (Schneider et al., 2010)

, only 9 of the 23 operational facilities in 2010 had unabated N 2 O emissions.

• Technical Effectiveness: This analysis assumes a 95% efficiency convertin g N 2 O into nitrogen

and water.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



### IV.1.3.2 Nitric Acid

— Primary Abatement Measures

This group of abatement measures can be applied at the ammonia oxidation stage of the nitric acid production process. Perez

- Ramirez (2003) identifie d three alternative approaches categorized as primary abatement options: optimized oxidation, modification of the Pt

- Rh gauzes, and oxide

- based combustion catalysts. All three technologies prevent the formation of N 2 O in the ammonia burner and would requir e making adjustments to the ammonia oxidation process and/or catalyst (Perez

- Ramirez, 2003). Although the primary abatement technology options are technically feasible, they are not modeled in this analysis

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -7NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

because of a lack of technology cost data and the fact that the alternative options discussed below achieve greater abatement and are better defined.



### IV.1.3.3 Nitric Acid

— Secondary Abatement Measures

Secondary abatement measures remove N 2 O immediately following the ammonia oxidation stage, between the ammonia converter and the absorption column (Perez

- Ramirez, 2003). Abatement measures include thermal decomposition, catalytic decomposition inside or immediately following the ammonia

burner . Thermal decomposition, developed by Norsk Hydro in the 1990s, is better suited for inclusion in new plants, because it requires redesigning the reaction chamber immediately following the ammonia burner. This design change can increase the capital cost of a new plant by 5 to 6% but has no impact on operating costs (Perez

- Ramirez, 2003). The catalytic decomposition option is better suited for retrofitting and can be incorporated as an add

- on technology at minimal cost. For this analysis, the catalytic

decom position costs were used as the representative costs of the secondary abatement option.

• Capital Costs: Capital costs include the purchase and installation of the catalyst and any technical modifications made to the production process. This analysis assumes a capital cost of
$3.5/tonne of HNO 3 production capacity 2 and a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO 3 /day. Using these assumptions, the initial capital costs would equal $1.3 million (2010 USD).

• An nual O&M Costs: Annual costs include catalyst replacement and recy cling of spent catalyst

, replacement of spare catalyst , and loss of production due to catalyst disruptions. This analysis
assumes an annual cost of $1.3/tHNO 3 produced and a plant utilization rate of 90% (Perez

Ramirez, 2003) . Following the plant example o f a 1,000 tHNO 3 /day, the annual cost would be $0.4 million (2010 USD).

• Annual Benefits: N o benefits are associated with this option.

• Applicability: This option is a pplicable to all existing nitric acid plants.

• Technical Effectiveness: This analysis assumes an 80 % efficiency converting N 2 O into nitrogen

and water.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



### IV.1.3.4 Nitric Acid

— Tertiary Abatement Measure : Direct Catalytic Decomposition

Tertiary abatement measures are located after the absorption tower where tail gas leaving the absorption column is treated to destroy N 2 O (Perez

- Ramirez, 2003). Similar to earlier abatement
measures, this m easure reduces the N 2 O into nitrogen and oxygen, through thermal or catalytic decomposition.



### • Capital Costs: Capital costs include th e purchase and installation of the catalyst and any technical modifications made to the production process. This analysis assumes a capital cost of
$6.3/tonne of HNO 3 production capacit y 3 and a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO 3 /day. Using these assumptions, th e initial capital costs would equal $2.3 million (2010 USD).

2 Based on costs of € 0.25/tHNO 3 reported in 2008 euros (EC, 2008) scaled to 2010 USD using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPI) and an exchange rate of 1.32 (USD/EUR).

3 Based on costs of € 0.5/ tHNO 3 reported in 2008 euros (EC, 2008) scaled to 2010 USD using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPI) and an exchange rate of 1.32 (USD/EUR).

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -8NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

• Annual O&M Costs: Annual costs include catalyst replacement and recycling of spent catalyst; replacement of spare catalyst; loss of production due to catalyst disruptions or the lowering of the p rocess pressure . This analysis assumes an annual cost of $0.6/tHNO 3 produced and a plant

utilization rate of 90% (Perez

- Ramirez, 2003) . Following the plant example of a 1,000 tHNO 3 /day, the annual cost would be $0.2 million (2010 USD).

• Annual Benefits: Min or benefits are associated with this option

. Decomposition is an exothermic process, so a small amount of heat could be recovered from the process and converted to steam.

However

, the costs of the equipment needed to recover the heat and convert it to stea m could outweigh the benefit. The ability to accrue benefit s would also be limited by the amount of space available to add the equipment.

• Applicability: This option is a pplicable to most existing nitric acid plants but is highly dependent

on site

- specific factors, such as age of the facility and the footprint of the facility. Tertiary abatement measures may require additional space and additional equipment

.

• Technical Effectiveness: The analysis assumes a 82 % efficiency converting N 2 O into nitrogen

and water

.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years



### IV.1.3.5 Nitric Acid

— Tertiary Abatement Measure: Non

- selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)

One specialized type of tertiary catalyst is a n NSCR system. The NSCR typically costs more than other types of tertiary catalysts because it requires a reagent fuel, such as natural gas, propane, butane, or hydrogen, to reduce NO X and N 2 O over a catalyst

. If an NSCR system is used at a nitric acid plant that is

collocated with other chemical processes, the costs of these reagent fuels may be lessened. For example, if ammonia is produced near the nitric acid production plant, the waste gas stream from ammonia production is a hydrogen

- rich gas stream that could be used as the reagent fuel for an NSCR.

• Capital Costs: Capital costs include the purchase and installation of the NSCR unit and catalyst. This analysis assumes a capital cost of $12.6/tonne of HNO 3 production capacity based on
$8.2/tHNO 3 reported in 1991 USD ( US EPA, 1991) scaled to 2010 USD using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost In dex (CEPI). Assuming a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO 3 /day

, the initial capital cost would equal $4.6 million (2010 USD).

• Annual O&M Costs: A nnual costs total $8.8/tHNO 3 produced. Annual costs include the cost of reagent fuel , labor, maintenance

, and other fixed costs for capital recovery and insurance. Total annual cost for the example plant would be $2.9 million per year (2010 USD).

• Annual Benefits: Energy benefits are associated with this option

. The NSCR reaction is
exothermic, which means that the reaction generates heat. This heat can be recovered and converted into steam for use as an energy source.

• Applicability: This option is applicable to all nitric acid production facilities without existing tertiary abatement measures. Although it i s theoretically possible to employ multiple abatement measures, the likelihood of multiple retrofitted abatement measures operating together in an efficient manner is very low.

• Technical Effectiveness: The analysis assumes 90 % efficiency converting N 2 O into nitrogen and

water.

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV -9NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



## IV.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T his section describes the methodological approach to the N 2 O abatement measures for nitric and adip ic acid production facilities.



### IV.1.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis is based on project costs developed for a set of model facilities based on the

abatement measure costs discussed in Section IV.1 .3. Similar to the steps taken in other sectors, we developed an inventory of facilities that are representativ e of existing facilities. Next we appli ed the

abatement costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each option and applicable facility pair. Finally, the model estimates the mitigation potential based on the country

- specific share of emissions attributed to nitric versus adipic acid production

. T his analysis takes the N 2 O emissions projections (given) and

allocates emissions based on production process to derive the model facility inventories.

Adipic acid facilities are defined through a detailed inventor y of the 23 production facilities

worldwide operating in 2010. While no comprehensive inventory was available for nitric acid plants, it is believed that there are roughly 500 to 600 nitric acid plants globally (Kollmuss and Lazarus, 2010)

. Instead, we dev eloped a series of 4 model nitric acid production units based on plant characteristics obtained from a detailed inventory of 67 nitric acid plants that varied in age and production processes. 4



### Adipic Acid

**— Facility inventory** 

The first step in the analysis w as to determine the allocation of projected emissions to nitric and adipic acid production by country. For example

, in the United States, adipic acid production account ed for approximately 15% of total baseline emissions in 2010, while the majority of emis sions were attributed to nitric acid production. Once the share of baseline emissions is determined, the MAC model can assess the abatement potential on the technically applicable pool of emissions available for abatement.

To estimate the technically appli cable share of emissions, we developed a detailed inventory of operational adipic acid plants in 2010. Adipic acid plants were used as the starting point because the number of international adipic acid plants is small (<30 globally)

, supported by recent li terature providing detail on existing plants in 2010 obtained from Schneider, Lazarus, and Kollmuss (2010) . The detailed inventory includes 23 adipic acid production facilities operating in 11 countries totaling approximately 3,000 kt of production capacit y. 5 Schneider and co

- authors also identified the N 2 O abatement technologies and plant utilization factors. Figure 1-4 summarizes the global adipic acid production capacity breakdown by country, and facility counts are reported in parenthesis after the country labels. The bottom

- up inventory was used to estimate N 2 O emission from adipic acid production by country.

4 While there are a number of different processes employed at nitric acid production facilities, single

- pressure plants are much more common in the United States. Based on information gathered, most nitric acid production plants were constructed to maximize the yield from stages two and three of the production process and, therefore, operate at high

pressures.

5 Major changes to previously reported adipic acid inventories (Mainhardt and Kruger, 2000; Organisation for

Economic Co

- operation and Development [ OECD], 2004 ) includes the opening of 5 new plants in China between 2008 and 2009; and the closure of two plants located in Canada and the United Kingdom. In addition, a fourth plant located in the United States was idle between 2008 and 2009 and assumed to continue to idle in 2010 (USEPA, 2012b).

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 102

0% 2% 1% 12%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% India (1) Ukraine (2) Italy (1) Brazil (1) Singapore (1) Japan (2) South Korea (1) France (1) Germany (3) China (7) United States (3)

Share of Global Production CapacityProducing Country

with N O Abatement

Unabated 2

35% NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



### Figur e 1-4: Operational Adipic Acid Production Facilities in 2010 by Share of Global Capacity

Source: Adapted from Schneider et al. 2010. Note: Facility counts are listed in parentheses beside country name.

Although 11 countries currently produce adipic acid, only 4 countries (China, Ukraine, Japan, and India) have operational facilities that are known to have no N 2 O emission controls in place. As the figure shows, all but 15% of the adipic acid capacity has N 2 O abatement controls in place. The 15% of cap acity

with no N 2 O abatement controls is represented by the nine smallest facilities in the industry located in China (5), Ukraine (2), Japan (1), and India (1).

In the 1990s, most of the adipic acid producers in developed countries voluntarily adopted N 2 O abatement measures (Schneider et al.

, 2010; EcoFys, 2009, USEPA, 2012b). In 2005, with the establishment of the CDM methodology for crediting N 2 O abatement projects at adipic acid plants, producers in developing countries began to adopt N 2 O abatement measu res. Schneider and co

- authors point out that although the CDM methodology was effective in achieving N 2 O reductions in developing countries, it was limited to facilities that were in operation prior to 2005.

Since 2005, much of the growth in adipic acid production capacity has been in China, with five plants coming online between 2008 and 2009 (Schneider et al., 2010). Future growth is also projected to be highly concentrated in Asia (Global Industry Analysts In c . [GIA], 2010). China alone is expected to see its capacity more than double in the near term with five new adipic acid plants between 2011 and 2013 (Zhao, 2011).

Only 15% of global capacity continues to operate with no known N 2 O abatement. China and Ukraine account for over 95% of the capacity with unabated N 2 O emissions. In China, the five plants operating

without abatement controls account for two

- thirds of the country ’ s total adipic acid capacity. For this analysis, we assume that future abatement potential is limited to the nine plants identifi ed as having no

known N 2 O abatement measure in place.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 11NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

Although no information was available on specific plant utilization rates, we assume utilization rates

of 60% for all non

- CDM facilities, 85% for CDM facilities

, 6 and 45% for non

- CDM facilities in other parts of Asia ( Schneider et al.

, 2011). Combining plant capacities and corresponding utilization rates yields a total adipic acid production in 2010 of 1.84 million metric tons.

Next we estimate net emissions for each country by applying the IPCC emission s factor of 300 kg

N 2 O per metric ton of adipic acid produced to the plant production estimated above. Net emissions estimated account for existing abatement activity assuming a control efficiency of 96%. This analysis yields net emissions by country total ing 103,800 tonnes of N 2 O (32.2 MtCO 2 e) in 2010

. We assume the net emissions calculated for each country represents adipic acid ’ s representative share of total projected baseline emissions (see Table 1-2 ). Table 1-4 provides the percentages used to breakou t
the N 2 O emissions baseline to adipic acid.

The analysis assumes that N 2 O emissions from adipic acid production account for the percentage of

total sectoral baseline listed in Table 1-4 . We attribute the balance of baseline emissions to nitric acid production.



### Table 1-4: Adipic Acid- Producing Countries ’ Share of Baseline Emissions a



### Share of N 2 

### O Baseline, %

Country Adipic Acid Nitric Acid

Brazil 5 95

China b 36 64

France 30 70

Germany 21 79

India 1 99

Italy 27 73

Japan b 36 64

Singapore 25 75

South Korea 5 95

Ukraine b 36 64

United States 15 85

Other Countries 0 100

a For China, Japan, and Ukraine, the more detailed inventory

- based estimate of emissions developed for this analysis yielded emission values greater than the total baseline projections for 2010. Hence, we defaulted back to percentages assumed for the previous report (36%).

b China, Japan

, and Ukraine percentages used are from EMF 21 MAC model (USEPA, 2006).



### Model Facility Description **for Nitric Acid**

While it is believed that there are roughly 500 to 600 nitric acid plants globally (Kollmuss and Lazarus, 2010), n o comprehensive inventory was available for nitric acid plants. Instead, we developed a series of 4 model nitric acid production units based on plant characteristics obtained from a detailed inventory of 67 nitric acid plants that varied in age and production processes

. We organize the model facilities based on production capacity

. All four facility types are assumed have an uncontrolled

6 Facilities located in Brazil, China, and South Korea.

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 12NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

emissions factor of 8.5 kg N 2 O pe r tHNO 3 produced 7 (IPCC, 2006). Table 1-5 summarizes the model facilities for nitric acid production by capacity and resulting annual N 2 O emissions.



### Table 1-5: Model Nitric Acid Facilities Assumptions

Model Plants Production (tHNO 3 

### /yr) Annual N 2 

### O Emissions (uncontrolled) (tN 2 

### O)

Small 30,600 261

Medium 113,333 968

Large 226,667 1,936

Modern plant 340,000 2,904



### Estimate Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Abatement measure costs and technical efficiencies were applied to each of the model facilities to

estimate the break

- even prices. Based on facility characteristics, we estimate the abatement project costs

and calculated the break

- even prices. Table 1-6 su mmarizes the break

- even price calculation for nitric and adipic acid production facilities.



### Table 1-6: Example Break

- Even Prices for N 2 

### O Abatement Measures

Annualized

Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 

### e) Reduced
Emissions (MtCO 2 

### e) Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Annual
Revenue ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 e) 

### Abatement Option

Adipic Acid Production

Thermal destruction 9.2 0.22 1.15 1.12 0.04 0.21

Nitric Acid Production

Secondary Abatement —

Catalytic decomposition in the
burner 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.86

Tertiary Abatement —

Tailgas catalytic decomposition 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.67

Tertiary Abatement —

NSCR unit 0.9 1.0 3.3 0.0 0.2 4. 19

Note: B reak

- even price assumes 10% discount rate and 40% tax rate.

T hermal destruction based on adipic acid production capacity of 75 kt yr -1 and nitric acid options based on 328kt HNO 3 yr -1 production capacity.



### IV.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potential of N 2 O emissions in nitric and adipic acid production is 78% of annual

emissions. The majority of abatement potential is associated with nitric acid production because of the high degree of abatement already occurring at adipic acid facilities. Table 1-7 and Figure 1-5 present the

MAC curve results for 2030 s howing a cumulative reduction potential of 111 MtCO 2 e.

7 The default emissions factor for the high pressure process is 9 kg N 2 O per ton of nitric acid; the default emissions factor for medium pressure processes is 7 kg N 2 O per ton of nitric acid produced.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 13

### Figure 1-5: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 5 10 15 20 25

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 30 Brazil

South Korea

China

Ukraine

United States NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



### Table 1-7: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Brazil — — — 2.8 7.6 8.5 8.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3

China — — — 2.6 4.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

South Korea — — — 4.6 12.4 13.9 13.9 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4

Ukraine — — — 3.0 4.8 4.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7

United States — — — 4.7 10.3 20.0 20.0 23.4 26.5 26.5 26.5

Rest of Region

Africa — — — 1.4 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7

Central and South America — — — 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Middle East — — — 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Europe — — — 4.3 12.2 16.4 18.9 20.8 23.2 23.2 23.2

Eurasia — — — 2.9 4.6 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1

Asia — — — 2.3 5.5 6.6 7.5 8.4 8.8 8.8 8.8

North America — — — 0.6 1.3 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1

World Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 66.3 90.8 95.1 109.6 115.8 115.8 115.8

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 14NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

A majority of abatement potential spans over 30 nitric acid

- producing countries, and only a small fraction of abatement potential associated with adipic acid production is limited to adipic acid plants in
China, Ukraine, and India. Total reduction potential is achieved at break

- even prices between $0 and
$50/tCO 2 e.



### IV.1.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

This analysis leverages new data from public sources to improve on the facility

- level detail used in developing abatement project costs. In addition, we have incorporated a comprehensive international inventory of current adipic acid production facilities. However, additional date and detail would improve our abatement potential estimates.

• Abatement technology utilization rates: Activ e CDM and Joint Implementation (JI) abatement projects in this sector have reported N 2 O reduction efficiencies and utilization rates significantly higher than the default assumptions provided by the IPCC.

• Technology applicability across various nitric acid production processes and better understanding of how cost for abatement measures would vary with each process.

• Improved estimates of regional changes in production over the next 20 to 30 years

. For example expected increases in Chinese adipic acid product ion capacity out to 2015, assuming no abatement measures are installed would have significant impacts on both emission projections and abatement potential in some countries.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 15NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION



## References

The Chemical Company (CC). 2010a. “ About Adipic Acid. ” Jamestown, RI: The Chemical Company

. The Chemical Company (CC). 2010b. “ Adipic Acid Overview. ” Jamestown, RI: The Chemical Company. Ecofys, Fraunhofer ISIR ( Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ) , and the Öko

- Institute. 2009. Methodology for the Free Allocation of Emission Allowances in the EU ETS Post 2012 (pp. 6

– 20, and 42

– 48). European Commission. Obtained at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/benchmarkin g/docs/ bm_study

- chemicals_en.pdf

. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories: Volume 3 Industrial Processes and Product Use. Obtained at: http://www.ipcc

nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_3_Ch3_Chemical_Industry.pdf

. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). 2011. Fertilizer Outlook 2011
– 2015

. 79th IF A Annual
Conference. Montreal (Canada), 23

- 25 May 2011

. Global Industry Analysts Inc. (GIA) 2011. Global Adipic Acid Market to Reach 5.5 Billion Pounds by 2015, According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. Obtained on March 11, 2011 at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/1/prweb8043623.htm

. Heffer, P., & Prud’homme, M. (2011). Fertilizer Outlook 2011

– 2015 . (A/11/69) Presented at the 79th IFA Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). Obtained on April 2, 2012 at: http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/LIBRARY/Publication

database.html/Fertilizer

- Outlook

- 2011

- 2015.html

. Kollmuss, A., and M. Lazarus. 2010. “ Industrial N 2 O Projects Under the CDM: The Case of Nitric Acid
Production ” (Working Pa per No. WP

- US

- 1007). Somerville, MA : Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Obtained at: http://www.sei

- international.org/mediamanager/documents/ Publications/Climate/sei

- nitricacid

- 9nov2010.pdf

. Mainhardt, H. and D. Kruger. 2000. “N 2 O Emissions from Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production. ” Good Practice and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Montreal:
Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme

. Obtained at: http://www.ipcc

- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_ 2_Adipic_Acid_Nitric_Acid_ Production.pdf

. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2004. SIDS Initial Assessment Report For SIAM 18 Adipic Acid . Paris, France. Obtained at: http://www.inchem.org/ documents/sids/sids/124049.pdf

. Pérez

- Ramírez, J., Kapteijn, F., Schöffel, K., & Moulijn, J. A. 2003. “Formation and control of N 2 O in nitric acid production: Wher e do we stand today?” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental , 44(2), 117

– 151. doi:10.1016/S0926

- 3373(03)00026

- 2.
Schmidt, D.V. and M. von Velsen

- Zerweck. 2010. “N 2 O emissions from nitric acid plants in CDM and JI projects.” Nitrogen+Syngas, 307

, 43

– 47.

Schnei der, L., M. Lazarus, and A. Kollmuss

. 201 0

. “ Industrial N 2 O Projects Under the CDM: Adipic
Acid

— A Case of Carbon Leakage? ” (Working Paper No. WP

- US

- 1006). Somerville, MA : Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Obtained at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0004/ unregistered/cdm_watch_2_en.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991

. Alternative Control Techniques Document

— Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants. EPA

- 450/3

- 91

- 026

. USEPA: Research Triangle Park, NC. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/nitric.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990

- 2009. USEPA: Washington DC. As obtained on March 15, 2011. Obtained at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. USEPA: Washington DC. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2projections.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGAT ION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 16NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012 b

. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990

- 2010. USEPA: Washington DC. As obtained on March 19, 2012. Obtained at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

. Zhao, D. November 7 , 2011

. “ China Adipic Acid Tumbles 36% on Weak Demand from PU Sector .”
Market news article from ICIS.com. Obtained March 28, 2012, at: http://www.icis.com/Articles/2011/11/07/ 9505810/ china

- adipic

- acid

- tumbles

- 36

- on

- weak

- demand

from

- pu

- sector.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 17

### Figure 2-1: HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and AC : 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800MtCO2e

157 349 733 1,596

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year Japan

Russia

South Korea

United States

China

ROW HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



# IV.2. HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

IV.2.1 Sector Summary 

# A number of hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs ) are used in refrigeration and air conditioning ( AC )

s ystems and are emitted to the atmosphere during equipment operation, repair, and disposal

, unless recovered, recycled and ultimately destroyed . The most common HFCs

include HFC

- 134a, R

- 404A, R

- 410A, R

- 407C, and R

- 507A. 1 In response to the o zone d epleting s ubstance ( ODS ) phaseout, equipment is being retrofitted or replaced to use HFC

- based substitutes or intermediate substitutes (e.g., h ydrochlorofluorocarbons [ HCFCs ] ) that will eventually need to be replaced by HFCs or

other non

- ozone

- depleting alternatives. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the refrigeration/AC sector (excluding chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) and HCFCs) were estimated at roughly 349 million metric

tons of carbon d ioxide equivalent (M t CO 2 e) in 2010. By 2020, emissions from this sector are expected to

reach 733 million Mt CO 2 e , as shown in Figure 2-1. A majority of the growth will result from increased use of HFCs in developing countries.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012.

This analysis reviews options to reduce emissions from the refrigeration/AC sector by using low

global warming potential ( GWP ) refrigerants, low

- emission technologies, and improved practices to properly recover refrigerant at equipment servicing and disposal.

1 R- 404A, R

- 410A, R

- 407C, and R

- 507A refrigerant blends are composed of HFCs. Specifically, R

- 404A is 44% by weight HFC

- 125, 52% HFC

- 143a , and 4% HFC

- 134a,. R

- 410A is 50% HFC

- 32 and 50% HFC

- 134a. R

- 407C is 23% HFC

32, 25% HFC

- 125, and 52% HFC

- 134a. R

- 507A (also called R

- 507) is 50% HFC

- 125 and 50% HFC

- 143a.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 19

### Figure 2-2: Global Abatement Potential in Refrigeration and AC : 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

Global abatement potential from refrigeration and AC in 2030 as evaluated in this analysis equates to approximately 70 % of total annual emiss ions from refrigeration and AC end

- uses and 28 % of total

emissions from ODS substitutes. In the near

- term, abatement opportunities within refrigeration and AC are partially limited because many of the abatement options identified apply o nly to newly manufactured equipment and are thus limited by the turnover rate of the existing refrigeration and AC stock. In
addition, this analysis does not explore new equipment abatement options for all refrigeration and AC equipment types, although such options may exist

. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve results are presented in Figure 2-2 . Maximum abatement potential of the options in the refrigeration and AC sector explored in this analysis is 540 MtCO 2 e in 2030. There are 317 MtCO 2 e of emission s reductions available

in 2030 that are cost

- effective at currently estimated prices.



## IV.2.2 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

HFC emissions from refrigeration/AC occur during equipment manufacturing ; as equipment is filled with coolant; during use, as a result of component failure, leaks, and purges; during servicing; and at the

time of dis posal, if the remaining refrigerant charge is not properly recovered. The use of refrigeration

and AC equipment also generates indirect emissions of GHGs (primarily carbon dioxide ) from the generation of power required to operate the equipment. HFC emissions can be reduced by adopting alternative technologies (that either reduce HFC leakage or substitute the refrigerant for a low/no GWP option) and by improving technician practices for equipment maintenance/servicing and disposal.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 20

### Figure 2-3: Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Application Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

Small Unitary AC,

31%

Large Unitary
AC, 2%

Window Units & Dehumidifiers, 1%

PTAC/PTHP, <1%

PD Chillers, <1% Centrifugal Chillers, 1% Large Retail Food,

31% Medium Retail Food, 2% Small Retail Food, <1% MVACs, 16% Refrigerated
Transport, 8% IPR, Cold
Storage, 6% Household Refrigerators, 1% HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

For the purpose of this analysis, the sector is characterized by s ix major end

- use types, presented in descending order of 2020 GWP

- weighted HFC emissions internationally (see Figure 2-3):

• residential and commercial AC

, including window units and dehumidifiers, large and small unitary

air conditioners (including both ducted and non

- ducte d split systems) , centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, and packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTAC/PTHP)

, used to regulate the temperature and reduce humidity in homes, apartment buildings, offices, hotels, shopping centers, and other large buildings, as well as in specialty applications such as ships, submarines, nuclear power plants, and ot her industrial applications ;

• retail food refrigeration , including small commercial refrigerators/freez ers ; medium

- sized condensing units found in convenience stores, restaurants, and other food service establishments; and large systems found in supermarkets;

• motor vehicle air

- conditioning (MVAC) used in cars, trucks, and buses;

• refrigerated transport , incl uding refrigerated vans/trucks, containers, ship holds, truck trailers, railway freight cars, and other shipping containers ;

• industr ial process refrigeration (IPR) and cold storage warehouses

, including complex refrigeration systems used in the food/bever age production, chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, metallurgical, and other industries as well as refrigeration systems used to cool meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods that are in storage ; and

• household refrigerat o rs and freezers used primarily in residential buildings

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 21HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

For the purpose of this analysis, the sector considers nine facilities and/or applications, as defined

below.

• MVAC system used in a typical passenger car ; for cost modeling purposes, this system is

characterized as having a charge size of 0.77 kg of R

- 134a

.

• L arge retail food refrigeration system used in a typical supermarket ( assumed 60,000 sq . ft. ) ; for cost modeling purposes, this facility is characterized as having a charge size of 1,633 kg of R

404A.

• S mall retail food equipment (e.g., stand

- alone systems) typically used in supermarkets and
convenience stores; f or cost modeling purposes, this equipment is characterized as having a charge size of 0.5 kg of 9 0% R- 134a and 1 0% R- 404A (based on the average HFC refrigerant types currently installed in the U.S. market)

.

• W indow AC unit or dehumidifier ; for cost modeling purposes, this unit is characterized as having a charge size of 0.4 kg of R

- 410A

.

• U nitary AC system or PTAC/PTHP ; for cost modeling purposes, this system is characterized as having a charge size of 8 kg of R

- 410A.

• P ositive displacement chiller (i.e., screw or scroll chiller); for cost modeling purposes, this equipment is characterized as having a charge size of 270 kg of 33% R- 410A, 33% R- 407C, and

33% R- 134a (based on the average HFC refrigerant types currently installed in the U.S. market)

.

• I PR/cold storage system ; 2 for cost modeling purposes, this system is characterized as having a charge size of 2,000 kg using 25% R- 507A, 25% R- 404 A

, 25% R- 134a, and 25% R- 410A (based on the average HFC refrigerant types currently installed in the U.S. market)

.

• Typ ical auto disposal yard using a recovery device to recover refrigerant from MVACs; for cost modeling purposes, this facility is characterized as recovering refrigerant from about 425 MVAC s per year (with an average of 0.13 kg of R

- 134a recoverable per MVAC ).

• Typical auto service shop using a recovery/recycling device to service MVACs ; for cost modeling purposes, this facility is characterized as recovering refrigerant from about 150 MVACs per year (with an average 0.29 kg of R

- 134a recoverable per MVAC)

. For modeling purposes, data typical for U.S. systems/ equipment are used. Certain cost assumptions, such as labor rates, energy prices and capital costs, are adjusted for other regions. 3 Otherwise, it is

assumed that the costs and reductions achieved in the U nited States can be scaled and are representative of the costs and reductions in other regions.



### IV.2.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

Refrigeration/AC consumption, which is estimated using US EPA’s Vintaging Model for the United States, is used to represent activity data. C onsumption is assumed to scale with country gross domestic product ( GDP ) . Regional differences are applied to other developed countries in the European Union

2 Abatement options for these types of equipment apply to only those fac ilities using HFCs. Many such facilities currently use ammonia and hence are not evaluated for further emission reductions in this analysis.

3 In developing countries, it is assumed that capital costs are 10% higher, fuel prices are 30% higher, electricity costs are 66% higher, and labor costs are 20% lower than those relative to the United States.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 22

### CAGR a 

### Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 45.8 82.7 151.2 328.8 534.1 13.1%

United States 114.0 162.1 213.9 282.5 316.7 5.2%

South Korea 17.0 24.5 35.7 61.1 79.7 8.0%

Russia 16.0 23.2 33.4 56.0 72.0 7.8%

Japan 30.9 38.7 48.0 62.0 66.7 3.9%

Rest of Regions

Africa 12.5 18.7 28.1 49.3 64.9 8.6%

Central and South America 16.2 23.4 34.3 59.5 78.2 8.2%

Middle East 13.3 19.8 29.6 52.3 69.9 8.6%

Europe 46.3 59.3 74.6 99.9 109.7 4.4%

Eurasia 2.0 2.9 4.2 7.0 9.0 7.9%

Asia 20.6 32.2 52.7 101.3 146.9 10.3%

North America 14.8 20.4 27.4 40.4 48.1 6.1%

World Total 349.3 507.9 733.1 1,199.9 1,596.1 7.9% HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

(EU) to reflect higher consumption of low

- GWP refrige rants in new passenger MVAC systems, domestic refrigerators, and large supermarket systems. For example, HCs have begun to penetrate the EU market

in vending machines and other small retail food equipment (e.g., reach

- in cases)

. A djustments were also

made to account for differences in the rates of ODS phaseout relative to the U.S. substitution scenarios.



### IV.2.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global emissions from refrigeration/AC were estimated at 349 M t CO 2 in 2010, p rojected to grow to

733 M t CO 2 by 2020 and 1,5 96 Mt CO 2 by 2030. Table 2-1 presents the projected emissions from refrigeration/AC between 2010 and 2030. Growth in emissions is driven largely by GDP. Globally, HFC emissions from refrigeration/AC have been gro wing also because of the phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol. Growth has also been driven by increased demand for air conditioning equipment

, especially in emerging economies. Because of regulations associated with HFC

- based refrigerants and/ or growing public pressure to transition away from such refrigerants, many developed countries have transitioned/are transitioning from ODS to natural refrigerants or other low

- GWP alternatives in some

end

- uses

. More detail on how HFC consumption and reduc tion potential of options are modeled is contained in Appendix D to this chapter

. 

### Table 2-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Refrigeration and AC : 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 201 2.



## IV.2.3 Abatement Measure s and Engineering Cost Analysis

For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing HFC emissions from the refrigeration/AC sector, this analysis considers reduction costs for applying 1 4 new technologies and using three types of improved technician practices. Table 2-2 summarizes the technology and practice options reviewed and

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 23HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

the types of equipment that are assumed to adopt such options, and the associated system type definitions (i.e., the equipment characteristics assumed in order to develop the option costs).



### Table 2-2: Refrigeration and AC Abatement Options

Reduction Abatement Option Efficiency Applicability

Enhanced HFC

- 134a in MVACs 50% New MVACs in light

- duty vehicles

HFO

- 1234yf in MVACs 99.7% New MVACs in light

- duty vehicles

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf in MVACs 99. 8% New MVACs in light

- duty vehicles
Distributed systems in large retail food 80% New large retail food refrigeration systems
HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems in large retail food 94.6 % New large retail food refrigeration systems

NH 3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems in large retail food 100% New large retail food refrigeration systems

CO 2 Transcritical systems in large retail food 100% New large retail food refrigeration systems

Retrofit s of R

- 404A systems in large retail food 46% Existing large retail food refrigeration systems
HCs in small retail food systems 100 % New small retail food refrigeration systems

HC in window units and dehumidifiers 100 % New window AC units and dehumidifiers

R

- 32 in unitary AC and PTAC/PTHP 75% New unitary AC equipment and PTAC/PTHP
MCHX in small and medium AC systems 37.5% New unitary AC equipment

R

- 32 with MCHX in unitary AC 84.5% New unitary AC equipment
MCHX in large AC systems 37.5% New positive displacement chillers

NH 3 or CO 2 in large refrigeration systems 100% New IPR and cold storage systems
Refrigerant recovery at disposal 85% All existing refrigeration/AC reaching disposal
Refrigerant recovery at servicing 95% All small equipment (i.e., MVACs, small unitary AC)

Leak repair 40% All existing large equipment (i.e., large retail food, IPR, cold storage, and chillers)

A number of these technology options have already begun penetrating certain markets, particularly in the EU, Japan, and several other developed countries. For example, using HCs in small retail food equipment is increasingly common for new equipment sold i n the EU and Japanese markets. Likewise, use of alternative refrigerants in passenger MVAC systems has begun in the EU in response to Directive 2006/40/EC (the MAC Directive), which requires replacing HFC

- 134a with a refrigerant having a GWP of

less than 1 50 in new model vehicles beginning in 2011 and in all new vehicles by 2017. 4 Alternative refrigerants are also increasingly being used in large supermarkets across Northern Europe and to a smaller extent in the United States, Canada, Australia, and other developed countries

. The options of increased refrigerant recovery at service and disposal, as well as more rigorous leak repair for large

4 Due to supply problems of the refrigerant originally chosen by the MVAC industry (i.e., HFO

- 1234yf), the EU granted a 2

- year dispensation to the auto industry. Additionally, some automobile OEMs have recently announced that they plan to continue to use HF C- 134a refrigerant while they further investigate low

- GWP options (EurActiv, 2013). Other OEMs have stated that they have not changed their plans to introduce HFO

- 1234yf and in fact some of these systems are already in operation today ( RAC Magazine , 2013).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 24HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

equipment, can bring significant emission savings, especially in developing countries, where they are less likely to b e practiced in the baseline.

Each of the abatement options is described further in the sections below. Additional options considered but not yet included in the analysis are described in Sections IV.2 .2.18 through IV.2 .2.20

. Several other options, not men tioned below, are also potentially available but have not been included in this analysis. All costs are presented in 2010 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011).



### IV.2.3.1 Enhanced HFC

- 134a in New MVACs

This option reduces annual leak rates of HFC

- 134a MVAC systems by 50% through better system components, including improved system sealing, lower permeation hoses, improved fittings, and higher
evaporator temperatures ( USEPA and NHTSA, 2011 ). Enhanced HFC -1 34a systems are additionally assumed to reduce fuel consumption by an estimated 42 % through improved component efficiency, improved refrigerant cycle controls, and reduced reheat of the cooled air ( USEPA and NHTSA, 2011 ).

This option is applicable to a newly manufactured MVAC system in light duty vehicle s 5 in all countries except the EU, where it is assumed to penetrate in the baseline. The o ne

- time cost is estimated at roughly $ 73 per MVAC system

— assumed to be 10% greater in developing countries

. These co sts are offset by annual savings that result from reduced fuel and refrigerant consumption (a combined savings

of approximately $38 per system). In developing countries, fuel prices are assumed to be 30% greater, resulting in a combined savings of approximately $ 48 per system.



### IV.2.3.2 HFO

- 1234yf in New MVACs

HFO

- 1234yf has a GWP of only four and performs similarly to HFC

- 134a, making the use of c urrent
MVAC system designs with minimal changes feasible. HFO

- 1234yf is, however, slightly flammable (designated 2L flammability in Addendum h to ANSI

- ASHRAE Standard 34

- 2010 ) , which may necessitate certain safety mitigation strategies. This option has alr eady begun penetrating the EU and U.S.

market s in a couple models ( Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine , 2013)

. This option is assumed to

be as efficient as conventional HFC

- 134a MVAC systems ( Oko

- Recherche et al.

, 2011 ; Koban

, 2009 ).

This option is applicable to a newly manufactured MVAC system in a light

- duty vehicle in all countries except the EU, where it is assumed to penetrate the baseline market. The o ne

- time capital cost is

estimated at approximately $ 59 per MVAC system , resulti ng from incremental refrigerant costs and hardware changes the latter of which is assumed to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annual costs

are assumed to be approximately $ 8 per system associated with incremental refrigerant replacement

costs

.



### IV.2.3.3 Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf in New MVACs

As a newly developed technology, HFO

- 1234yf MVAC systems may cost more than those currently containing HFC

- 134a. Further, a lower global production of the chemical, combined with the additional processes needed to prod uce it, is expected to lead to an initially high price for the chemical, but this may decrease as production increases. Similar to the Enhanced HFC

- 134a option, this option explores HFO

5 This category includes cars

, pick

- up trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 25HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

1234yf for use in new MVAC systems using improved system components to allow for 50% reduced refrigerant leakage and efficiency improvements of 42%

. This option is applied to a newly manufactured MVAC system in light

- duty vehicles in all countries.

The one

- time cost is estimated at roughly $ 10 0 per MVAC system, resulting from incremental refrigerant

costs and better system components

— the latter of which is assumed to be 10% greater in developing

countries . Th e assumed incremental cost of the refrigerant is lower for this option than the original HFO

1234y f option on the basis that, over time with mass production of the chemical and systems to use it, the price will drop. Given this as well as the assumed lower leak rate of this option, a nnual costs are assumed

to be only approximately $2 per MVAC system

. T hese costs are offset by annual savings that result from reduced fuel consumption, equaling roughly $37 per system. In developing countries, fuel prices are assumed to be 30% greater, resulting in a savings of almost $48 per system.



### IV.2.3.4 Distributed Sy stems in New Large Retail Food

A distributed system consists of multiple compressors that are distributed throughout a retail food store (e.g., a supermarket), near the display cases they serve, and are connected by a water loop to a chiller or other type of equipment that rejects heat (e.g., a cooling tower) that is located on the roof or elsewhere outside the store. Because distributed systems have smaller refrigeration units distributed among the refrigerated and frozen food display cases, refrigerant charges for distributed systems can be smaller than the refrigerant charge used in a comparable traditional centralized direct expansion (DX)
system. The reduction in original charge size of the system will reduce HFC consumption (at first fill) and reduce potential emissions at the end of the equipment ’s life. Additionally, because of the placement of the units, a distributed system can require less re frigerant tubing and fittings than DX systems, thereby reducing total HFC leaks during the useful lifetime of the equipment to an estimated 80% relative to conventional systems. However, distributed systems are estimated to be 5% less efficient than

conven tional HFC centralized DX systems ( IPCC

, 2005). This technology is already being implemented today in many developed countries.

This abatement option is applied to a newly manufactured large retail food system in a large supermarket. In developed countrie s, o ne

- time costs are estimated to be 5% more expensive than conventional HFC centralized DX systems (IPCC, 2005), equivalent to an incremental cost of about $ 9,100 per supermarket; these costs are estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annua l costs are

estimated at nearly $3, 700 per supermarket in developed countries due to higher electricity consumption; these annual electricity costs are estimated to be 6 6 % greater in develop ing countries. At the same time, annual refrigerant savings (due t o reduced leakage) are realized, totaling nearly $ 1, 800 per supermarket.



### IV.2.3.5 HFC Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large Retail Food

Secondary loop systems use two fluids : a primary refrigerant and a secondary fluid. The secondary fluid is cooled by the primary refrigerant in the machine room and then pumped throughout the store to remove heat from the display equipment. In supermarkets, secondary loop systems are also somet imes used in combination with a cascade system. Cascade designs consist of two independent refrigeration systems that share a common cascade heat exchanger. The heat exchanger acts as the low temperature refrigerant condenser and serves as the high temperature refrigerant evaporator . Each component of a

cascade design uses a different refrigerant that is most suitable for the given temperature range

, with CO 2 commonly used in the low temperature circuit and an HFC used as the refrigerant at the medium
tempe rature phase (RTOC

, 2011). Because the HFC refrigerant is contained in the machine room in a secondary loop system and is not required for use in the low temperature circuit of a cascade design

, these systems require a significantly lower refrigerant charg e and have lower leakage rates, resulting in

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 26HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

approximately 90 % less annual leakage

. While historically these systems were less efficient than conventional DX systems, today these systems are found to be just as efficient as conventional DX
systems, if not more so, due to simplified piping, newly designed circulating pumps, and fewer
components (Wang et al., 2010; DelVentura , et al.

, 2007; SuperValu, 2012; WalMart

, 2006; Hinde, Zha, and

Lan , 2009).

This abatement option is applied to a newly manufactured large retail food system in a large supermarket. The o ne

- time cost in developed countries is estimated to be 17.5 % more expensive than conventional DX systems (IPCC, 2005), equivalent to an increment al cost of nearly $ 32,000 per supermarket; this capital cost is estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annual savings

associated with reduced refrigerant leakage are estimated to equal almost $ 2,000 per supermarket. These systems are assumed to be equally as efficient as DX systems, so no costs or savings are associated with annual energy consumption.



### IV.2.3.6 NH 3 

### or HC s Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large Retail
Food

Similar to the HFC secondary l oop and/or cascade option, in this system a secondary fluid is cooled by a primary refrigerant in the machine room and then pumped throughout the store to remove heat from the display equipment. In some cases, the secondary loop system is also used in combination with a cascade design, which does not rely on any HFCs in the low temperature circuit. F or this abatement option

, the primary refrigerant is assumed to be ammonia (NH 3 ) or HCs , which have a GWP that is negligible

. Ammonia is not used in conventional supermarket refrigeration sy stems because such a system could expose consumers to toxic and slightly flammable refrigerant. Similarly, HCs are not used due to their high flammability. However, using a secondary loop allows the primary refrigerant to be

isolated to a mechanical room w ith controlled access to only those with specific training. Because ammonia/HC secondary loop systems avoid running the primary refrigerant through miles of piping to and from food storage cases, they have lower leakage rates than conventional DX systems and operate at reduced charges. In addition, these systems are conservatively assumed to be 5% more energy efficient

than conventional DX systems, with some supermarkets reporting actual efficiency gains of 0.5 % to 35% (Wang et al., 2010; SuperValu , 2012 ; H ydrocarbonconversions.com, 2011 ).

This abatement option is applied to a newly manufactured large retail food system in a large supermarket. The o ne

- time cost in developed countries is estimated to be 25% greater than conventional DX systems (IPCC, 2005), equivalent to an incremental cost of roughly $4 5, 600 per supermarket; this capital cost is estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annual savings are estimated at roughly $ 5,900 due to both reduced energy consumption and refrigerant savings (due to avoided HFC refrigerant leaks)

. In developing countries, where electricity rates are a ssumed to be higher, annual savings are assumed to total more than $8,300.



### IV.2.3.7 CO 2 

### Transcritical Systems in New Large Retail Food

This option eliminates the use of HFCs in large retail food refrigeration systems through the use of

CO 2 as the primary refrigerant in a transcritical cycle

. CO 2 transcritical systems are similar to traditional

ce ntralized DX designs but must operate at high pressures to accommodate the low critical temperature

of CO 2 (GT Z Proklima

, 2008). As a result, special controls and component specifications must be incorporated into the system design, which often result in h igher upfront costs ( USEIA , 2012)

. Additionally, CO 2 transcritical systems operate most efficiently in cooler climates

, performing an

estimated 5% to 10% more efficiently than D X systems using an HFC refrigerant in regions with an average annual temperature below 50 °F ( Supermarket News , 2012)

. At the same time, due to a possible

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 27HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

energy penalty, the use of CO 2 transcritical systems in warmer climates is currently considered less

viable. Specifically, use of these sys tems is most widely accepted in areas where the maximum ambient
temperature is frequently below 88 °F ( ACHR News , 2010) , or where the average annual temperature is

lower than 59 °F ( Hill PHOENIX, 2012 ). Today, i t is estimated that over 1,300 CO 2 transcritical systems are currently in operation in Europe with installations as fa r south as Italy and Spain in addition to a handful of systems that have been installed in Canada (Shecco

, 2012). Plans are also currently underway to deploy the technology in supermarkets in the United States.

This abatement option is assumed to be applied to a newly manufactured large retail food system in large supermarket s in cooler climates

. One

- time costs in developed countries are estimated to be 17.5 % more expensive than conventional HFC centralized DX systems ( Australian Green Cooling Council

, 2008 ;
R 744.com, 2012 ), equivalent to an incremental cost of nearly $32, 000 per supermarket; these capital costs are estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annual savings are estimated at about $5,900 per supermarket, which result from both refrigerant savings (due to avoided HFC refrigerant leak s) that total approximately $2, 200 per supermarket , and energy savings (due to increased efficiency) , which total approximately $ 3,700 per supermarket

. In developing countries, where electricity rates are assumed to be higher, annual savings are assumed to total more than $8,300.



### IV.2.3.8 R etrofits of R- 404 A in L arge R etail F ood

Retail food refrigeration syste ms containing R

- 404A, which have high charge sizes and annual leak

rate s , can be retrofitted with lower

- GWP refrigerants, such as R

- 407A (with a GWP of 1,770), to reduce their annual climate impact. While some system retrofits will require little to no cha nge to achieve the desired operational characteristics, others may need additional modifications, such as changing the orifice or TXV size to achieve the same efficiency. If proper system evaluation is performed and

considerations are taken to ensure the c ontinued reliability of the system, retrofitting can lead to system improvements as a result of recommissioning the equipment (e.g., due to properly setting up controls and system operating valves, which may have wandered from set

- point due to lack of main tenance) ( ACHR News , 2012). However, because such changes may have occurred during remodeling, when the refrigerant retrofit is assumed to occur, no change in energy efficiency due to the new refrigerant is

assumed.

To perform a system retrofit, the entir e system must be shut down and checks should be made for

leaks throughout the system

. S olenoid sealings must then be changed as well as the filter driers. After the entire system is evacuated, the replacement fluid is deposited into the system.

For cost m odeling purposes, it is assumed that retrofits are performed on large retail food systems at

about half

- way through its useful lifetime (i.e., 7 years) at the same time retrofits or remodeling of cases are underway. The original R

- 404A charge size of 1,633 kg is assumed to be replaced with an equivalent

amount of R

- 407A. The procedure is assumed to require 10 hours of a service technician’s time (5 hours for the medium temperature system and 5 hours for the low temperature system), all of which is assumed to cost a total of roughly $500 in developed countries and $100 in developing countries (based on technician labor rates) . Since the composition of R

- 404A and R

- 407A are similar, the cost of the refrigerant
is assumed to be the same. Therefore, no annual c osts or savings are assumed for this option.



### IV.2.3.9 HCs in New Small Retail Food Refrigeration Systems

For small retail food equipment, this option explores the replacement of HFC

- 134a and R

- 404A with

HCs . H Cs , such as butane and pr opane, have negligible GWPs

. Although safety issues associated with

HC use in small equipment previously presented a barrier to their use, these issues can be addressed, making them a viable alternative to HFCs. International standards exist to evaluate and mitigate such

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 28HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

safety issues. For example, although R- 290 (propane) is flammable, it has been successfully implemented

in some self

- contained hermetic systems.

This option is applied to a newly manufactured small retail food refrigeration system (e.g., stand

alone equipment). No one

- time costs are estimated because this option is cost neutral (Unilever, 2008). An

an nual savings of less than $1 per system is estimated to result from avoided HFC refrigerant costs.



### IV.2.3.10 HC s in New Window AC and Dehumidifiers

R- 410A is widel y used in window AC units and dehumidifiers, brought about by regulations phasing

out HCFC

- 22, which was previously used . By replacing R- 410A with HCs

, such as propane (R

- 290),

which is assumed to have a negligible GWP , significant emissions can be avoided. Two Chinese AC manufacturers have already commercialized room AC units using R

- 290. The R

- 290 AC designs achieve lower refrigerant charge sizes than is currently required by international standard (IEC 60335 -2- 240) and include additional safety fe atures, such as a special compressor design and refrigerant leak alarm system. Mass production of the R

- 290 units started in 2009, for initial sale in Europe a nd China (GTZ

- Proklima, 2009).

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to newly manufa ctured window AC units and dehumidifiers. This option is conservatively assumed to have no one

- time costs even though there is

indication that R- 290 AC units can be produced more cheaply than R

- 410A units as a result of the better heat transfer properties and lower pressure drop of R

- 290, which allows for the use of narrower tubes in the condenser and evaporator (GTZ

- Proklima

, 2009). Annual savings are estimated based on the reduced cost of HC refrigerant replacement compared with R

- 410A

— estimated to result in a savings of approximately $0.33 per unit.



### IV.2.3.11 R- 32 in New Unitary AC Equipment and PTAC/PTHP

In this option, R- 32, 6 a mildly flammable (category 2L in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34

- 2010) refrigerant with a GWP of 650, is used in new unitary AC equipm ent and PTAC/PTHP to replace R- 410A,

which has a GWP of 1,725 . R- 32 performs with a reduced charge volume ratio of 66 % compared to

R- 410A ( Xu et al., 201 2) . This reduced charge volume results in a 75 % reduction of the direct global warming impact compared to the R- 410A system. It is also reportedly 2% to 3% more energy efficient

than R

- 410A ( Pham and Sachs, 2010 ). The equipment used also has the potenti al to be downsized by up
to 15%, which can decrease one

- time costs by reducing the amount of materials used . R- 32 AC product s are already available in Japan and are to be launched in India in February 2013 ( Daikin, 2012; Stanga, 2012)

. Manufacturers in Algeria, China, Thailand, and Indonesia also plan to transition to R

- 32 AC
systems (Stanga

, 2012)

. For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly manufactured unitary AC system (e.g., residential, small commercial and large commercial unitary AC) and PTAC/PTHP

. The option is conservatively assumed to result in a one

- time cost savings of approximately $ 30 per system, due to the reduced quantity of refrigerant required and lower cost of the alternative refrigerant. A dditional savings may be realized through reduced material costs; however, there may also be costs associated with

6 R- 32 is chosen here due to the availability of data. Other options are under development or being applied. For example, both Godrej in India and Gree in China are producing units with HC refrigerants (Godrej, 2012; Gree, 2012).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 29HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

designing a system to use a mildly flammable refrigerant

. Annual savings are associated with reduced refrigerant replacement costs

, estimated at approximately $ 2 .6 per system. Annual energy savi ngs are also likely to be associated with this option but are not quantified in this analysis.



### IV.2.3.12 MCHX in New Unitary AC Equipment

This option explores the use of m icrochannel heat exchangers ( MCHX ) in unitary AC equipment using R

- 410A. MCHX s are a modification of conventional heat exchangers, which transfer heat in AC and refrigeration systems (e.g., for the rejection of heat from indoor cooled spaces to the outside ambient space). Because MCHX s transfer heat through a series of small tubes instead of a single or multiple large

diameter tubes, systems using them require between 35 % and 40% less refrigerant to operate than those using conventional heat exchangers. Likewise, if average leak rates remain the same, 7 the actual amount of refrigerant emitted would be less. In addition, MCHX systems perform better and are more energy efficient than conventional systems. They also require smaller components, which results in reduced quantities of metals and other materials required per unit , although potential savings in material costs are not analyzed here . MCHX s are already used widely by multiple manufacturers in the automotive industry and in certain models of screw and scroll chillers.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly manufactured unitary AC system (e.g.,
residential, small commercial

, and large commercial unitary AC). One

- time savings equal to roughly $27 are assumed due to the smaller refrigerant charge. No annual costs are assumed for this option. The

a nnual savings associated with avoided refrigerant losses is estimated at approximately $ 2.30 per system.



### IV.2.3.13 R- 32 with MCHX in New Unitary AC Equipment

Similar to the option described above, t his option explores the use of MCHX in unitary AC equipment but with R

- 32 refrigerant (with a GWP of 650) in place of R

- 410A (with a GWP of 1,725). The

use of the MCHX results in a refrigerant charge reduction of between 35 % and 40% compared with conventional heat exchangers, while the use of R

- 32 refrigerant allo ws a further charge size reduction of 66% compared with R- 410A . Combined, the reduced charge volume and GWP lead to a lower global warming impact of approximately 85%

. For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly manufactured unitary AC s ystem (e.g.,
residential, small commercial

, and large commercial unitary AC). One

- time savings equal to roughly $46

are assumed as a result of the smaller refrigerant charge and lower cost of the alternative refrigerant. No annual costs are assumed for this option. The a nnual savings associated with avoided refrigerant losses is estimated at approximately $ 3.90 per system.



### IV.2.3.14 MCHX in New Positive Displacement Chillers

This option is assumed to be applicable in screw and scroll chillers. As explained above, MCHX s are a modification of conventional heat exchangers, which transfer heat in AC and refrigeration systems (e.g., for the rejection of heat from indoor cooled spaces to the outside ambient space). Because MCHX s transfer heat through a series of s mall tubes instead of a single or multiple large

- diameter tubes, systems

7 For example, if average leak rates are dominated by failures or service errors that lead to a catastrophic (100%) loss, and the MCHX system has the same reliability, then average leak rates would be the same.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 30HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

using them require between 35 % and 40 % less refrigerant than those using conventional heat exchangers. In addition, MCHX systems perform better and may be more energy efficient than c onventional systems.

MCHX s are already used widely by multiple manufacturers in the automotive industry and in certain

models of screw and scroll chillers.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly manufactured positive displacement

ch iller. One

- time savings equal to nearly $900 are assumed due to the smaller refrigerant charge. No annual costs are assumed for this option. The a nnual savings associated with avoided refrigerant losses is

estimated at approximately $ 50 per chiller.



### IV.2. 3.15 NH 3 

### or CO 2 

### in New IPR and Cold Storage Systems

This abatement option is assumed to be applicable to cold storage and industrial process refrigeration
systems. Although NH 3 refrigeration systems are already common in refrigerated spaces over 200,000 sq

. ft., additional penetration of NH 3 systems is possible in facilities that are less than 200,000 sq. ft. but greater than 50,000 sq. ft. In addition, modern NH 3 absorption refrigeration units are compact, lightweight, efficient, economical, and safe

, which has made more applications possible. Improved technologies have also expanded the technical feasibility of using CO 2 systems. CO 2 systems are being

used in low

- temperature refrigeration (

− 30 ° C to

− 56 ° C), while ammonia / CO 2 systems can be used for high er temperature refrigeration (

− 35 ° C to

− 54 ° C). The lower temperature for both systems is limited primarily by the −56° C triple point of CO 2 being used on the low side. The choice between these systems is primarily due to outdoor temperatures ; in colder cli mates, a CO 2 system is both energy efficient and simpler, while in hotter climates a cascade system may be needed to maintain energy efficiency. In Europe and the United States, storage and production facilities have been built with ammonia / CO 2 cascade sys tems. These systems are estimated to be 2 % to 20% more energy efficient compared with their HFC counterparts (Goosef f and Horton, 2008).

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly constructed IPR/cold storage refrigeration system/facility. The i ncremental one

- time cost is estimated at approximately $2 10 ,7 00 per system in developed countries (Gooseff and Horton

, 2008) , ass umed to be 10% more in developing

countries. The a nnual savings of approximately $ 50, 300 per system is associated with lower refrigerant replacement costs and reduced energy consumption of 11%; annual electricity cost savings are assumed

to be 6 6 % greater for developing countries, resulting in annual savings of approximately $ 83,100

.



### IV.2.3.16 Refrigerant Recovery at Disposal for All Existing Equipment Types

Some level of refrigerant recovery at equipment disposal already occurs in the baseline of develope d and developing countries, because it is illegal to vent HFCs when equipment is discarded in the U.S. and

elsewhere

. However, this option explores more widespread, thorough efforts to recover refrigerant at disposal across all equipment types. The approac h involves using a refrigerant recovery device that transfers refrigerant into an external storage container prior to disposal of the equipment. Once the

recovery process is complete, the refrigerant contained in the storage container may be cleaned by usi ng

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 31HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

recycling devices, sent to a reclamation facility to be purified, 8 or destroyed using approved technologies (e.g., incineration).

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to an auto dismantling facility assumed to use a single refrigerant recovery device that meet s SAE J2788 standards to perform MVAC recovery jobs. The

i ncremental one

- time cost is estimated at approximately $2, 0 25 per facility for the purchase of a refrigerant recovery device in developed countries (ICF, 2008); this cost is estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. Annual costs are estimated at roughly $1 ,100 per auto dismantling facility for

tech nician labor time and the purchase of new filters for the recovery device (ICF, 2008). In developing
countries, technician labor costs are assumed to be one

- fifth the cost of that in developed countries;
therefore, annual costs are assumed to be about $ 2 40

. The a nnual savings is estimated at about $ 44 0 per auto dismantling facility, based on the value of the recovered refrigerant for reclamation/reuse.



### IV.2.3.17 Refrigerant Recovery at Servicing for Existing Small Equipment

Similar to disposal recovery, this option assumes more widespread and thorough refrigerant recovery practices while servicing HFC refrigeration/AC systems. Because it is assumed that significant refrigerant is already recovered during servicing of large equipment, this abatement option is only applied to MVAC and small unitary AC systems.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a U.S. auto servicing facility assumed to perform MVAC servicing jobs using a recovery /recycling (recharge) device designed to meet the SAE
J2788 s tandard

. The i ncremental one

- time cost is estimated at approximately $4, 050 per servicing facility for the purchase of a refrigerant recovery device in developed countries (ICF, 2008); this cost is estimated to be 10% greater in developing countries. The a nnual cost is estimated at roughly $ 8 70 per auto servicing facility in developed countries for technician labor time and the purchase of new filters for the recovery device (ICF, 2008); in developing countries, technician labor costs are assumed to be one

- fifth the cost of that in developed countries; therefore, the annual cost is assumed to be nearly $ 194

. The a nnual savings is

estimated at roughly $ 350 per auto servicing facility, based on the value of the recovered refrigerant for
reclamation/reuse.



### IV. 2.3.18 Leak Repair for Existing Large Equipment

T his abatement option is assumed to be applicable to large retail food, cold storage and industrial refrigeration, and positive displacement chiller systems

. Some level of leak repair activity is already

pra cticed in the baseline, but this option explores additional efforts to repair leaks.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to large supermarkets requiring significant small repairs (e.g., maintenance of the purge system or replacement of a ga sket or О

- ring). A one

- time cost of approximately $1,87 0 is estimated per supermarket for parts and labor needed to perform the repair in developed countries ( US EPA, 1998); in developing countries, this cost is estimated to be 10% greater. The

a nnual savings associated with avoided refrigerant replacement is estimated at $ 1,470 per supermarket.

8 Recycling cleans and reclamation purifies recovered refrigerant; reclamation is more thorough and involves repeated precision distillation, filtering, and contaminant removal. Recycling is used for on

- site servicing of MVACs and other equipment, whereas reclamation requires sending the refrigerant off

- site to a reclaimer.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 32HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### IV.2.3.19 HCs in New Domestic Refrigeration Systems

HFC

- 134a may be replaced with HCs in household refrigerators. HCs, such as butane and propane, have very lo w GWPs of 4.0 and 3.3, respectively. The main disadvantage of HCs is that they are
flammable, but engineering design changes and safety features in manufacturing plants have been successfully implemented to overcome these challenges . In 2009, roughly 40% o f new household refrigerators/freezers produced globally contained HCs, with more than 400 million HC units in use worldwide (Greenpeace, 2009). T his option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis but will be considered for future updates

.



### IV.2.3.2 0 CO 2 

### in Transport Refrigeration

CO 2 is currently being used in trucks in cryogenic (open

- loop) systems and is also viable for use in refrigerated ships and intermodal containers using a compressor system ( Carrier, 2013 ; Environmental

Leader , 2010) . However, more sophisticated refrigeration cycles are needed for CO 2 systems to match the efficiency of equivalent HFC units under high ambient temperature operation. The cycle operation is

often transcritical , which results in compressor discharge pressures up to five times higher than conventional HFC systems. Therefore, entirely new parts, design approaches, test procedures, service training, etc. are needed to design, build and operate a trans

- critical CO 2 system (TEAP

, 201 1 ). Due to a lack of readily available cost information on this alternative, this option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis.



### IV.2.3.21 Low

- GWP Refrigerants and Blends

Significant research and development (R&D) efforts are underway to identify feasible alternatives for high

- GWP HFC refrigerants in multiple subsectors. For instance, the U.S. EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program has found

- 1233zd(E) (also called t rans -1- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop

1- ene ) and HFO

- 1234ze(E) acceptable for use in chillers, used mai nly for comfort AC in large residential and commercial buildings, including facilities with data processing and communication centers. Potential

alternatives in numerous refrigeration and AC uses include ammonia, hydrocarbons, CO 2 , water, HFC

32, and new l ow

- GWP refrigerants such as HFO

- 1234yf

, HFO

- 1234ze,

- 1233zd(E), and blends containing

HFOs

. The Air

- Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) launched the Low

- GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation Program to evaluate low

- GWP alternatives t o HCFC

- 22, HFC

- 134a,

R- 404A, R

- 407C, and R

- 410A in various product types (AHRI, 2013). Some 40 chemicals were identified, including refrigerants or blends with no, low

, and high flammability. The GWPs of these products also
varied, from zero to about 1

, 300 . Some of these blends are under intense development and testing and are most commonly known by trade names

, including DR

- 5, DR

- 7, DR

- 33, L

- 20, L

- 40, L

- 41, N

- 13, N

- 40

, and

XP

- 10. Because of a lack of readily available cost information on this alternative, th ese option s are not quantitatively assessed in this analysis.



## IV.2.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Table 2-3 presents the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all
cost parameters.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 33HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis Capital Project Cost Annual Annual Abatement
Lifetime (2010 Revenue O&M Costs Amount Abatement Option/Facility Type (years) USD) (2010 USD) (2010 USD) (tCO 2 

### e) a

Enhanced HFC

- 134a

MVAC

— U.S./Other Developed , New 12.0 73.2 37.9 — 0.1

MVAC

— EU, New 12.0 73.2 37.9 — 0.1

MVAC

— Developing , New 12.0 80.5 48.1 — 0.1

HFO

- 1234yf

MVAC

— U.S./Other Developed , New 12.0 59.1 — 7.9 0.2

MVAC

— EU, New 12.0 59.1 — 7.9 0.2

MVAC

— Developing , New 12.0 60.4 — 7.9 0.2

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf

MVAC

— U.S./Other Developed , New 12.0 101.7 37.4 2.0 0.2

MVAC

— EU, New 12.0 101.7 37.4 2.0 0.2

MVAC

— Developing , New 12.0 109.0 47.5 2.0 0.2

Distributed Systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , New 15.0 9,117.3 1,763.7 3,684.0 656.6
Large Retail Food

— EU, New 15.0 9,117.3 1,763.7 3,684.0 656.6
Large Retail Food

— Developing , New 15.0 10,029.1 1,763.7 6,139.3 656.6

HFC Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , New 15.0 31,910.6 1,984.1 — 784.9
Large Retail Food

— EU, New 15.0 31,910.6 1,984.1 — 784.9
Large Retail Food

— Developing , New 15.0 35,101.7 1,984.1 — 784.9

NH 3 or HC Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , New 15.0 45,586.6 5,888.6 — 834.0
Large Retail Food

— EU, New 15.0 45,586.6 5,888.6 — 834.0
Large Retail Food

— Developing , New 15.0 50,145.3 8,343.9 — 834.0

CO 2 Transcritical Systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , New 15.0 31,910.6 5,888.6 — 834.0
Large Retail Food

— EU, New 15.0 31,910.6 5,888.6 — 834.0
Large Retail Food

— Developing , New 15.0 35,101.7 8,343.9 — 834.0

Retrofits of R

- 404A

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , Existing 8.0 500.0 — — 417.1
Large Retail Food

— EU, Existing 8.0 500.0 — — 417.1
Large Retail Food

— Developing , Existing 8.0 100.0 — — 417.1

HCs

Small Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , New 20.0 — 0.3 — 0.1

Small Retail Food

— EU, New 20.0 — 0.3 — 0.1

Small Retail Food

— Developing , New 20.0 — 0.3 — 0.1
(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 34HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2- 3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis (continued) Capital

C os t (2010 USD) Project
Lifetime (years) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M Costs (2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 

### e) a 

### Abatement Option/Facility Type

HCs

Window Units / Dehumidifiers

— U.S./Other Developed

, New 11.5 — 0.3 — 0.1

Window Units / Dehumidifiers

— EU, New 11.5 — 0.3 — 0.1

Window Units / Dehumidifiers

— Developing , New 11.5 — 0.3 — 0.1

R

- 32

Unitary AC and PTAC/PTHP

— Developed , New 15.0

− 29.8 2.6 — 1.2
Unitary AC and PTAC/PTHP

— Developing , New 15.0

− 29.8 2.6 — 1.2

MCHX

Unitary AC

— Developed , New 15.0

− 27.0 2.3 — 0.8
Unitary AC

— Developing , New 15.0

− 27.0 2.3 — 0.8

R

- 32 with MCHX

Unitary AC

— Developed , New 15.0 −45.7 3.9 — 1.3

Unitary AC

— Developing, New 15.0 −45.7 3.9 — 1.3

MCHX

Positive Displacement Chiller

— Developed , New 20.0 −877.5 52.7 — 11.3
Positive Displacement Chiller

— Developing , New 20.0 −877.5 52.7 — 11.3

NH 3 or CO 2

IPR/Cold Storage

— Developed , New 25.0 210,659.6 50,228.1 — 258.8
IPR/Cold Storage

— Developing , New 25.0 231,725.6 83,121.0 — 258.8
Recovery at Disposal

Auto Disposal Yard

— U.S./Other Developed 7.0 2,025.6 443.3 1,083.8 72.0
Auto Disposal Yard

— EU 7.0 2,025.6 443.3 1,083.8 72.0

Auto Disposal Yard

— Developing 7.0 2,228.1 443.3 237.0 72.0
Recovery at Servicing

Auto servicing station

— U.S./Other Developed 7.0 4,051.1 351.1 869.5 57.1
Auto servicing station

— EU 7.0 4,051.1 351.1 869.5 57.1
Auto servicing station

— Developing 7.0 4,456.3 351.1 194.2 57.1
Leak Repair

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed , Existing 5.0 1,872.9 1,469.7 — 532.4
Large Retail Food

— EU, Existing 5.0 1,872.9 1,469.7 — 532.4
Large Retail Food

— Developing , Existing 5.0 2,060.2 1,469.7 — 532.4

a Emission reductions shown include only reductions associated with HFCs; they do not include indirect (CO 2 ) emissions associated with differences in energy consumption.



## IV.2.5 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section describes the methodological approach to the assessment of international abatement measures for refrigeration and air conditioning.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 35HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### IV.2.5.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for model faci lities in the U nited

S tates , developed countries, and developing countries. We applied the costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each appropriate option for each country. The model estimates the mitigation potential based on the percentage of the to tal ODS substitutes ’ baseline (that is, the HFC emissions from the traditional ODS industries) attributable to each representative type of equipment and the technical effectiveness for each technology in each facility or system

.



### IV.2.5.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/region/ equipment type combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions reg arding the distribution of emissions by facility in addition to

process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. Market penetration rates vary over time as systems are upgraded; market penetration is a modeled value that accoun ts for a

number of elements, such as market choice, the turnover rate to replace existing banks of equipment that
use HFCs, and t he lifetime of refrigeration and air

- conditioning equipment . Technical effectiveness figures do not account for indirect GHG im pacts (i.e., increases or decreases in electricity or fuel consumption), which are accounted for in the cost analysis

. 9 Table 2-4 summarizes these assumptions and presents technical effectiveness parameters used in the MAC model.



### Table 2-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Facility/ Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) a Reduction Efficiency

MVACs – U.S./Other Developed

Enhanced HFC

- 134a

New systems 0% 50% 0%

HFO

- 1234yf 0% 99.7% 36%

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf 100 % 99.8% 64%

MVACs – EU

Enhanced HFC

- 134a

New systems 0% 50% 0%

HFO

- 1234yf 0% 99.7% 0%

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf 100 % 99.8% 32% Technical
Effectiveness (2030) b

(continued)

9 Indirect GHG emissions are not accounted for in the technical effectiveness calculations so that the analysis can show purely ODS substitute (e.g., HFC) emission reducti ons achievable. While it is recognized that indirect GHG emissions can be significant, the incremental differences of the options considered here compared to traditional HFC systems are expected to be relatively small. Such differences, to the extent data is available on such, are accounted for in the cost analyses.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 36HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary (continued)

MVACs

– Developing

Enhanced HFC

- 134a

HFO

- 1234yf New systems 0% 50% 4%

100 % 99.7% 44%

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf 0% 99.8% 0%

Large Retail Food – U.S./Other Developed

Distributed systems

New systems 10 % 80% 17%
HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 50 % 95% 28%

NH 3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 20 % 100% 13%

CO 2 transcritical systems 20 % 100% 19%

Retrofits of R

- 404A R- 404A systems at or beyond average age 100 % 46% 1%

Large Retail Food – EU

Distributed systems

New systems 0% 80% 10%
HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 0% 95% 16%

NH 3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 35 % 100% 21 %

CO 2 transcritical systems 60 % 100% 47 %

Retrofits of R

- 404A R- 404A systems at or beyond average age 10 0% 46% 1%

Large Retail Food – Developing

Distributed systems

New systems 30 % 80% 15%
HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 37% 95% 16%

NH 3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 13 % 100% 4%

CO 2 transcritical systems 20 % 100% 8%

Retrofits of R

- 404A R- 404A systems at or beyond average age 10 0% 46% 3%

Small Retail Food – U.S./Other Developed

HCs New systems 100 % 100 % 68%

Small Retail Food – EU

HCs New systems 100 % 100 % 62%

Small Retail Food – Developing

HCs New systems 100 % 100 % 27%

Window AC Units and Dehumidifiers – U.S./Other Developed

HCs New systems 34 % 100 % 3%

Window AC Units and Dehumidifiers – EU

HCs New systems 50 % 100 % 3% Facility/Abatement Option Technical
A pplicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) a Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness (2030) b

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 37HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2- 4: Technical Effectiveness Summary (continued)

Facility/Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) a Reduction Efficiency

Window AC Units and Dehumidifiers – Developing

HCs New systems 50 % 100 % 3%

PTAC/PTHP

- Developed

R- 32 New systems 100 % 75% 22%

PTAC/PTHP – Developing

R- 32 New systems 50 % 75% 6%

Unitary AC – Developed

R- 32
New systems 0% 75% 27 %

MCHX 0% 37.5% 11%

R- 32 with MCHX 100% 84.5% 23%
Unitary AC – Developing

R- 32
New systems 50 % 75% 8%

MCHX 50 % 37.5% 12%

R- 32 with MCHX 0% 84.5% 0%
Large AC : PD Chillers – Developed

MCHX New systems 100 % 37.5% 20%
Large AC : PD Chillers – Developing

MCHX New systems 100 % 37.5% 19%

IPR & Cold Storage – Developed

NH 3 or CO 2 New systems 40 % 100% 21%

IPR & Cold Storage – Developing

NH 3 or CO 2 New systems 20 % 100% 5%

Cross

- Cutting Practice Options – U.S/Other Developed
Refrigerant recovery at disposal

Existing equipment 100 % 85% 39%
Refrigerant recovery at servicing (small equipment) 40 % 95% 16%

Leak repair (large equipment) 100 % 40% 64%

Cross

- Cutting Practice Options – EU
Refrigerant recovery at disposal
Existing equipment 100 % 85% 65%
Refrigerant recovery at servicing (small equipment) 40 % 95% 15%
Leak repair ( large equipment) 100 % 40% 84%

Cross

- Cutting Practice Options – Developing
Refrigerant recovery at disposal

Existing equipment 100 % 85% 35%
Refrigerant recovery at servicing (small equipment) 40 % 95% 20%
Leak repair ( large equipment) 100 % 40% 42% Technical
Effectiveness (2030) b

a Marke t penetration assumptions for this analysis vary over time, and the technical effectiveness values are based on the cumulative market penetration rates assumed until that point. More information on the market penetration assumptions is provided in A ppendix D t o this chapter

. b Technical effectiveness figures represent the percent age of baseline emissions from the relevant facility type that can be abated in 2030; figures do not account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts (i.e., increases or decreases in electricity or fuel consumption), which are accounted for in the cost analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 38MVAC— U.S./Other Developed, New 0.1 198.7

− 420. 8 45.1

− 267.2

MVAC— EU, New 0.1 198.7

− 420.8 45.1

− 267.2

MVAC— Developing, New 0.1 218.6

− 533.8 49.6

− 364.8

MVAC— U.S./Other Developed, New 0.2 67.3 36. 8 15.3 88.8

MVAC— EU, New 0.2 67.3 36.8 15.3 88.8

MVAC— Developing, New 0.2 68.7 36.8 15.6 89.9

− 0.4 HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### I V.2.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Table 2-5 provides an example of how the break

- even prices are calculated for each abatement measure. Project costs and benefits are calculated for model facilities in developed and developing

countri es and are used in the calculation that solves for the break

- even price that sets the project’s benefits equal to its costs. The previous section describes the assumptions used to estimate different costs for developed and developing countries. Additional details on the analyses can be found in Appendix D

to this chapter

. 

### Table 2-5: Example Break

- Even Price s for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC

Enhanced HFC

- 134a

HFO

- 1234yf

Enhanced HFO

- 1234yf

MVAC— U.S./Other Developed, New 0.2 115.5

− 164.2 26.2

− 74.9

MVAC— EU, New 0.2 115.5

− 164.2 26.2

− 74.9

MVAC— Developing, New 0.2 123.9

− 211.5 28.1

− 115.8

Distributed systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, New 656.6 3.0 2.9 0.6 5.4

Large Retail Food

— EU, New 656.6 3.0 2.9 0.6 5.4

Large Retail Food

— Developing, New 656.6 3.3 6.7 0.7 9.3

HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, New 784.9 8.9

− 2.5 1.8 4.6

Large Retail Food

— EU, New 784.9 8.9

− 2.5 1.8 4.6

Large Retail Food

— Developing, New 784.9 9.8

− 2.5 2.0 5.3

NH 3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, New 834.0 12.0

− 7.1 2.4 2.5

Large Retail Food

— EU, New 834.0 12.0

− 7.1 2.4 2.5

Large Retail Food

— Developing, New 834.0 13.2

− 10.0 2.7 0.5

CO 2 Transcritical systems

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, New 834.0 8.4

− 7.1 1.7

Large Retail Food

— EU, New 834.0 8.4

− 7.1 1.7

− 0.4

Large Retail Food

— Developing, New 834.0 9.2

− 10.0 1.9

− 2.7 Abatement Option/Facility Type Reduced
Emi ssi ons

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Net
Annual

Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit
of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e)

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 39HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC (continued)

Abatement Option/Facility Type Reduced
Emissi o ns

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Net
Annual

Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit
of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Retrofits of R- 404A

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, Existing 417.1 0.4 — 0.1 0.3

Large Retail Food

— EU, Existing 417.1 0.4 — 0.1 0.3

Large Retail Food

— Developing, Existing 417.1 0.1 — 0.0 0.1

HCs

Small Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, New 0.1 — − 3.5 — − 3.5

Small Retail Food

— EU, New 0.1 — − 3.5 — − 3.5

Small Retail Food

— Developing, New 0.1 — − 3.5 — − 3.5

HCs

Window Units/Dehumidifiers

— U.S./Other Developed, New 0.1 — − 2.6 — − 2.6

Window Units/Dehumidifiers

— EU, New 0.1 — − 2.6 — −2 .6

Window Units/ Dehumidifiers

— Developing, New 0.1 — −2 .6 — −2 .6

R- 32

Unitary AC and PTAC/PTHP

— Developed, New 1.2 −5 .6 −2 .2 −1 .1 −6 .7

Unitary AC and PTAC/PTHP

— Developing, New 1.2 −5 .6 −2 .2 −1 .1 −6 .7

MCHX

Unitary AC

— Developed, New 0.8 −7 .3 −2 .9 −1 .5 −8 .7

Unitary AC

— Developing, New 0.8 −7 .3 −2 .9 −1 .5 −8 .7

R- 410A to R

- 32

Unitary AC

— Developed 1.2 −5 .6 −2 .2 −1 .1 −6 .7

Unitary AC

— Developing 1.2 −5 .6 −2 .2 −1 .1 −6 .7

R- 32 with MCHX

Unitary AC

— Developed 1.3 −7 .6 −3 .0 −1 .5 −9 .1

Unitary AC

— Developing 1.3 −7 .6 −3 .0 −1 .5 −9 .1

MCHX

Positive Displacement Chiller

— Developed, New 258.8 149.5 −1 94.1 21.7 −6 6.3

Positive Displacement Chiller

— Developing, New 258.8 164.4 −3 21.2 23.9 −1 80.7

NH 3 or CO 2

IPR/Cold Storage

— Developed, New 258.8 149.5 −1 94.1 21.7 −6 6.3

IPR/Cold Storage

— Developing, New 258.8 164.4 −3 21.2 23.9 −1 80.7

Recovery at disposal

Auto Disposal Yard

— U.S./Other Developed 72.0 9.6 8.9 2.7 15.8

Auto Disposal Yard —EU 72.0 9.6 8.9 2.7 15.8

Auto Disposal Yard

— Developing 72.0 10.6 −2 .9 2.9 4.8

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 40HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



### Table 2-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC (continued)

Abatement Option/Facility Type Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital
Costs ($/tCO 2 e) Net
Annual

Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit
of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Recovery at servicing

Auto servicing station

— U.S./Other Developed 57.1 24.3 9.1 6.8 26.6

Auto servicing station

— EU 57.1 24.3 9.1 6.8 26.6

Auto servicing station

— Developing 57.1 26.7 −2 .8 7.4 16.5

Leak Repair

Large Retail Food

— U.S./Other Developed, Existing 532.4 1.5 −2 .8 0.5 −1 .7

Large Retail Food

— EU, Existing 532.4 1.5 −2 .8 0.5 −1 .7

Large Retail Food

— Developing, Existing 532.4 1.7 −2 .8 0.5 −1 .6



### IV.2.5.4 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement pot ential in 2020 and 2030 is 208 and 994 MtCO 2 e, respectively. There are 479

MtCO 2 e of emissions reductions available in 2030 from implementing currently available technologies

that are cost

- effective at projected costs . If an additional emissions reduction value (e.g., tax incentive, subsidy, or tradable emissions reduction credit) above the zero break

- even price were available to users or manufacturers of refrigeration and AC systems, then additional emission reductions could be cost

eff ective. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 2-6 and Figure 2-4 by major country and regional grouping at select break

- even prices in 2030.



### Table 2-6: Abatement Potential by Country/ Regio n at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 5.6 35.6 108.7 152.1 226.2 226.2 260.4 260.4 260.4 279.1 279.1

Japan 6.7 23.8 29.0 36.3 39.3 39.3 45.6 48.2 48.2 51.2 51.2

Russia 0.8 4.8 14.7 20.5 30.5 30.5 35.1 35.1 35.1 37.6 37.6

South Korea 8.0 28.4 34.6 43.3 47.0 47.0 54.5 57.6 57.6 61.2 61.2

United States 31.7 112.9 137.5 172.1 186.5 186.5 216.3 228.6 228.6 243.1 243.1

Rest of Region

Africa 0.7 4.3 13.2 18.5 27.5 27.5 31.6 31.6 31.6 33.9 33.9

Central and South America 1.0 5.9 16.5 22.9 33.5 33.5 38.6 38.7 38.7 41.5 41.5

Middle East 2.9 11.8 19.9 26.3 33.7 33.7 38.9 39.9 39.9 42.6 42.6

Europe 2.8 29.8 49.2 62.0 66.0 66.0 78.6 82.1 82.1 82.7 82.7

Eurasia 0.1 0.6 1.8 2.6 3.8 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.7

Asia 2.6 13.4 32.7 45.0 64.2 64.2 74.0 74.5 74.5 79.8 79.8

North America 4.8 17.2 20.9 26.2 28.4 28.4 32.9 34.8 34.8 37.0 37.0

Total 67.7 288.4 478.6 627.7 786.7 786.7 910.9 935.8 935.8 994.3 994.3

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 41

### Figure 2-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve s for Top Five Emitters in 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 50 100 150 200 250

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 300 China

Russia

Japan

South Korea

United States HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



## IV.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

The development of alternative refrigerants and technologies is quickly evolving in this sector, with efficiencies increasing and costs decreasing as research and market share expand. Thus , the costs and reduction efficiencies of the alternatives reviewed in this analysis are subject to change and likely very

conserva tive . Moreover, new options not quantified in this analysis are entering the market and will
continue to do so; additional options, such as HCs in domestic refrigerators, CO 2 in transport refrigeration , and low

- GWP refrigerants for comfort cooling chillers

, could be quantitatively considered in future analyses.

In addition, the costs for the options explored in this analysis are highly variable, depending on the types of systems reviewed. In particular, estimates of the amount of refrigerant recoverable from equipment at service and disposal are highly uncertain and highly variable based on the type of equipment. Recovery from large equipment is generally more cost

- effective than for small equipment,

because the amount of refrigerant recoverable is greate r and the relative amount of technician time needed to perform the recovery is smaller. Similarly, because leak repair can be performed on many different equipment types and can involve many different activities/tools, it is difficult to determine an

avera ge cost of such repairs or the average emission reduction associated with them. This analysis, therefore, relies on broad assumptions available in the published literature, which may not reflect specific or even average values for the leak repair activities modeled.

Finally, it is assumed that numerous abatement options result in increased or decreased energy consumption (e.g., enhanced HFO

- 1234yf or HFC

- 134a in MVACs , CO 2 transcritical large retail food

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 42HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

refrigeration systems, distributed refrigeration sys tems, NH 3 or CO 2 in n ew IPR and c old s torage

s ystems ) . While the costs associated with the increase or decrease in energy consumption , which would vary widely based on region as well as particular application, is quantified as part of this analysis, the

in crease or decrease in CO 2 emissions associated with this energy use is not quantified. To accurately capture net emission reductions of these abatement options, emissions associated with the increase or decrease in energy use should also be calculated.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 43HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING



## References

3M

. 2008 . Personal communication between John Owens of 3M and Emily Herzog of ICF International. August 2008

. Air

- Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). 2013. AHRI Low

- GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation Program . Available at http://www.ahrinet.org/ahri+low_gwp+alternative+refrigerants+evaluation+program.aspx

. Accessed August 28, 2013. Air Conditioning, Heating, Refrigeration News (ACHR News) . 2012. Retrofitting with HCFs. December 3,

2012. Available at : http://digital.bnpmedia.com/publication/?i=136503

. Air Conditioning, Heating, Refrigeration News (ACHR News ). 2010. CO 2 in Supermarket Refrigeration. September 6, 2010. Available at : http://www.achrnews.com/articles/co2

- in

- supermarket

- refrigeration

. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL). 2002. Global Comparative Analysis of HFC and Alternative Technologies for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applications . Final Report to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Reference Number 75966. Automotive Engineering International (AEI). 2008. “ Consensus Building on Refrigerant Type .” September 2008. Australian Green Cooling Council. 2008. Transcritical CO 2 (R744) Supermarket Refrigeration in Australia.
Ava ilable at : http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0007/australian_green_cooling_en.pdf

. Carrier. November 11, 2008. Personal communication between William Walter and Richard Lo rd of Carrier, and Brie Johnson of ICF International.

Carrier . 201 3 . NaturaLINE: Another Milestone in Innovation and Sustainability. Obtained June 12, 2013,

at : http://www.container.carrier.com/Carrier+Brand+Sites/Carrier+Transicold+Container/Side+Bar+Links /Home/NaturaLINE

. Centro Ricerche Fiat. June 10, 2008. The Four Fiat Pandas Experiment

- To evaluate different MAC systems. Presentation given by C

- Aa Malvicino, Head of Thermal Systems Dept., Centro Ricerche Fiat at the SAE 2008 Alternate Refrigerant Syste ms Symposium, Scottsdale, AZ

. Daikin. September 27, 2012. News Release: World's First Commercialization of Air Conditionin g Equipment Using Next

- Generation Refrigerant HFC32

. Obtained February 14, 2013, at: http://www.daikin.com/press/2012/120927/index.html

. DelVentura , R. et al., September 2007 . “ BOHN the C old Standard: Secondary Loop Systems for the Supermarket Industry. ” White Paper. Koban, Mary ( DuPont Fluoroproducts )

. 2009. “ HFO

- 1234yf Low GWP Refrigerant LCCP Analysis. ” Presented at SAE 2009 World Congress. April 2009.

Earthcare. October 2008. Personal communication between Nicholas Cox, Earthcare Products Ltd., and Brie Johnson, ICF International.

Environment al Investigation Agency. 2012. HFC

- Free Technologies Are Available in the US Market for the Supermarket

- Retail Refrigeration Sector. Available at http://eia

- global.org/PDF/USSUPERMARKET REPORT.pdf

. Environmental Leader: Environmental and Energy Management News

. December 1, 2010. “ Carrier Unveils Natural Refrigerated Transport Solution. ” Obtained January 25, 2013, at : http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/12/01/carrier

- unveils

- natural

- refrigerated

- transport

solution/

. EurActiv. January 23, 2013. “ Daimler Faces Legal Action Th reat o ver Green Air Con ditioning. ” Obtained February 7, 2013, at : http://www.euractiv.com/climate

- environment/daimler

- slammed

- return

- mac

direc

- news

- 516741

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 44HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

G odrej. 2012. “ HC Technology for Room Air Conditioners. ” Presented by Dilip Rajadhyaksha at Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: Next Steps , Bangkok, Thailand. July 21

- 22,
2012.
Gooseff, A., and J. Horton. 2008. “ Ammonia as the Sustainable Refrigerant: An Ammonia

- Halocarbon Comparison .” Presented at 30th Annual Meeting International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, Colorado Springs, CO. March 16

- 19, 2008. Gree Electronic Appliances. 2012. “ Application of HC Refrigerant in Room Air Conditi oners. ” Presented at Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: Next Steps, Bangkok, Thailand. July 21

- 22,
2012.
Greenpeace. 2009. Cool Technologies: Working Without HFCs: Examples of HFC

- Free Cooling Technologies in
Various Industrial Sectors . Prepared by J

. Maté of Greenpeace International with C

. Papathanasopoulos of Greenpeace USA. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa / assets/binaries/cool

- technology

- report

- 2009

. GTZ Proklima. 2008. Natural Refrigerants: Sustainable Ozone

- and Climate -F riendly Alternatives to HCFCs

. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Eschborn, Germany. July 2008.
Available at : http://epa.gov/greenchil l/downloads/en

- gtz

- proklima

- natural

- refrigerants.pdf

. GTZ Proklima. 2009. Gree Electric R290 Air Conditioner. Presented on behalf of Gree by Dr. Volkmar Hasse, GTZ

- Proklima International, at the Joint West Asia and South Asia Network Meeting. May 10,

2009 . Available at : h ttp://www.hydrocarbons21.com/files/news/gree

- ac

- unit

- hydrocarbons.pdf

. Hill PHO ENIX. 2012. “ Advances in CO 2 Supermarket Refrigeration in North America. ” Presented by S

. Martin, Hill PHOENIX, at the ATMOsphere 2012 conference, Washington, DC. Available at : http://www.atmo.org/media.presentation.php?id=139

. Hinde, D. Zha, S. and Lan, L ASHRA E. February 2009

. “Carbon Dioxide in North American Supermarkets.” ASHRAE Journal 51. Hydrocarbonconversions.com. November 15, 2011. 200 Lidl stores to feature R290 technology by 2012

. Available at : http://www.hydrocarbonconversions.com/200

- lidl

- stores

- to

- feature

- r290

- technology

- by

2012/.

ICF International. 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of Current Section 609 Requirements and Potential Updates: Draft Report . Submitted to the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: ICF International. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. In B. Metz, L. Kuijpers, S. Solomon, S.O. Andersen, O. Davidson, J. Pons, et al

. (Eds.). Prepared by Working Groups I and III of the IPCC, and the Technical and Economic Assessm ent Panel. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Oko

- Recherche, Oko

- Institute, HEAT International, Danish Technological Institute, Re

- phridge, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Estonia Environmental Research Centre, and Ammonia Partnership

. 201 1

. Preparatory study for a review of r egulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certai n fluorinated greenhouse gases. Prepared for the European Commission. September 2011.

Pham , H. and H. Sachs

. 2010

. Next Generation Refrigerants: Standards and Climate Policy Implicat i ons of Engineering Constraints. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Available at : http://www.aceee.org/files/procee dings/2010/data/papers/1933.pdf

. R 744 .com

. 2012

. Cascade CO2 could be winning option in emerging economies

- CCAC Forum, Part I18

. December 18, 2012. Available at http://www.r744.com/news/view/3755

. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC)

. 2011. 2010 Assessment. UNEP Nairobi. Available at : http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/RTOC

Assessment

- report

- 2010.pdf

. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (RAC) Magazine . 20 13. “ US car giant GM publicly backs HFO

- 1234yf. ” January 7, 2013. Obtained February 7, 2013, at: http://www.racplus.com/news/us

- car

- giant

- gm

publicly

- backs

- 1234yf/8640815.article?blocktitle=Latest

- news&contentID=2332

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 45HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

Rugh, J., and V. Hovland. July 17, 2003. National and World Fuel Savings and carbon dioxide Emission
Red uctions by Increasing Vehicle Air Conditioning COP. Presented by John Rugh and Valerie Hovland of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at the SAE 2003 Automotive Alternate Refrigerant Systems Symposium in Phoenix, AZ. Society of Automotive Engineers.

Shecco. 2012. “ 2012: Natural Refrigerants Market Growth for Europe. ” Available at : http://guide.shecco.com/

. Stanga, M. December 13, 2012. Correspondence: Cost of R

- 32 for unitary AC equipment

. Supermarket News. 2012. “Refrigeration Systems Chillin’ with Carbon Dioxide.” Available at: http://supermarketnews.com/technology/refrigeration

- systems

- chillin

- carbon

dioxide?page=1showtext.cfm?t=ptb0810

. SuperValu

. June 12

, 2012

. SuperValu’s Development of Next Generation Refrigeration Systems: Application of Ammonia, CO 2 and Propane

. Heath, R. and J. Armer . Presented at ATMOspher e America the Business
Case: N atural Refrigerants

. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). 2012. Decision XXIII/9 Task Force Report: Additional Information on Alternatives to Ozone

- Depleting Substances

. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TE AP)

. 201 1

. UNEP 2 010 Report of the Refrigerat ion, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee: 2010 Assessment

. February 2011. ISBN 978

­ 9966

- 20

- 002 -0

. Available at http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/RTOC

- Assessment

- report

2010.pdf

. Unilever. 2008. “Unilever Ice Cream Cabinets: Conversion to Natural Refrigerants.” Case Study
di sseminated at the EC International Technical Meeting on HCFC Phase

- Out. Montreal, Canada, April 5

– 6, 2008. Available at : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/pdf/unilever_hfc_icecream_cabinets.pdf

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2007. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2006: 49

- 3023
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes493023.htm

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

. 2011. Consumer Price Index. Obtained May 2011 at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2011. Annual Energy Review: 2010 industrial (real) Electricity Cost . Table 8.10: Average Retail Prices of Electr icity, 1960

- 2010. Available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0810

. Accessed October 19, 2011.

U.S. Energy Information Administration ( USEIA ). 2008. Retail Motor Gasoline Prices in Selected Countries, 1990

- 2007. Obtained October 2008, at : http://www.eia.gov/countries/prices/gaso linewithtax.cfm

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). May 1998. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Substitutes Recycling Rule . Prepared by ICF Incorporated for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: ICF International.

U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency (USEPA). June 2001. U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990

- 2010: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions

. EPA #000 -F- 97

- 000. Washington, DC: Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). June 2006. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases.
EPA #430 -R- 06

- 005. Washington, DC: Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2 009

. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Analysis for Reduction of HFCs in Traditional Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) End

- Use Applications: Draft Report

. Prepared by ICF International for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2012a)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 46HFC EMISSIONS FROM R EFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA) . 2011. Draft Joint Technical Support Document: Proposed Rulemaking for 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.

WalMart

. September 2006. DOW Case Study: Secondary Loop Refrigeration and DOWFROST TM Fluid
Contribute to Wal

- Mart “Green Initiative.”
Wang , K., M. Eisele, Y. Hwan g, and R. Radermacher. October 2010 . Review of secondary loop refrigeration systems. International Journal of Refrigeration 33 ( 2 ), 212

– 234.

Xu, X., Y. Hwang, and R. Radermacher

. 2012. “Performance Measurement of R32 in Vapor Injection Heat Pump System.” Presented at the International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 16

– 19, 2012.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 47

### Figure 3-1: HFC and PFC Emissions from Solvent Use : 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12MtCO2e

4 5 7 10

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year South Korea

Russia

Japan

United States

China

ROW HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



# IV.3. H FC Emissions from Solvent Use

IV.3.1 Sector Summary 

# H istorically, chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) (in particular CFC

- 113), methyl chloroform, and

, to a lesser extent, carbon tetrachloride were used as the predominant solvent cleaning agents. Hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs ), hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), perfluorocarbons ( PFCs )

, and aqueous and semi

- aqueous not

- in

- kind (NIK) solvents have since replaced these historical solvents , with

HFC emissions currently dominat ing the global warming potential ( GWP )- weighted emissions from the

solvents sector.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the solvents sector (excluding CFCs and HCFCs) were estimated at roughly 5 million m etric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e .) in 2010. By 2030, emissions from this sector are expected to more than double, reaching over 10 MtCO 2 e. A majority of the growth will result from increased use of HFCs in developing countries. Figure 3-1 presents the HFC and PFC baseline

emissions from solvent use between 2000 and 2030.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 a

Four abatement options were identified for the solvent sector: (1) replacement of HFCs with HFEs, (2) retrofitting of equipment, ( 3) tra nsition to NIK aqueous, and (4) transition to NIK semi

- aqueous.

The g lobal abatement potential is equal to approximately 58.9% of tot al annual emissions from the

solvent sector and 0.3% of total annual emissions from all sectors that use ODS substitutes. These results are partly due to the assumed adoption of HFEs which, although they have a relatively lower GWP than
HFCs, still result in emissions of greenhouse gases. In the same way, the adoption of equipment retrofits, another abatement option, still results in emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, it is assumed that due to the performance limitations of the available alternatives, in the absence of policy measures, a portion of the market will not make the transition away from HFCs.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 49

### Figure 3-2: Global Abatement Potential in Solvent Use: 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 1 2 3 4 5$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 6 2010

2020

2030 HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE

Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve results are presented in Figure 3-2 . Maximum abatement potential in the solvents sector is 5.7 MtCO 2 e in 2030 . There are 4.8 MtCO 2 e of emissions reductions in

2030 that are cost

- effective (i.e., $0/tCO 2 e or lower abatement cost) at currently projected energy prices.



## IV.3.2 Emissions from Solvents

Although solvents are primarily an emissive use, emissions from solvent applications are not equal to the amount of solvent consumed in a year because a portion of used solvent remains in the liquid phase and is not emitted as gas during use. However, as the solvent is continuously reused through a distilling and cleaning process or through recycling, it is assumed that eventually approximately 90% of the solvent consumed in a given year is emitted, while 10% of solvent is disposed of with the sludge that remains.

For the purpose of this analysis, the sector is characterized by precision cleaning applications and electronics cleaning applications. Precision cleaning requires a high level of cleanliness to ensure the satisfactory performance of the product being cleaned, and electronics cleaning is defined as a process that removes contaminants, primarily solder flux residues, from electronics or circuit boards. To develop the cost analysis, the model vapor degreaser is assumed to be 10 square feet in size, uses HFC -4 310mee as a solvent, and emits 250 to 500 pounds of solvent annually, depending on whether the equipment has been retrofitted. Figure 3-3 presents the g lobal distribution of HFC and PFC e missions from s olvent u se in 2020 by d egreaser t ype

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 50

### Figure 3-3: Glob al HFC E missions in 2020 by Degreaser Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

Retrofitted

Precision Cleaning, 36%

Non

- retrofitted

Precision Cleaning, 21% Retrofitted

Electronic Cleaning, 27% Non

- retrofitted

Electronic Cleaning, 16% HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



### IV.3.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

Solvent consumption, which is estimated using USEPA’s Vintaging Model for the United States, is used to represent activity data. Solvent consumption is scaled according to country gross domestic product. Solvent emissions are directly correlated with solve nt consumption; it is assumed that almost all (90%) of the solvent consumed in a given year is emitted . There are no regional differences in assumed

emissions rates.

In developed countries, retrofits are assumed to have already been fully adopted, and in developing countries all equipment is assumed to remain nonretrofitted. In addition, although NIK replacement alternatives and HFE solvent applications currently exist worldwide, the baseline emissions considered here only covers that portion of the market still using HFCs and PFCs. Hence, for the purposes of transitioning away from the high GWP solvents in this analysis, there is no technology adoption of the

NIK and HFE solvents in the baseline.



### IV.3.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global e missions of HFCs from the solvents sector were 5 M t CO 2 e in 2010, growing to 10 Mt CO 2 e in

20 3 0. Table 3-1 presents the projected emissions for solvents use by country and regions between 2010

and 2030. All emissions are the result of HFC

- 4310mee consumption

. 1 Emissions are projected to grow significantly as developing country economies grow and demand for such solvents grows. Emissions were estimated based on assumptions about initial market size of the sector, the specific transitions away

from CFCs and oth er ODSs in terms of timing and alternative solvent used, charge sizes, and leak rates, using the Vintaging Model.

1 PFC solvent use in p recision cleaning end

- uses is assumed to discontinue such that no emissions of PFCs are projected beyond 2010 from this sector.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 51HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



### Table 3-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Solvent Use: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.7 6.9%

United States 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0%

Japan 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2%

Russia 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 4.2%

South Korea 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 3.5%

Rest of Regions

Africa 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.9%

Central & South America 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 3.3%

Middle East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.8%

Europe 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2%

Eurasia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2%

Asia 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 4.2%

North America 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.5%

World Total 5.2 6.0 7.0 8.2 9.7 3.1% 

### CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

a CAG R = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: USEPA

, 2012 a



## IV.3.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

A total of four abatement options were identified and analyzed for the solvent sector: (1) replacement of HFCs with HFEs, (2) retrofitting of equipment, (3) transition to NIK aqueous, and (4) transitio n to NIK

semi

- aqueous. Table 3-2 provides a technology overview of each abatement option.

Low

- GWP alternatives for use in solvent applications are still emerging onto the market
— perfluorobutyl iodide and Solstice 1233zd(E) are two such alternatives . The introduction of these substances involves regulatory approvals (such as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

p rogram evaluation process in the United States) followed by entry into the market and acceptance by

users. These alternatives are discussed qualitatively in this chapter under “12.3.5 Low

- GWP

Alternatives.”



### Table 3-2: Solvent Use Abatement Options Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency Applicability

HFC to HFE 76.4% All facilities

Retrofit 5 0% Nonretrofitted facilities

NIK aqueous 100% Electronics cleaning

NIK semi

- aqueous 100% Electronics cleaning

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 52HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



### IV.3.3.1 HFC to HFE

This option , which is applicable to all facilities in the baseline, examines the replacement of HFC

4310mee with lower GWP HFE solvents

. Although other low

- GWP chemicals may be feasible, HFE

- 7100

and HFE

- 7200 are used as proxies for this abatement option because they display ma terial compatibility properties similar to HFCs, a prime factor that has led to their success in the market. To model emission reductions, this option assumes that the degreaser transitions to the use of 75% HFE

- 7100 and 25% HFE

7200. 2 For the purpose of t his analysis, the 100

- year GWP of alternative solvents is calculated as the weighted average of 75% HFE

- 7100, with a GWP of 390, and 25% HFE

- 7200, with a GWP of 55, for a GWP of 306.25. The GWP of the solvent being replaced, HFC

- 4310mee, is 1,300; 3 thus, t his option has a

reduction efficiency of 76.4 %.

Costs associated with the conversion to HFE solvents are assumed to be negligible because of

similarities in key chemical properties of HFE solvents and HFC

- 4310mee , as well as similar pricing

structures.



### IV. 3.3.2 Retrofit

This abatem ent option is applicable to nonretrofitted facilities using solvents for the purpose of precision cleaning and electronics cleaning . Retrofits, including engineering control changes (e.g., increased freeboard height, installation of freeboard chillers, and use of automatic hoists), improved containment, and implementation of other abatement technologies can reduce emissions of HFCs used in solvent cleaning. Retrofitting a vapor degreaser, combined with proper operation and maintena nce, can reduce solvent emissions from 46% to as much as 70%, depending on the specific retrofit methods chosen (Durkee, 1997). For example, installing a freeboard refrigeration device, sometimes referred to as a chiller (i.e., a set of secondary coils mounted in the freeboard), and maintaining a freeboard ratio of 1.0 to minimize diffusional solvent losses, can reduce emissions by 46%, while installing heating coils to produce superheated vapor along with installing a chiller can reduce emissions by 70%. For the purpose of this analysis, the reduction efficiency of the retrofit option is assumed to equal 50%.

In the United State s, many enterprises have bought new equipment or retrofitted aging equipment into compliance with the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which limits emissions from degreasers using traditional chlorinated solvents such as t richloroethylene. Fluorinated solvents such as HFCs are not covered by this regulation; nonetheless, a number of companies using HFCs and other nonchlorinated solvents have adopted NESHAP

- compliant solvent cleaning machines because of the associated econom ic, occupational, and environmental benefits (i.e., reduced emissions) (Durkee, 1997). Likewise, many European countries have imposed stringent environmental and safety regulations that require the lowest level of emissions attainable by solvent degreasing equipment. Retrofit techniques were either already implemented or simply not required if the user had purchased new emission

- tight vapor degreasers. Consequently, this analysis assumes that end

2 In actuality, a facility would choose one of the two HFEs for adoption; however, for modeling purposes this assumption was used to reflect the market pr esence of the two HFEs.

3 Although the GWP value for HFC

- 4310mee was taken from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996 ), the report did not provide GWP values for either HFE. Consequently, this analysis uses the GWP values listed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001 ) for both HFEs.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 53HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE

users in the United States and developed countries have already adopted these controls and that any emissions from these facilities cannot be further abated by this option. In contrast, solvent users in non

Annex I (i.e., developing) countries are assumed to not have retrofitted their equipment but may consider the equipment retrofit option, because updating their equipment may be preferred over investing in entirely new units.

Costs associated with adopting i mproved e quipment and c leaning p rocesses u sing e xisting s olvents (r etrofit) are incurred during the retrofit process and are estimated at $24,500 per degreaser. Annual savings of $4,500 are also realized through the avoided consumption of HFC that results from a reduction

in emissions.



### IV.3.3.3 Not

- in -K ind Aqueous

This abatement option is app lic able only to facilities that use solvents for the purposes of electronics cleaning. This option replaces HFC

- containing systems used for electronic cleaning end uses with an aqueous cleaning process. In the aqueous process, a water

- based cleaning solution is used as the primary solvent and is usually combined with a detergent to remove contaminants. Because all HFCs are replaced with a solvent that does not have a GWP, the reduction efficiency of this option is 100%.

Costs associated with adopting an aqu eous NIK replacement alternative are assumed to be $50,000 for the initial investment and $7,400 annually due to energy and water consumption costs. However, annual savings are also assumed to result from not using an HFC

- based cleaner; savings are estimat ed to range from $6,700 to $11,200 depending on whether the solvent

- based cleaning system had been retrofitted, which will significantly offset annual costs.



### IV.3.3.4 Not

- in -K ind Semi

- aqueous

This abatement option is applic able only to facilities that use solvents for the purposes of electronics cleaning. This option replaces HFC

- containing systems used for electronic cleaning end uses with a semi

aqueous cleaning process. In the semi

- aqueous process, the cleaning solution is an organic solvent that is blended with a surfactant, making it water soluble. An example of a solvent/surfactant blend is a terpene/water combination blended with glycol ethers. Because all HFCs are replaced with solvents that have no GWP, the reduction efficiency i s 100%.

Costs associated with adopting a semi

- aqueous NIK replacement alternative are assumed to be $55,000 for the initial investment and $9,100 annually due to energy and water consumption costs. 4 Annual savings are also assumed to result from not using an HFC

- based cleaner; savings are estimated to range from $6,700 to $11,200 depending on whether the solvent

- based cleaning system had been

retrofitted.



### IV.3.3.5 Low

- GWP Alternatives

Two low

- GWP alternatives, perfluorobutyl i odide (PFBI) and Solstice 1233z d(E) , are also emerging options. Both substances are new alternatives that may potentially abate HFC and HFE emissions in

4 Al though these costs are higher than the NIK aqueous abatement option, it is assumed that the semi

- aqueous option will nonetheless be adopted in some facilities, for example where the NIK aqueous option might not be effective for the particular cleaning required.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 54HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE

solvent cleaning; however, it is too soon to determine reasonable market penetration and costs associated

with the transition to such options.

Solstice 1233zd(E) is a hydrochlorofluoro

- olefin and is also referred to as t rans -1- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop -1- ene

. Solstice 1233zd(E) is part of a new class of solvents specifically designed with a low atmospheric lifetime, ODP, and GWP , making it a candidate to replace high GWP HFCs and low or
moderate GWP HFE solvents, as well as saturated HCFCs in solvent cleaning applications (UNEP

, 2012 ). It has a GWP of 4.7 to 7 ( US EPA

, 2012 b) and is nonflammable, ma king it an attractive option for some

markets . The United States is completing its evaluation of whether it can be considered acceptable for use in electronics, precision, and metals cleaning.

PFBI also has a low GWP of 5. In 2012, PFBI was listed by the U S Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program as acceptable for use in electronics, metal, and precision cleaning ( US EPA

, 2012 c ). This substance may be feasible for the cleaning oxygen systems in the aerospace industry as a potential replacement for HCFC

- 225ca/cb because of its good cleaning performance (Mitchell and Lowrey

, 2012 ); however, it is unclear the extent to which this solvent will be used in place of HCFCs as well as HFC and

HFE s olvents.

Given the low GWP of these and similar options under development, we could expect emission reductions to be similar to the NIK aqueous and semi

- aqueous options under the same market penetration assumptions. However, because these chemicals can als o compete with HFEs with mid

- range GWPs and could avoid the energy and water consumption barriers seen with the NIK options, market penetration may be further or faster than the options analyzed here.



### IV.3.3.6 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Table 3-3 presen ts the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all cost parameters necessary to calculate the break

- even price. For more detailed costs see Appendix E.



### Table 3-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

HFC to HFE 15 — — — 113

136

Retrofit Nonretrofitted 15 $ 24,500 $4,500
— 147

NIK aqueous Electronic/Retrofitted 15 $50,000 $ 6,700 $7,400 147

Electronic/Nonretrofitted $11 ,2 00 295

NIK semi

aqueous Electronic/Retrofitted 15 $55,000 $ 6,700 $9,1 00 147

Electronic/Nonretrofitted $11,200 295 Retrofitted

Nonretrofitted Abatement Option Facility Type Project
Lifetime (years) Capital
Cost (2010 USD) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 e)



## IV.3.4 Mar g inal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of abatement

measures for solvents

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 55HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



### IV.3.4.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for model facilities. We applied the

costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each appropriate option for each country. The model estimates the mitigation potential based on the percentage of the total ODS substitutes ’ baseline attributable to each representative facility and the technical effectiveness for each technology in each facility.



### IV.3.4.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/facility ty pe combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions from model facilit ies in addition to

process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. Market penetration rates vary over time as systems are upgraded and the options are applied in the future. Table 3-4 summarizes these assumptions and presents technical effectiveness parameters used in the MAC model.



### Table 3-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) Reduction Efficiency

Precision

— retrofitted 60% 100% 76% 46%

HFC to HFE

Precision

— nonretrofitted

HFC to HFE 60% 80% 76% 37%

Retrofit 100% 20% 5 0% 10%

Electronics

— retrofitted

HFC to HFE 100% 80% 76% 61%

Aqueous 100% 10% 100% 10%

Semi -a queous 100% 10% 100% 10%

Electronics

— nonretrofitted

HFC to HFE 100% 40% 76% 31%

Retrofit 100% 20% 50% 10%

Aqueous 100% 6% 100% 6%

Semi -a queous 100% 6% 100% 6% Technical
Effectiveness



### IV.3.4.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Table 3-5 provides an example of how the break

- even prices are calculated for each abatement measure. Project costs and benefits are calculated for model facilities in developed and developing

countries and are used in the calculation that solves for the break

- even price that sets the project’s monetary benefits equal to its costs. The previous section describes the assumptions used to estimate

costs. The HFC to HFE option is available at no cost and represents 4.3 MtCO 2 e of reductions in 2030.

The break

- even prices presented in Table 3-5 represent model faciliti es. Actual p rices vary by country because of the scaling of costs and benefits by international price factors.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 56147

0.7

0.0

0.2

0.2

4.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9

0.0

0.3

0.2

5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.7 HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



### Table 3-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Solvent Use

Reduc ed
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e) Abatemen t Option

Precision

— retrofitted

HFC to HFE 113 — — — — Precision

— nonretrofitted

HFC to HFE 136 — — — — Retrofit 147 36.4

− 30.5 7.4 −1.5

Electronics

— retrofitted

HFC to HFE 113 — — — — Aqueous 74.3 4.7 15.1 64.0

Semi

- a queous 147 81.8 16.3 16.6 81.4

Electronics

— nonretrofitted

HFC to HFE 136 — — — — Retrofit 147 36.4

− 30.5 7.4 −1.5
Aqueous 295 37.2

− 12.9 7.5 16.7

Semi

- a queous 295 40.9

− 7.1 8.3 25.5



### IV.3.4.4 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 3.0 and 5.7 MtCO 2 e , respectively. There are 4.8

MtCO 2 e of reductions in 2030 resulting from implementing currently available technologies that are cost

effective at projected energy prices. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-4 by major country and regional grouping at sel ect break

- even prices in 2030.



### Table 3-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e) Country/Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+
Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — — 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Japan — — 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8

Russia — — 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

South Korea — — 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

United States — — 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
Rest of Region

Africa — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Central and South America — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Middle East — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Europe — — Eurasia — — Asia — — North America — — World Total — —

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 57

### Figure 3-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0.0 0.5 1.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 1.5 China

Russia

Japan

South Korea

United States HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



## IV.3.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

This analysis assumes that all developed countries have already adopted retrofitted equipment while all developing nations are still using nonretrofitted equipment. This is a very simplistic assumption that may not adequately reflect regional differences in the adoption of retrofitted equipment. Additionally, the reductions associated with adopting retrofitted equipment are based on older sources that may no longer be applicable to the current market. Further research in this area is needed to refine both baseline estimates and the reduction potential associated with retrofits.

Another area of uncertainty in this analysis is related to how costs for the mitigation technologies may vary internationally. The analysis is currently limited due to the lack of region

- specific cost

information.

Also, it is assumed that the aqueous and semi

- aqueous abatement options result in increased energy consumption (3M

, 2008 ) ; however, the increase in CO 2 emissions associated with this energy use is not quantified as part of this analysis. To accurately capture net emission reductions of these abatement options, emissions associated with the increased energy use should also be calculated.

Finally, low

- GWP alternatives for use in solvent applications are still emerging onto the market and could potentially replace HFCs and HFEs, further reducing proje cted emissions once adopted. This analysis does not project further abatement that can occur because of these alternatives as information on their po tential uptake by the market and associated transition costs is unknown at this time.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 58HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE



## References

3M. 2008. “ Advantages of Solvent vs. Aqueous Cleaning. ” Electronic Market Materials Division.
Available at: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Novec/Home/Product_Information/ Engineered_Fluids/

. 3M Performance Materials. October 27, 2003. Written correspondence between industry technical exper t John G. Owens, P.E., of 3M Performance Materials and Mollie Averyt and Marian Martin Van Pelt of ICF Consulting. Brulin & Company, Inc. October 2008. Personal communication between Mike Beeks of Brulin & Company, Inc. and Emily Herzog and Mollie Averyt of ICF International

. Crest Ultrasonics. September/October 2008. Personal communication between Eric Larson of Crest Ultrasonics and Emily Herzog of ICF International.
Durkee, J.B. 1997. “Chlorinated Solvents NESHAP

— Results to Date, Recommendations and
Con clusions.” Presented at the International Conference on Ozone Layer Protection Technologies in Baltimore, MD, November 12

– 13 , 1997

. ICF Consulting. October 7, 2003. Personal communication between solvent industry experts and William Kenyon of ICF Consulting. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change , Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Me ira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg,
and K. Maskell ( ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press

. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

. Contribution of Working Gro up I to the Third Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and
C.A. Johnson (eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York : Cambridge University Press, 881

pp. Mitchell, M. and N. Lowrey. The Search for Nonflammable Solvent Alternatives for Cleaning Aerosopace Oxygen Systems. Presented at the 2012 International Workshop on Environment and Alternative Energy. Greenbelt, MD. December 4

- 7, 2012.

Unite d Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: Decision XXIII/9 Task Force Report Additional Information on Alternatives to Ozone Depleting
Substances . Available at: http://conf.montreal

- protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop

- 24/presession/ Background%20Documents/teap

- task

- force

- XXIII -9- report

- may2012.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2012a)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) . 2012b. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 27 for Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program . 77 FR 47768 -4 7779. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2012

- 08

- 10/pdf/2012

- 19688.pdf

. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) . 2012c. Substitutes in Non -a erosol Solvent Cleaning Under SNAP as of August 10, 2012 . Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/solvents/ solvents.pdf

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 590 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100MtCO2e

2 22 52 92

2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Italy

France

Germany

Japan

United States

ROW HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



# IV.4. HFC Emissions from Foams Manufacturing

IV.4.1 Sector Summary 

# F oam is used as insulation in a range of equipment and products, including refrigerated appliances, reefers and other refrigerated transport systems, in buildings (e.g., walls, roofs, floors) and pipes, and to produce other products, such as steering wheels, furniture, and shoes, for example. A wide variety of foam types are used for these applications, which have historically been produced with blowing agents that are ozone

- depleting substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons [ HCFCs ]), but since the ODS phaseout under the Montreal Protocol, HFCs have commonly been adopted in their place

— primarily HFC

- 134a, HFC

- 152a, HFC

- 245fa , and HFC

365mfc

. Greenhouse gas emissions from the foams sector (excluding CFCs and HCFCs) were estimat ed at roughly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) equivalent (MtCO 2 e) in 2010. By 2020, emissions from this sector are expected to reach over 52 MtCO 2 e, as shown in Figure 4-1.



### Figure 4-1: HFC Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: USEPA, 2012a

.

This analysis reviews options to reduce emissions from the foams sector by using low

- global warming potential ( GWP ) foam

- blowing agents in lieu of HFCs in new equipment/products and by recovering and destroying foam

- blowing agents from household refrigerators at the end of the equipment’s life.

Global abatement potential from the options reviewed equates to approximately 40.3 % of total

annual foam sector emissions and 2 1.9 % of total emissions from ODS substitutes in 2030. While many options have been analyzed that can completely replace the HFC blowing agent in foams, abatement in the foams sector is limited by the lifetime of the installed base of foam products; all abatement opportunities analyzed replace the blowing agent in newly manufactured foams only, or destroy the blowing agent only at the foam natural end of life. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve results are presented in Figure 4-2 . Maximum abatement potential in the foams sector is 37 .0 MtC O 2 e in 2030. There

are 27 MtCO 2 e of cost

- effective emissions reductions in 2030, representing 29.4 % of the foams baseline

, based on the assumptions presented in this analysis. No reductions are available in 2010 as a result of the assumption that options did not start to penetrate the market until 2011.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 61-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 40 2010

2020

2030 HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Figure 4-2: Global Abatement P otential in Foams Manufacturing : 2010, 2020, and 2030



## IV.4.2 Emissions from Foams

Although there are two main types of foams

— open cell and closed cell

— HFCs are primarily used in

closed

- cell foam applications for their physical and performance properties. 1 HFC blowing agents are emitted during product/equipment manufacture, use, disposal , and even following disposal (e.g., in landfills) if the foam substance is not specially treated. For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing HFC emissions from this sector, this analysis considers emissions from the following c losed

- cell foam appl ications : polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU commercial refrigeration foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, PU continuous and d iscontinuous panel foam, PU one

- component foam, and PU spray foam. The relative GWP

- weighted emission shares of the se applications in 2020 are

shown in Figure 4-3.

1 Open cell foams experience significant blowing agent leakage due to the cell structure.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 62HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Figure 4-3: Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Application Type (% of G WP

- Weighted Emissions)

For the purpose of this analysis, the sector considers eight facilities and/or applications, as defined

below.

• PU appliance foam manufacturing facility using HFC blowing agent: characterized as a typical manufacturing facility that produces 550,000 refrigerators per year and consumes nearly 537,000 kg of HFC

- 245fa blowing agent annually.

• PU commercial refrigeration foam manufacturing facility using HFC blowing agent: characterized as a typical manufacturing facility that produces 50,000 commercial units per year

and consumes 70,000 kg of HFC

- 245fa blowing agent annually.

• PU s pray foam contractor using HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 blowing agent : characterized as a typical PU spray foam contractor that uses nearly 58, 00 0 kg of HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 PU spray foam annually

.

• O ne

- component foam manufacturing facility using HFC

- 134a or HFC

- 152a blowing agent : characterize d as a typical facility that produces one

- component foam and uses over 130,000 kg per year of HFC blowing agent

.

• XPS b oardstock production facility using HFC

- 134a/CO 2 blowing agent : characterize d as a typical facility that creates approximately 1,000,000 board feet of XPS boardst ock per year across

10 lines using nearly 7,100 kg of HFC

- 134a and CO 2 blowing agent.

• PU c ontinuous and d iscontinuous f oams manufacturing facility using HFC

- 134a blowing agent : characterize d as a typical manufacturing facility that uses 453,000 kg of HFC -1 34a per year.

• A ppliance demanufacturing facility using m anual b lowing a gent r ecovery: characterize d as a typical demanufacturing facility that manually processes 1 25,000 disposed domestic refrigerators

per year.

• Appliance demanufacturing facility using f ul ly a utomated b lowing a gent r ecovery: characterized as a typical demanufacturing facility that processes 200,000 domestic refrigerators per year using fully automated equipment

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 63HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

For modeling purposes, data typical for facilities in the U nited S tates are used. Certain cost assumptions,

such as capital costs, are adjusted for other regions. 2 Otherwise, it is assumed that the costs and reductions achieved in the modeled facilities could be scaled and would be representative of the costs

and reductions i n other regions.



### IV.4.2.1 Activity Data, Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

Foam consumption for the U nited States is estimated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA ’s) Vintaging Model. This consumption and asso ciated emissions are assumed to scale with country gross domestic product ( GDP ) , with several regional adjustments made to account for

differences in HFC foam consumption based on data provided in FTOC (2010 ). Specifically, in the Europe an Union, HFC consumption for XPS boardstock and commercial refrigeration is assumed to be
lower than in the United States, because of a faster transition to low

- GWP alternatives, while no HFC consumption is assumed in the PU appliance subsector (because t he transition away from HFCs is already complete). S imilarly

, in developing countries, no HFC consumption is assumed in PU appliance, commercial refrigeration, XPS boardstock, PU spray, and PU continuous and discontinuous foam s, because these subsectors ar e transitioning directly from ODS to non

- HFC low

- GWP alternatives. Additionally, a reduced proportion of HFC consumption in PU one

- component foam is assumed in developing countries relative to the U.S. subsector (with consumption assumed only for HFC

- 134a, not

HFC

- 152a).



### IV.4.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global HFC emissions from foams were estimated at 22 Mt CO 2 e in 2010

, projected to grow to 52

Mt CO 2 e by 2020 and 92 Mt CO 2 e by 2030. Growth in emissions is driven by GDP. Globally, HFC emissions from foam production and use have been growing because of the phaseout of ODS under the Montreal

Protocol. Because of the costs associated with HFC

- based foams, many countries have transitioned/are transitioning from ODS to hydrocarbons or other non

- HFC alternatives. Because of developing countries’ minimal use of HFCs, the growth in global emissions for the past decade has been driven by emissions from developed countries. Consumption is modeled based on US EPA ’ s Vintaging Model, with emissions

es timated based on assumed blowing agent loss rates at manufacture, during lifetime, and at disposal
— which vary by foam application and blowing agent type. Emissions for major countries and regions are presented in Table 4-1.



## IV.4.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

This analysis considers the costs of reducing foam emissions by (1) replacing HFCs with low

- GWP blowing agents in various types of foam m anufacturing operations and (2) properly recovering and disposing of foam contained in the eq uipment at the end of its life. Specifically, eight abatement options

were identified and analyzed for reducing emissions at product/equipment production by using hydrocarbon (HC) or CO 2 blowing agents in place of HFCs, and two options were identified for reducing

2 In developing countries, it is assumed that capital costs are 10% higher than those in the United States.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 64HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Table 4-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)
Top 5 Emitting Countries

United States 6.1 8.7 16.4 23.0 30.5 8.4%
Japan 7.6 10.0 15.0 19.7 25.5 6.3%
Germany 1.7 2.4 4.4 5.9 7.7 7.7%

France 1.3 1.7 3.2 4.3 5.6 7.7%
Italy 1.2 1.6 2.9 3.9 5.1 7.7%
Rest of Regions

Africa — — — — — 0.0%

Central & South America — — — — — 0.0%

Middle East — — — — — 0.0%
Europe 3.0 4.1 7.7 10.2 13.4 7.7%

Eurasia 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 6.5%

Asia 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 9.4%

North America 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.8 2.4 8.4%

World Total 21.7 29.6 51.8 70.0 91.8 7.5%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 a

.

emissions at the end of the equipment’s life by using various methods of foam recovery at the time of appliance disposal. These options are described in the subsections below and summarized in Table 4-2

. Additional details of the ca lculations are provided in Appendix F to this chapter

. Additional options considered

, but not yet included in the cost analysis

, are examined in Section s
4 .3.11 t hrough 4.3.13, after the 10 options listed in Table 4-2 are discussed. These and other options not mentioned are also potentially available but have not been included in this analysis due to data availability and time

. 

### Table 4-2: Foams Manufacturing Abatement Options

Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency Applicability

Appliance: HFCs to HCs 100% New PU appliances

Commercial refrigeration : HFCs to HCs 100% New PU commercial refrigeration units
Spray: HFC245fa/CO 2 to HC 100% New spray foam applications
Spray: HFC245fa/CO 2 to CO 2 100% New spray foam applications

XPS: HFC134a/CO 2 to LCD/ a lcohol 100% New XPS boardstock foam applications

One component: HFC

- 134a to HCs 100% New PU one

- component foam applications

One component: HFC

- 152a to HCs 100% New PU one

- component foam applications

Continuous and discontinuous : HFC134a to HCs 100% New PU continuous and discontinuous foam applications
Appliance EOL: Manual process 85% Domestic refrigerators reaching end of life
Appliance EOL: Fully automated process 95% Domestic refrigerators reaching end of life

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 65HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### IV.4.3.1 HCs in PU Appliances

This option replaces HFC

- 245fa used in PU appliance foam with HCs. HCs are inexpensive and have

near

- zero direct GWPs. T echnical issues exist with using HCs , including flammability, and lower insulation performance (USEPA, 2009 ), but th ese can be overcome through proper safety controls and engineering design

. A significant advantage of hydrocarbons is that they can be easily blended to impact a range of properties, such as thermal performance, cell gas pressure, and foam density, as well as cost (TEAP, 2012 ). Approximately 50% of hydrocarbons used in appliances are based on cyclopentane and isopentane, due to their low operating costs and good foam properties (UNEP, 2010; TEAP, 2012 ). Cyclopentane has also been blended with isobutene to improve flow

- ability and compressive strength, or

with m ethylal , to improve performance (UNEP, 2010). Flammability, however, may cause a high incremental capital cost for facilities, which may be uneconomic for small or medium

- sized enterprises; otherwise, HCs have low operating costs (TEAP, 2012 ). Using HCs instead of HFC

- 245fa in PU appliance

foam eliminates HFC emissions at all stages of the product life cycle ( i.e., at manufacturing, during appliance use, and at appliance disposal).

This option applies to HFC

- 245fa in newly manufactured PU appliance foam. This option is not applied in the European Union or in developing countries, because no HFC consumption is a ssumed in this application in the baseline

. One

- time costs are estimated at approximately $4.8 million per facility for safety modifications, installation/retrofit of high

- pressure foam dispensers, installation of systems storage tanks, pumps, and premixin g stations, as well as training, trials, testing, and certification (TEAP, 2012 ; UNEP, 201 1a ). Incremental a nnual costs associated with replacement formulations are estimated at approximately $1.6 million (UNEP

, 2011a ). These annual costs are more than offset by annual savings of nearly $4.4 million associated with lower blowing agent costs

.



### IV.4.3.2 HCs in Commercial Refrigeration

This option replaces HFC

- 245fa used in commercial refrigeration foam with HCs , namely cyclopentane and cyclopentane/isopentane blends. HCs are inexpensive and have near

- zero direct GWPs.

T echnical issues exist with using hydrocarbons , such as flammability a nd lower insulation performance, but these can be overcome through proper safety controls and engineering design. A significant advantage of hydrocarbons is that they can be easily blended to impact a range of properties, such as thermal performance, cell gas pressure, and foam density, as well as cost (TEAP, 2012 ). Use of cyclopentane and cyclo/iso blends in commercial refrigeration has a particularly good balance between foam properties and density. Such HC blends are associated with low operating costs and are well

proven ( UNEP, 2010 ; TEAP, 2012 ). Flammability, however, may cause a high incremental capital cost for facilities, which may be uneconomic for small or medium

- sized enterprises; otherwise, hydrocarbons have low operating costs (TEAP, 2012 ).

This option applies to HFC

- 245fa in newly manufactured PU commercial refrigeration foam. This option is not applied in developing countries, because no HFC consumption is assumed in this application in the baselin e. One

- time costs are estimated at abo ut $ 1.26 million per facility as sociated with safety modifications, installation/retrofit of high

- pressure foam dispensers, installation of hydrocarbon storage systems, pumps, and premixing stations, as well as, safety audits, trials, and training (TEAP,

2 012 ; UNEP, 2011 b ). Incremental a nnual costs associated with replacement formulations are estimated at nearly $105,000 (UNEP, 2011b ). These annual costs are more than offset by annual savings of abo ut $ 602,000 associated with lower blowing agent costs

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 66HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### IV.4.3.3 HC in Polyurethane Spray Foams

This option replaces HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 used in PU spray foam with HCs, specifically an 80/20 blend of cyclopentane and isopentane. HCs are inexpensive and have near

- zero direct GWPs. However, it should be noted that technical issues exist with using hydrocarbons , including flammability , which may render this alternative unsafe in some spray applications (TEAP, 2012 ). Using HCs instead of HFC

- 245fa / CO 2 in PU spray foam would eliminate HFC emissions during application (first year) and over the product

lifetime (USEPA, 2009 ).

This option applies to all HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 in newly manufactured PU spray foam. This option is not applied in developing countries, because no HFC consumption is assumed in this application in the

baseline. One

- time costs are estimated at $ 15,700 per contractor for new formulations and equipment (e.g., spray nozzles), while annual operating costs are estimated at $45,200 for fire retardant, worker safety training, and cost increases from blowing agent density change. These annual costs are offset by annual savings of $50,400 associated with lower blowing agent costs.



### IV.4.3.4 CO2 in Polyurethane Spray Foams

This option replaces HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 blends used in PU spray foam with CO 2 (water). In the process of using CO 2 (water) in foams, first isocyanate and the polyol or polyamine react to form a polymer,

which forms a solid

. Water is introduced and a chemical reaction between the water and polymeric isocyanate produces CO 2 , which is used as a blowing agent . Using CO 2 (water) instead of HFC

- 245fa in PU spray foams eliminates HFC emissions during the production and application stages and over the product lifetime (USEPA, 2009 ). CO 2 is considered to have moderate foam properties (due to its high

therm al conductivity and high density), and requires greater thickness that leads to a cost penalty compared to other options (TEAP, 2012). The use of CO 2 in this application is most predominant in Japan, with reported use also in North Ameri ca and Spain (UNEP, 2010 ).

This option applies to all HFC

- 245fa/CO 2 in newly manufactured PU spray foam . This option is not applied in developing countries, because no HFC consumption is assumed in this application in the

baseline

. One -t ime costs are estimated at $ 4,600 per contractor (for new formulations and minimal equipment modifications), while annual operating costs are estimated at $60,700 (for fire retardant and

the cost increase from blowing agent density change). These annual co sts are partly offset by annual savings of $10,700 associated with lower agent costs.



### IV.4.3.5 LCD/Alcohol in XPS Boardstock

This option replaces the HFC

- 134a and CO 2 - based blends used in extruded polystyrene (XPS)

boar dstock foam with liquid CO 2 (LCD)/alcohol. L CD is blended with other foam components under pressure prior to the initiation of the chemical reaction. When decompressed, the CO 2 expands, resulting in froth foam that further expands with the additional release of CO 2 from the water/is ocyanate resin reaction that forms the PU foam matrix. Difficulties encountered in using LCD include the limited solubility of the chemical mixture, controlled decompression, and distribution of the unavoidable froth (USEPA, 2009 ) . Foam s blown with CO 2 may suffer from lower thermal performance , lower dimensional stability, and higher density versus fluorocarbon

- blown foams (USEPA, 2009 ) . To overcome these
limitations, CO 2 can be blended with HCs or HFCs (Williams et a l., 1999 ; Honeywell, 2000; Alliance,

2001 ).

This option applies to all HFC

- 134a/CO 2 blends in newly manufactured XPS boardstock foam. This option is not applied in developing countries, because no HFC consumption is assumed in this application in the baseline. This analysis assesses the costs for the foam producer to replace an HFC

134a / CO 2 - based blend with LCD/ a lcohol in one of 10 production lines

. One

- time costs are estimated at

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 67HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

$5,856,000 per facility (for equipment, safety, and incineration considerations), while annual operating

costs are estimated at $915,000 (for labor, energy, and lost capacity). These annual costs are offset by annual savings of $4,770,000 associated with lower costs for agent and polystyrene resin.



### IV.4.3.6 HFC

- 134a to HCs in PU One

- Component Foam

This option replaces HFC

- 134a used in PU one

- component foam with H Cs, specifically a 50/50 blend of propane and butane. HCs are inexpensive and have near

- zero direct GWPs. Technical issues exist with using HCs, such as flammability and lower insulation performance, but these can be overcome through proper safety controls and engineering design (USEPA, 2009 ). A significant advantage of hydrocarbons is that they can be easily blended to impact a range of properties, such as thermal performance, cell gas pressure, and foam density, as well as cost (TEAP, 2012 ). Use of butane and propane in one component foams is well proven and is associated with low operating costs (TEAP, 2012 ). Using HCs instead of HFC

134a in PU one

- component foams eliminates HFC emissions during ma nufacturing and over an assumed product lifetime of 1 year (USEPA, 2009 ).

This option applies to all HFC

- 134a in newly manufactured PU one

- component foam in both developed and developing countries . One

- time costs are estimated at $399,0 00 3 per facility (for capital costs and safety equipment), while annual operating costs are estimated at $342,000 (for fire retardant and worker safety training). These annual costs are offset by annual savings of $859,000 associated with lower
agent costs

.



### IV.4.3.7 HFC

- 152a to HCs in PU One

- Component Foam

Similar to the option above, this option replaces HFC

- 152a used in PU one

- component foam with HCs, specifically a 50/50 blend of propane and butane.

This option applies to all HFC

- 152a in newly manufactur ed PU one

- component foam. This option is
not ap plied in developing countries, because no baseline HFC

- 152a consumption is assumed in this application. One

- time costs are estimated at $399,000 per facility (for capital costs and safety equipment),

while ann ual operating costs are estimated at $342,000 (for fire retardant and worker safety training). These annual costs are offset by annual savings of $409,000 associated with lower agent costs

.



### IV.4.3.8 HCs in PU Continuous and Discontinuous Foams

This option replaces HFC

- 134a used in PU continuous and discontinuous panel foam with HCs. HCs are inexpensive and have near

- zero direct GWPs. Some technical issues exist with using HCs, such as flammability and lower insulation performance, but these can be overcome through proper safety controls and engineering design (USEPA, 2009 ). A significant advantage of hydrocarbons is that they can be easily blended to impact a range of properties, such as thermal performance, cell gas pressure, and

foam de nsity, as well as cost (TEAP, 2012). Using HCs instead of HFC

- 134a in PU continuous and discontinuous panel foam eliminates HFC emissions during the manufacturing stage, during the foam’s

assumed 50

- year lifetime, and at time of product disposal (USEPA, 2009 ).

This option is assumed to be applicable to all HFC

- 134a in newly manufactured PU continuous and discontinuous panel foam. This option is not applied in developing countries, because no HFC

3 In developing countries, it is assumed that capital costs are 10% higher than those in the United States.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 68HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

consumption is assumed in this application in the baseline. One

- time costs are estimated at $319,000 per facility (for capital costs and safety equipment), while annual operating costs are estimated at $2,490,000 (for fire retardant, worker safety training, and changes in foam density). These annual costs are offset by annual savings of $2,937,000 associated with lower agent costs.



### IV.4.3.9 Manual Blowing Agent Recovery from Appliances at End of Life (EOL)

In most countries, 4 foams contained in appliances and other products typic ally end up in landfills, where the remaining blowing agent still contained in the insulation at the end of the product’s life is released during shredding and compaction or slowly over time (CARB, 2011 ). This option involves

manual labo r to disassemble appliances and remove the foam in large pieces; the recovered foam is then sealed in plastic bags to prevent further off

- gassing of the blowing agent and subsequently sent for

incineration in a waste

- to

- energy plant. This practice is curre ntly being used in the United States and Canada, where voluntary programs and/or demand

- side management programs are in place to encourage the safe disposal of inefficient appliances (CARB, 2011 ).

This abatement option applies to existin g domestic refrigerators reaching disposal. This option is not applied in the European Union or in developing countries, because no baseline HFC consumption is

assumed in PU appliances (further, recovery of foam at appliance equipment EOL is assumed in the EU baseline) . One

- time costs are estimated at $1 million per facility (for automated saws), while net annual operating costs are estimated at $4,865,000 per facility for labor and handling costs (CARB

, 2011 ).



### IV.4.3.10 Fully Automated Blowing Agent Recovery from Appliances at EOL

Similar to the previous option, this option involves the recovery of foam at the end of the appliance’s life, but instead using fully automated appliance dismantling machine s that separate all components

, inclu ding the foam

- blowing agent. The blowing agent is then reconcentrated and sent to a destruction facility approved to destroy ODS, while the remaining foam fluff is typically sent to a landfill . Fully automated appliance recycling technologies can handle an estimated annual throughput of 150,000 to 250,000 units (CARB, 2011 ).

This abatement option applies to existing domestic refrigerators reaching disposal. This option is not applied in the European Union or in developing countries, becau se no baseline HFC consumption is assumed in this application. One

- time costs are estimated at $5,000,000 per facility (for the fully automated unit)

, while net annual operating costs are estimated at $ 6,130,000 per facility for labor, handling, and electr icity costs ( CARB

, 2011 ).



### IV.4.3.11 Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent in PU Foams

Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent 5 produced by Honeywell (also referred to as Solstice LBA

, Solstice 1233zd(E) , or Trans -1- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop -1- ene ) is under development/in early commercialization

4 Foa m recovery from disposed appliances is already mandatory in a number of countries, including Japan and the European Union.

5 Other u nsaturated HFCs and HCFCs with low GWPs are being developed by DuPont and Arkema, among others

, for use in PU and other foam applications, which are likely to be commercialized in the coming years. Although t hese compounds are not yet commercialized, they may be expected to have similar GWPs and applications as the Solstice compounds described here

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 69HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

to replace HFC

- 134a and HFC

- 245fa used in a range of PU foam applications , including appliance foam, commercial refrigeration foam, continuous and discontinuous panel foam, and spray foam (TEAP, 2012 ). The blowing agent has been approved in the U nited S tates , Japan, European Union (up to 10MT), India,

and Asia Pacific, South America, Central America, Middle East, and Africa regions (Honeywell

, 2012 a ).

The first comme rcial manufacture is expected to occur in 2013 (TEAP, 2012 ). Recently, Whirlpool

announced that by 2014, Solstice LBA will be used in all of the company’s refrigerators produced in the

U nited S tates (Whirlpool

, 2012 ). Solstice LBA has a GWP of 4.7 to 7 ( US EPA

, 2012 b ). The foam blowing agent is also considered to be nonflammable (Honeywell

, 2012 a) , which could limit capital costs to convert from an HFC to this product

. S olstice LBA exhibits relatively high performance and is considered a drop

- in alternative to HFCs, with no additional capital costs (TEAP, 2012 ). Any significant cost is expected to be the result of the incremental cost of the blowing agent, which is expected to range from $11/kg to $17/kg ( TEAP, 2012 ; Williams, 2013 ) , but which may be lower, especially o nce production

volume increases

. Recent evaluations showed up to a 4 % improvement in energy efficiency compared to

HFC

- 245fa in domestic refrigerators ( TEAP, 2012 ; Honeywell, 2012 a ), and a 5 % to 10% energy perfor mance improvement compared to HFC

- 245fa in spray and panel foams (Honeywell

, 2012 a)

, making it an attractive and likely option for markets where thermal insulation properties of the foam are important, such as in domestic refrigerators. With its low GWP, Solstice 1233zd(E) could be used in lieu

of HC abatement options analyzed above for PU foams applications and achieve similar emission reductions, but at different costs. B ecause it is nonflammable and of similar properties as the HFCs it would replace, it would avoid some of the barriers due to pressure and flammability that exist with the other options, such as in PU spray foam , and hence may penetrate those markets further or faster than the options currently analyzed

. Th is option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis but may be added as a future update

.



### IV.4.3.12 Solstice Gas Blowing Agent in XPS Foam and One

- Component Foam

Solstice Gas Blowing Agent 6 (also referred to as Solstice GBA , Solstice 1234ze(E), and HFO

- 1234ze)

can replace HFC

- 134a used in PU one

- component foam and is under development/in early commercialization to replace HFC

- 134a in XPS foam beginning in 2013 . The blowing agent has been
commercial since 2008, with initial s ales starting in the EU and Japan; approval for sales in the U nited

S tates was awarded in 2011 (Honeywell

, 2012a ). The GWP of Solstice GBA is <6 and it is considered to be

nonflammable up to temperatures of 28°C (82.4°F) (TEAP, 201 2) . In XPS foam, Solstice GBA has shown good insulation performance (i.e., energy efficiency) and compressive strength and dimensional stability

similar to HFC

- 134a, and allows extrusion of thick foam (Honeywell

, 2012a ), making it an attractive and likely option for markets where such properties of the foam are important, such as in XPS foam

. Solstice GBA can be used as a near drop

- in replacement for HFC

- 134a, and can be handled, transported, and

stored in the sam e manner (Honeywell

, 2012b ). Transition to Solstice GBA is anticipated to require negligible capital costs (TEAP, 2012 ; Williams, 2013 ). Any significant cost is expected to be the result of the incremental cost associated with the blowing agent, which is estimated to range from $11/kg to $17/kg ( TEAP, 2012 ; Williams, 2013 ) but which may be lower, especially once production volume increases

. With
its low GWP, HFO

- 1234ze(E) could be used in lieu of LCD/alcohol in XPS foam and hydrocarbons in one

6 Other u nsaturated HFCs and HCFCs with low GWPs are being developed by DuPont and Arkema, among others,

in XPS, one

- component, and other foam, which are likely to be commercialized in the coming years. These compounds may be expected to have similar GWPs and applications as the Sols tice compounds described here

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 70HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

component foam and achieve similar emission reductions, but at different costs

. B ecause it is

nonflammabl e and of similar properties as the HFCs it would replace, it would avoid some of the barriers

due to controlling decompression and flammability that exist with the other options, and hence may penetrate those markets further or faster than the options currently analyzed. T his option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis but may be added as a future update

.



### IV.4.3.13 Methyl Formate in PU and XPS Foams

Methyl formate may replace HFCs in commercial refrigeration, continuous and discontinuous panels, spray foam, transport refrigeration foam, and XPS foam. It is currently used in PU spray foams internationally, including Africa, Asia, Americas, Australia, China, and Europe (Ecomate, 2012 ). Methyl formate was approved as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Ecomate

, 2012 ) and has a negligible GWP (TEAP, 2012 ). It may be blended with polyols to produce non

- flammable blends that reduce con version costs (TEAP, 2012 ). In commercial refrigeration and panel foam, corrosion protection is recommended and may require moderate incremental capital costs (TEAP, 2012 ). This option is reportedly associated with a 10% increase in operating costs due to the need for higher densities to address foam instability (UNEP, 2010 ). Generally, use of this alternative does not require large capital changes to facilities (Ecomate, 2012 ). One producer of rigid foam s for refrigerated transport applications in Brazil completed conversion to methyl formate within 3 years and has since reported an increase in the productivity of the lines and reduced operational costs compared to HFC-134a (Cres tani, 2012 ). Relative to hydrocarbon systems, methyl formate is safer to handle, and has lower shipping, handling, and storage costs (Ecomate, 2012 ). The GWP of methyl formate is similar to that of the options e xamined in this report; hence, emission reductions would be similar. Due to a lack of readily available cost information on this alternative, this option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis.



## IV.4.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Table 4-3 presents the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all cost parameters necessary to calculate the break

- even price.



### Table 4-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis
Project Annual Annual O&M Abatement
Lifetime Capital Cost Revenue Costs Amount Abatement Option Facility Type (Years) (2010 USD) (2010 USD) (2010 USD) (tCO 2 e)

Appliance: HFCs to
HCs PU appliance foam manufacturing facility 25 $4,831,000 $4,375,000 $1,610,000 509,951

Commercial refrigeration : HFCs to
HCs PU commercial refrigeration foam manufacturing facility 15 $ 1,260

, 000 $ 602,000 $ 105,000 66,500

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2
to HC PU spray foam contractor 25 $15,700 $50,400 $45,200 54,654

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2
to CO2 PU spray foam contractor 25 $4,600 $10,700 $60,700 54,654

XPS: HFC134a/CO2 to
LCD/ alcohol XPS boardstock production facility 25 $5,856,000 $4,770,000 $915,000 9,168

One

- component: HFC

- 134a to HCs — Developed One- component foam manufacturing facility 25 $399,000 $859,000 $342,000 169,603

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 71HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Table 4-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis (continued) Project Annual Annual O&M Abatement
Lifetime Capital Cost Revenue Costs Amount Abatement Option Facility Type (Years) (2010 USD) (2010 USD) (2010 USD) (tCO 2 e)

One

- component:
HFC

- 134a to HCs — Developing One- component foam manufacturing facility 25 $438,900 $859,000 $342,000 169,603

One

- component: HFC

- 152a to HCs One

- component foam manufacturing facility 25 $399,000 $409,000 $342,000 18,265

Continuous and PU continuous and
discontinuous : discontinuous foams 25 $319,000 $2,937,000 $2,490,000 588,900
HFC134a to HCs manufacturing facility

Appliance EOL: Manual process Appliance demanufacturing facility using manual blowing agent recovery 25 $1, 0 00,000 — $ 4,865,000 99,380

Appliance EOL: Fully automated process Appliance demanufacturing facility using fully automated blowing agent recovery 25 $5, 0 00,000 — $ 6,130,000 177,716



## IV.4.5 Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis

IV.4.5.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for model facilities. We applied the

costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each appropriate option and facility or operation. The model estimates the mitigation potential based on the perce ntage of the total ODS substitutes’ baseline (that is, the HFC emissions from sectors that historically used ODSs) attributable to each representative facility/operation and the technical effectiveness for each technology in each facility.



### IV.4.5.2 Assessm ent of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/facility type combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions by facility in addition to process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. Market penetration is a modeled value that takes into account the market’s willingness to adopt the option, the rate of uptake of the alternative into new foams, and the lifetime of the existing foam base. Because foam lifetimes can be decades, replacing

the stock of foams with non

- HFC blowing agents will take many years. The market penetration rate is

modeled to c apture such time lapses. Technical effectiveness figures do not account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts associated with changes in electricity consumption (e.g., for foam blowing processes or for end

- of

- life appliance processing) , which are accounted f or in the cost analysis. 7 Table 4-4 summarizes these assumptions and presents technical effectiveness parameters used in the MAC model

.

7 Indirect greenhouse gas emissions are not accounted for in the technical effectiveness calculations so that the analysis can show purely ODS substitute (i.e., HFC) emission reductions achievable. It is recognized that indir ect GHG emissions can be significant, and such differences, to the extent data is available on such, are accounted for in the cost analyses.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 72HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Table 4-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Facility/Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) a Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness (2030) b

Appliance: HFCs to HCs —U.S. /Other developed New PU appliances 100 % 100% 37%

Commercial refrigeration : HFCs to
HCs

— Developed New PU commercial refrigeration units 100 % 100% 39%

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2 to HC

— Developed New spray foam applications 30 % 100% 9%

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2 to CO2

— Developed New spray foam applications 70% 100% 22 %

XPS: HFC134a/CO2 to LCD/Alcohol — U.S. /Other developed New XPS boardstock foam applications 75 % 100% 66%

XPS: HFC134a/CO2 to LCD/Alcohol

— EU New XPS boardstock foam applications 75 % 100% 55%

One- component: HFC

- 134a to HCs — Developed & developing New PU one

- component foam applications 100 % 100% 94%

One- component: HFC

- 152a to HCs — Developed New PU one

- component foam applications 100 % 100% 6%

Continuous and Discontinuous: HFC134a
to HCs

— Developed New PU continuous and discontinuous foam applications 100 % 100% 49%

Appliance EOL: Manual process — U.S./ Other developed Domestic refrigerators reaching
end of life 50 % 85% 29%

Appliance EOL: Fully automated

process —U.S./ Other developed Domestic refrigerators reaching
end of life 20 % 95% 12%

a Market penetration assumptions for this analysis vary over time, and the technical effectiveness values are based on the cumulative market penetration rates assumed until that point. More information on the market penetration assumptions is provided in the appendix F to this chapter.

b Technical effectiveness figures represent the percent of baseline emissions from the relevant facility type that can be abated in 2030; f igures do not account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts associated with increased electricity consumption (e.g., for foam blowing processes or for

en d- of

- life appliance processing), which are accounted for in the cost analysis.



### IV.4.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Table 4-5 provides examples of the break

- even prices calculated for each abatement measure. Project

costs and benefits are calculated for model facilities and are used in the calculation that solves for the

break

- even price that sets the project’s benefits equal to its costs. The previous section describes the assumptions used to estimate costs for each technology for applicable facilities. Additional details on the analyses can be found in Appendix F to this chapter

.

The break

- even prices presented in Table 4-5 rep resent model faciliti es. Actual p rices vary by country because of the scaling of costs and benefits by international price factors. Complete international MAC results are presented in Section IV.4.5.4

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 73HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit
of Deprecia tion

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 e) Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) 

### Table 4-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Foams Manufacturing

Abatement Option

Appliance: HFCs to HCs 509,951 1.7

− 5.4 0.3

− 3.9

Commercial refrigeration : HFCs to HCs 66,500 4.2

− 7.5 0.8

− 4.2

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2 to HC 54,654 0.1

− 0.1 0.0

− 0.1

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2 to CO2 54,654 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9

XPS: HFC134a/CO2 to LCD/Alcohol 9,168 117.3

− 420.5 17.0

− 320.2

One- component: HFC

- 134a to HCs — Developed 169,603 0.4

− 3.0 0.1

− 2.7

169,603 0.5

− 3.0 0.1

− 2.6 One- component: HFC

- 134a to HCs — Developing

One- component: HFC

- 152a to HCs 18,265 4.0

− 3.7 0.6

− 0.2

588,900 0.1

− 0.8 0.0

− 0.7 Continuous and discontinuous : HFC134a to
HCs

Appliance EOL: Manual process 99,380 1.8 49.0 0.3 50.5

Appliance EOL: Fully automated process 177,716 5.2 34.5 0.8 38.9



### IV.4.5.4 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 13.7 and 37 .0 MtCO 2 e, respectively. There are 27.0

MtCO 2 e of reductions available in 2030 resulting from implementing currently available technologies that are economical at projected costs. If an additional emissions reduction value (e.g., tax incentive, subsidy, or tradable emissions reduction credit) above the zero break

- even price were available to
manufacturers/users of foams, then additional emission reductions could be cost

- effective. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 4- 6, which shows abatement potential by major country and regional grouping at select break

- even prices in 2030; Figure 4-4 illustrates the marginal abatement cost curves of the top five emitting countries.



## IV.4.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

Available data on costs for abatement technologies were not scaled to reflect potential differences in the costs outside of the United States. Additional research may be required to determine actual variability in costs across regions. Moreover, the development of alternative blowing agents is quickly evolving; thus, new options may enter the market, which should be considered quantitatively in future analyses (e.g., unsaturated fluorinated compounds and methyl formate).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 74Europe 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3

Eurasia

- - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Asia

North America 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.4

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 5 10 15 20

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) France

Italy

Germany

Japan

United States HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



### Table 4-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2e 

### )

−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100

Top 5 Emitting Countries

France 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Germany 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Italy 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

United States 3.7 3.7 12.6 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 14.1 17.5 17.5

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — — — — — — —
Central and South America — — — — — — — — — — —
Middle East — — — — — — — — — — —

World Total 8.1 8.1 27.0 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 30.2 37.0 37.0

Japan 3.1 3.1 10.5 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 11.8 14.6 14.6 

### 100

+

Figure 4-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve s for Top Five Foam Emitters in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 75HFC EMI SSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING



## References

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. 2001. Review of EPA Draft Chapter 9 by Members of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Alliance. May 16, 2001.

Caleb. 2000. In response to Proposed Rulemaking 65 Fed. Reg. 42653, July 11th 2000. Caleb Man agement Services Limited, UK (p

. 3).

CARB . Sep tember 2011. Lifecycle Analysis of High Global Warming Potential Greenhouse Gas Destruction. Prepared by ICF International. Crestani, Felipe (Folle/Bantech

- Randon ). 2012. Alternative Technologies in Rigid Foam for Transportation. The
Folle Conversion Case. Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: Next Steps Conference

. July 20

- 21, 2012. Bangkok, Thailand. Summary available at http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/24183/docs/Bangkok%20Technology%20Conference%20

­ %20Report%20and%20Cover%20

- %20FINAL.pdf

. Ecomate. 2012. Cost Effective Blowing Agent for Polyurethane Foam Applications. Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: Next Steps Conference . July 20

- 21, 2012. Bangkok, Thailand.

FTOC. 2010. 2010 Rigid and Flexible Foams Report. Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/ FTOC/FTOC

- 2010

- Assessment

- Report.pdf

. Honeywell. 2000. Comments of Honeywell Inc. on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Listing of Certain HCFCs and Blends as “Unacceptable” Substitutes for HCFC

- 141b

– 65 Fed. Reg. 42653 (11 July 2000). Personal communication from Richard Ayers of Howrey, Simon, Arnold, and White to Anhar Karimjee of EPA on September 11, 2000. Available from EPA’s Foams Docket A

- 200

­ 18, Document IV -D- 41. Honeywell (Williams, D

. ). 2 012 a. Solstice Blowing Agents Low Climate Impact, High Energy Efficiency. Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: Next Steps Conference. July 20

– 21, 2012. Bangkok, Thailand. Honeywell. 2012b. Honeywell Low Global Warming Technologies: One

- Comp onent Foam

— HFO

- 1234ze. 2004
– 2012 . Available at: http://www51.honeywell.com/sm/lgwp

- uk/applications

- n2/one

- component

- foam

HFO

- 1234ze.html

. Technology an d Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). May 2012. Decision XXIII/0 Task Force Report:
Additional Information on Alternatives to Ozone

- Depleting Substance. Volume II. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. Guidance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams Sourcebook on Technology Options for Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System. Prepared by Caleb Management Services. United Nations Environment Programm e (UNEP). 2011a. Project Proposal: China. China HCFC P hase

- out Management Plan. 

### UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/64/39. June 15, 2011. Available at: http://www.multilateralfund.org/MeetingsandDocuments/currentmeeting/6 4/English/1/6429.pdf

. United Nations Enviro nment Programme (UNEP). 2011b. Project Proposal: Mexico. Mexico HCFC Phase

out Management Plan. UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/64/39. June 17, 2011. Available at: http://www.multilateralfund.org/MeetingsandDocuments/currentmeeting/64/English/1/6439.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). June 2006

. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

. U.S. EPA #430 -R-06- 005

. Washington, DC : Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 30, 200 9. 2009 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Analysis for Reduction of HFCs in Traditional Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) End

- Use Applications: Draft Report. Prepared by ICF International.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2012a)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 76HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING

U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency (USEPA). August 10, 2012 b

. Pro tection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 27 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 155. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2012

- 08

- 10/pdf/2012

- 19688.pdf

. Whirlpool. August 15, 2012. Whirlpool Corporation and Honeywell Introduce Most Environmentally Responsible and Energy Efficient Insulation Available into U.S. Made Refrigerators. Available at: http ://honeywell.com/News/Pages/Whirlpool

- Corp

- and

- Honeywell

- Introduce

- Most

Environmentally

- Responsible

- and

- Energy

- Efficient

- Insulation

- Available

- Refridge.aspx

. Williams, D . January 2013. Personal communication between Jenny Tanphanich, ICF International , and Dave Williams, Honeywell.
Williams, D.J., M.C. Bogdan, and P.B. Logsdon

. 1999. Optimizing Performance and Value: HFC

- 245fa and Blends of HFC

- 245fa for Insulating Foams. Conference Proceedings from the Earth Technologies Forum TF 1999, pp. 290

- 302.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 77HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



# IV.5. HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use

IV.5.1 Sector Summary 

# A erosol propellant formulations containing HFCs are used in a variety of consumer products, such as spray deodorants and hair sprays, and specialty aerosol uses, such as freeze spray and dust removal products. Additionally, aerosol propellants containing HFCs are used in pharmaceutical products, primarily metered dose inhalers (MDIs).

Global HFC emissions from the aeroso ls sector were estimated at roughly 45 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) in 2010 and are expected to climb to 146 MtCO 2 e by 2030 as shown

in Figure 5-1 . A majority of the growth is attributed to an increase in the consumption of HFC s for aerosol applications in developing countries.



### Figure 5- 1: HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: USEPA, 2012

.

A variety of abatement measures are available to reduce emissions. For consumer aerosol products, the options include transitioning to replacement propellants with very low global warming potentials (GWPs) and converting to a not

- in

- kind (NIK) alternative, such as a stick, roller, or finger/trigger pumps. Dry powder inhaler (DPI) technology is considered in this analysis as a replacement measure for MDIs.

The global abatement potential from aerosols is equal to approximately 66% of total annual emissions

f rom the aerosols sector and 5% of total annual emissions from all sectors that use ODS substitutes. Potentially, nearly 100% abatement is possible for consumer aerosol products; whereas abatement is more limited for MDIs due to medical reasons (e.g., DPIs are not suitable for cases of severe asthma or for young children). Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve results are presented in Figure 5-2 . Maximum abatement potential in the aerosols sector is 97 MtCO 2 e in 2030. There are 70 MtCO 2 e of emissions

reductions that are cost

- effective at currently projected energy prices for 2030.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 79-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### Figure 5-2: Global Abatement Potential in Aerosol Product Use: 2010, 2020, and 2030



## IV.5.2 Emissions from Aerosol Product Use

Aerosol propellants are completely emitted during product use. This analysis estimates emissions from consumer aerosol products, such as spray deodorants and hair sprays, and specialty aerosol uses, such as freeze spray and dust removal products, and, separately, emissions from MDIs. HFC

- 134a has

b een introduced as an alternative propellant to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in both MDIs and consumer aerosol products; in addition, HFC

- 227ea is used in MDIs and HFC

- 152a is used in consumer aerosol applications. This analysis characterizes these three categories, for the purposes of evaluating the cost of reducing HFC emissions, as follows:

• a facility that produces 10 million consumer aerosol cans per year, with each can containing an

HFC

- 134a aerosol propellant charge of two ounces;

• a facility that produce s 10 million consumer aerosol cans per year, with each can containing an

HFC

- 152a aerosol propellant charge of two ounces; and

• a single 200

- dose MDI aerosol unit with a charge size of 15 grams that uses HFC

- 134a propellant.
The relative shares of these app lications are displayed in Figure 5-3.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 80HFC

- 134a

Non

- MDI Aerosols,

34%

HFC

- 152a

Non

- MDI Aerosols,

24% 

### MDI Aerosols,

42% HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### Figure 5-3: Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

IV .5.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

HFC emissions from the aerosols sector represented 10% of total ODS substitute emissions in 2010. Emissions were estimated based on estimated market size and charge size of aerosol products in the United States, which was then proxied to other regions based on each country’s gross domestic product.

Growth in aero sol products correlates with economic growth, and because of the global, commoditized nature of this sector, there are no significant regional differences in the aerosol products themselves. Aerosols are fully emissive, and the HFCs contained within the aerosol are assumed to be emitted within a year of consumption. Many non

- MDI aerosols already use alternative propellants, either hydrocarbons (HCs) or manual pump mechanisms; thus, the baseline adoption of the reduction technologies is quite high in the mar ket.



### IV.5.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global emissions of HFCs from the aerosols sector were estimated to be 45 MtCO 2 e in 2010, growing

to 146 MtCO 2 e in 2030, as shown in Table 5-1 . The majority of emissions are HFC

- 134a, with lesser

amo unts of HFC

- 152a and HFC

- 227ea. Emissions are projected to grow significantly as developing

countr ie s’ economies grow and demand for consumer aerosols grows. Emissions were estimated using USEPA’s Vintaging Model and assumptions about initial market size o f the sector, the specific transitions away from CFCs in terms of timing and alternative propellant used, charge sizes, and leak rates.



## IV.5.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

A total of five abatement options were identified for the aerosols sector. For consumer aerosol products, the options are transitioning to a replacement propellant

— including HCs, HFO

- 1234ze, and

HFC

- 152a (for those products containing HFC

- 134a)

— and converting to a NIK alternative, such as a stick, roller, or finger/tr igger pump. Costs are analyzed by looking at a model facility that uses HFC to fill 10 million aerosol cans a year. For MDIs, the abatement measure examined by this analysis is further use of dry powder inhaler technology where suitable for the patient. Co sts are analyzed based on a single DPI

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 81HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### Table 5-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2010

- 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 9.4 23.0 31.2 42.2 56.9 9.4%

United States 8.9 11.9 13.0 14.2 15.6 2.8%

India 2.4 5.7 7.6 9.9 13.0 8.8%

Russia 2.6 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.2 4.4%

Mexico 1.9 3.7 4.2 4.8 5.4 5.3%

Rest of Regions

Africa 3.0 6.3 7.6 8.9 10.4 6.3%

Central and South America 1.3 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.7%

Middle East 1.8 3.7 4.4 5.1 6.0 6.2%

Europe 9.5 14.6 15.1 15.6 16.0 2.6%

Eurasia 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 4.4%

Asia 4.0 7.7 8.7 9.9 11.2 5.3%

North America 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 4.6%

World Total 45.5 84.2 100.4 120.7 145.8 6.0%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2011

compared to a single MDI, with estimated cost data that incorporates the cost associated with avoided

use of HFC

- 134a propella nt, the increase in the cost of DPI treatment, the cost to market the new treatment, and the cost to retrain the patients in using the DPI (Ecofys, 2000 ; Enviros, 2000). Table 5-2 summarizes the applicability of e ach abatement option to the aerosol emission categories. The subsequent subsections describe each abatement option in more detail.



### IV.5.3.1 Hydrocarbons

This option replaces HFC

- 134a or HFC

- 152a in non

- MDI aerosols with an HC

- based propellant. HC aerosol propellants are usually mixtures of propane, butane, and isobutane. 1 Their primary advantage lies in their affordability; the price of HC propellants which range from one

- third to one

- half that of HFCs. The main disadvantages of HC aerosol propellants are f lammability concerns and, because they are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), their contribution to ground

- level ozone and smog. Despite these concerns, HC aerosol propellants already hold a sizable share of the market and may be acceptable

for additional applications.

1 For calculation purposes, a GWP of 3.48 is used based on an average of the GWP of propane (GWP=3.3) and
isobutane (GWP=3.65).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 82HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### Table 5- 2: Aerosol Product Use Abatement Options

Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency

Applicability Consumer

Aerosol Facility/
HFC

- 134a Consumer
Aerosol Facility/
HFC

- 152a

Consumer Aerosol Products

Hydrocarbon 99.7% 97.5% NA Consumer aerosol facility/HFC

- 134a/HFC

- 152a

Not

- in

- kind 100% 100% NA Consumer aerosol facility/HFC

- 134a/HFC

- 152a

HFO

- 1234ze 99.5% 95.7% NA Consumer aerosol facility/HFC

- 134a/HFC

- 152a

HFC

- 134a to HFC

- 152a 89.2% Consumer aerosol facility/HFC

- 134a

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Products (MDIs)

Dry powder inhalers NA NA 100% Metered dose inhaler Metered

Dose
Inhaler

Costs of converting filling facilities to accept HC propellants can range from $10,000 to potentially as high as $1.2 million; the one

- time cost varies based on the need for investments in new equipment and the need to relocate to regions where the use of HCs is considered safe (Nardini, 2002 ). To accommodate any flammable propellant, a company is required to build a stor age tank to house the product. This tank will need to be connected to the main facility through a plumbing system (Techspray, 2008; MicroCare,

2008 ). According to discussions with industry, the majority of co mpanies would already have fire insurance and other fire safety precautions intact; therefore, no significant additional costs would be associated with housing a flammable chemical, and the increase in annual costs would be zero (Techspray, 2008 ; MicroCare, 2008 ). Given that HCs (estimated at $1/lb) are lower cost than HFC

- 134a or

HFC

- 152a (estimated at $3/lb and $2/lb, respectively), the adoption of this abatement measure is expected

to result in an annual savings associated with gas purchases, ranging from $1 million to nearly $3 million.



### IV.5.3.2 Not

- in

- Kind

NIK aerosol devices include finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, nebulizers, and bag

- in

- can/piston

- can systems. These systems often prove to be a better and more cost

effective option than HFC

- propelled aerosols, particularly in areas where a unique HFC property is not specifically needed. Because all of the HFC (either HFC

- 134a or HFC

- 152a) contained in the aerosol can i s replaced with a device that does not use any GHGs, the reduction efficiency of this option is 100%.

Significant variability exists in financial components of projects targeting NIK replacements for HFC

containing aerosol products. This variability is att ributable to the wide range of potential aerosol and NIK product types. A one

- time cost to make the conversion is estimated at $250,000; additionally, annual costs of $500,000 are estimated to address higher material costs of the particular sticks, rollers , and pumps being used (UNEP, 1999). An annual savings is expected, ranging from $2.3 million to $4.1 million, as a result of eliminating the need for a HFC propellant.



### IV.5.3.3 HFO

- 1234ze

HFO

- 1234ze has potential application both as a p ropellant and also as the active ingredient in aerosol

dusters. HFO

- 1234ze is nonflammable (at room temperature) and has physical properties that are very

similar to both the HFC

- 134a and HFC

- 152a. Hence, it may be used as a ‘drop

- in’ replacement for HFC

p ropellants (MicroCare, 2011 ). The manufacturer of this chemical indicates that Europe and Japan have

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 83HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE

already begun to adopt HFO

- 1234ze, while interest is also rising in the United States because of

awareness of environmental sustain ability (Honeywell, 2011a ). A number of dusters using HFO

- 1234ze are available today ( Amazon, 2013 ; ITW Chemtronics, 2013 ; Miller Stephenson, 2013 ; Stanley Supply and
Services, 2013 ). A large scale production facility is being built in the United States with an expected production of HFO

- 1234ze in late 2013 (Honeywell, 2011b ). In the absence of regulations, adoption in Europe and Japan is expected to grow continuously at a moderate rate (reaching a maximum of 15% to 20% of today’s HFC volume); therefore, this option is expected to penetrate up to 15% of the non

- MDI

HFC

- 134a market and up to 20% of the non

- MDI HFC

- 152a market. In the United States, adoption of

HFO

- 1234ze is expected to follow a similar path, but with a later start. In developing countries, no

interest in HFO

- 1234ze is expected in the foreseeable future because of inexpen sive options that are the preferred solutions today.

For this analysis, a one

- time cost of roughly $500,000 is assumed because of the need for bulk storage. According to MicroCare (2011 ), although it is possible to use one ton cylin ders and avoid the costs of adding bulk storage, using ton cylinders is inefficient and adds to the unit cost of the HFO material. Therefore, any facility using this material would almost certainly need to use bulk storage. This is likely a conservative (h igh) one

- time cost estimate, considering it is about the same capital cost considered in the next section for a flammable propellant, whereas HFO

- 1234ze(E) is not flammable at room temperatures.

Because HFO

- 1234ze has a higher cost than the other HFCs (i.e ., HFC

- 134a and HFC

- 152a), a facility making the transition would incur a higher annual cost when adopting this propellant

.



### IV.5.3.4 HFC

- 134a to HFC

- 152a

This abatement measure examines replacing HFC

- 134a (with a GWP of 1,300) with HFC

- 152a (with a

GWP of 140). HFC

- 134a is assumed to represent 58% of non

- MDI aerosols; therefore, this abatement option is only applicable to 58% of the non

- MDI aerosol model facilities. HFC

- 134a is the primary nonflammable propellant in certain industrial products. HFC

- 152a pos sesses only moderate flammability hazards and might, therefore, be acceptable for some applications that use HFC

- 134a, but it may present problems for other applications.

Costs of converting filling facilities to accept HFC

- 152a may range from $500,000 to $600,000, (Techspray, 2008 ; MicroCare, 2008 ). To accommodate HFC

- 152a (or any flammable propellant), a company is required to build a storage tank to house the product. This tank will need to be connected to the main facility through a plumbing system (Techspray, 2008 ). Aside from the costs associated with building a storage house, no other significant expenses would be incurred. According to discussions with industry, the majority of c ompanies would already have fire insurance and other fire safety precautions intact; therefore, no significant additional costs would be associated with housing a flammable chemical, and the increase in annual costs would be zero (Techspray, 2008; MicroCare, 2008 ). The lower cost of

HFC

- 152a (compared with HFC

- 134a) results in an annual savings associated with gas purchases, estimated at $1.8 million for a typical aerosol filling facility.



### IV.5.3.5 Dry Powder Inhalers

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are a viable abatement measure for most anti

- asthma drugs, although they are not successful with all patients or all drugs. Micronised dry powder, that contains the drug agent, is contained in the DPI, a non

- pressurized delivery system, and is inhaled and deposited in the lungs. They are suitable only in patients who are able to inhale robustly enough to transport the powder to the lungs. DPIs are not suitable for persons with severe asthma or for young children. Unlike M DIs, powdered drug particles contained in DPIs tend to aggregate and may cause problems in areas with hot and humid climates. Other issues that doctors and patients consider when choosing a treatment device

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 84HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE

include the patient’s manual dexterity, ability t o adapt to a new device, and perception of the effectiveness of the medicine and taste of any added ingredients. Ultimately, these and other critical patient care issues must be assessed by the doctor and patient in choosing whether a DPI, MDI or other
typ e of therapy is most appropriate (Price et al.

, 2004 ; UNEP

, 2010 ). Where feasible, DPIs

— which do not

contain GHGs

— could be used in lieu of HFC

- containing MDIs; hence, the reduction efficiency of this option is 100%.

Costs incurred with using DPIs include the increased cost of DPI treatment, the cost to market the new treatment, and the cost to retrain patients to use the DPI (Enviros, 2000). The cost of research and development of new drugs and delivery mechanisms can also be significant; however, as both MDIs and DPIs are available to the market today, and due to a lack of specific cost information, such expenses are not considered in this analysis.



### IV.5.3.6 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Ta ble 5-3 presents the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all cost parameters necessary to calculate the break

- even price. For more detailed costs information see Appendix G.



### Table 5-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facil ity Basis

Abatement Option Facility/Emission Type Project
Lifetime (years) Capital
Cost (2010 USD) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual
O&M Costs (2010 USD)

Consumer Aerosol Products

HCs Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 134a

Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 152a 10 $325,000 $2,800,000

$1,000,000 — 735,130

77,410

HFO

- 1234ze Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 134a

Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 152a 10 $500,000
— $1,400,000

$3,200,000 730,312

72,722

HFC

- 134a to
HFC

- 152a Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 134a 10 $500,000 $1,800,000
— 586,889

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Products (MDIs)

DPIs Metered dose inhaler 10 — — $700,000 1,300 Not

- in

- Kind Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 134a

Consumer aerosol/HFC

- 152a 10 $250,000 $4,100,000

$2,300,000 $500,000 737,100

79,380 Abatement

Amount (tCO 2 e)



## IV.5.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

IV.5.4.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for model facilities. We applied the

costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each appropriate option for each country. The model estimates the mitigation potential based on the percentage of the total ODS substitutes baseline attributable to each representative facility and the technical effectiveness for each technology in each facility.



### IV.5.4.2 Assessment of Technical Effectivene ss

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/facility type combination. Market penetration rates vary over time as

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 85HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE

systems are upgraded in the future. Table 5-4 summa rizes the assumptions regarding technical applicability, market penetration, and technical effectiveness of each option.



### Table 5-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030)

Consumer Aerosol Products

HFC

- 134a to HC 58% 50% 99.7% 29.0%

HFC

- 134a to NIK 58% 20% 100.0% 11.6%

HFC

- 134a to HFO

- 1234ze 58% 15% 99.5% 8.7%

HFC

- 134a to HFC

- 152a 58% 15% 89.2% 7.8%

HFC

- 152a to HC 42% 20% 97.5% 8.2%

HFC

- 152a to NIK 42% 60% 100.0% 25.1%

HFC

- 152a to HFO

- 1234ze 42% 20% 95.7% 8.0%

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Products (MDIs)

DPI 100% 20% 100.0% 20.0% Technical
Effectiveness (2030) Reduction Efficiency

a Technical effectiveness (TE) is the product of TA*MP*RE.



### IV.5.4.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Table 5-5 provides an example of how the break

- even prices are calculated for each abatement measure. Project costs and benefits are calculated for model facilities and are used in the calculation that

solves for the break

- even price that sets eac h project’s benefits equal to its costs. The previous section describes the assumptions used to estimate different costs for different facilities.

The break

- even prices presented in Table 5-5 represent model facilities. Actual prices vary by country because of the scaling of costs and benefits by international price factors. Complete international MAC results are presented in Section 5 .4.4.

Consumer Aerosol Products

HFC

- 134a to HC 735,130 0.1

− 3.8 0.0

− 3.7

HFC

- 134a to NIK 737,100 0.1

− 4.9 0.0

− 4.8

HFC

- 134a to HFO

- 1234ze 730,312 0.2 1.9 0.0 2.1

HFC

- 134a to HFC

- 152a 586,889 0.2

− 3.1 0.1

− 2.9

HFC

- 152a to HC 77,410 1.1

− 12.9 0.3

− 12.1

HFC

- 152a to NIK 79,380 0.9

− 22.7 0.2

− 22.0

HFC

- 152a to HFO

- 1234ze 72,722 1.9 44.0 0.5 45.4
Pharmaceutical Aerosol Products (MDIs)

DPI 1,300 0.0 538.5 0.0 538.5 

### Table 5-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Aerosol Product Use

Abatement Option Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tC O 2 e)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 862.0

0.8

1.2

3.1

0.2

2.2

0.1

28.7 2.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.9

2.6

4.0

10.6

0.6

7.4

0.3

96.7 0.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3

1.2 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5

3.1 7.7 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.3 9.3

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

2.2 5.4 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

28.7 70.3 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 84.7 84.7 11.2

2.5

1.1

1.2

3.1 11.2 27.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 33.0 33.0 37.7

2.5 6.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.5 7.5 8.6

1.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.6

1.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.6 4.1

3.1 7.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.0 9.0 10.3 HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### IV.5.4.4 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potentials in 2020 and 2030 are 66 and 97 MtCO 2 e, respectively. There are 70

MtCO 2 e of reductions in projected baseline emissions in 2030 resulting from implementing currently available technologies that are cost

- effective at projected prices. If an additional emissions reduction value (e.g., tax incentive, subsidy, or tradable emissions reduction credit) above the zero break

- even price were available to producers of aerosols, then additional emission reductions could be cost

- effective. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 5-6 and Figure 5-4 by major country and regiona l grouping at select break

- even prices in 2030.



### Table 5-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Country/Region −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China

India

Mexico

Russia

United States

Rest of Region

Africa

Central and South America

Middle East

Europe

Eurasia

Asia

North America

Total

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 87-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 35 China

Mexico

India

Russia

United States HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



### Figure 5-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030



## IV.5.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

The significant areas of uncertainty in this analysis are in how costs for these mitigation technologies may vary internationally. The analysis is currently limited in the lack of detail on cost assumptions, which may not accurately represent the transition costs regionally . Additionally, the cost assumptions for the transition to DPIs are based on a study released in 2000, which may not reflect the latest technical and economic parameters. Finally, the general methodology used here projects increa sing use of HFC aerosols based on historical growth and expanding GDPs. Some market sectors may not expand that quickly; for instance, HFC growth in MDIs is projected to grow from current use of 4,000 metric tons globally to
7,000

- 10,500 metric tons in 201 5 (UNEP

, 2010 ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 88HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE



## References

Amazon, 2013. Falcon DPSGRN Dust

- Off ECO Dus ter, 5 oz Canister (Case of 12). Obtained August 21,
2013. Available at: http://www.amazon. com/industrial

- scientific/dp/B009L9A2X6

. Ecofys. 2000. Abatement of Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases: Engineered Chemicals . Prepared for the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Design Programme. Ecofys

. Enviros March. 2000. Study on the Use of HFCs for Metered Dose Inhalers in the European Union

. Commissioned by the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC). E n viros March. Honeywell. November 2011a. E

- mail communication between Alberto Malerba (Honeywell) and Pamela Mathis (ICF International). Honeywell. July 2011b. Press Release, “Honeywell To Invest $33 Million In Louisiana Facility.” Obtained

in February 2013 at : http://honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell

- To

- Invest

- $33

- Million -InLouisiana

- Facility.aspx

. ITW Chemtronics, 2013. Typhoon Blast TM Duster. Obtained August 21, 2013. Available at: http://www.chemtronics.com/products/product.asp?id=598

. Javadi, M.S., R. Sondergaard, O.J. Nielsen, M.D. Hurley, and T.J. Wallington. 2008. “Atmospheric Chemistry of Trans

- CF3CH=CHF: Products and Mechanisms of Hydroxyl Radical and Chlorine
Atom Initiated O xidation.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8: 1069

- 1088. Available at: http://www.atmos

- chem

- phys

- discuss.net/8/1069/2008/acpd -8- 1069

- 2008.pdf

. MicroCare Corporation. August 2008. Personal communication between Jay Tourigny , MicroCare Corporation

, and Emily Herzog , ICF International

. MicroCare Corporation. November 2011. E

- mail communication between Jay Tourigny

, MicroCar e Corporation, and Emily Herzog, ICF Internationa l.

Miller

- Stephenson, 2013. Aero

- Duster® product information. Obtained August 21, 2013. Available at: http://www.miller

- stephenson.com/assets/1/Store%20Item/MS

- 222L.pdf

. Nar dini, Geno. May 2002. Personal communication between Geno Nardini and Iliriana Mushkolaj of ICF Consulting.

Price, D

. , E

. Valovirta, and J

. Fischer. 2004. “ The Importance of Preserving Choice in Inhalation Therapy: The CFC Transition and Beyond. ” Journal o f Drug Assessment 7:45

- 61. Stanley Supply & Services, 2013. Techspray Renew 1580

- 10S Eco

- Duster, 10oz . Obtained August 21, 2013.
Available at: http://www.stanleysupplyservices.com/techspray

- renew

- 1580

- 10s

- eco

- duster

10oz/p/477

- 260

. TechSpray. August 2008. Personal communication between Steve Cook of TechSpray and Emily Herzog
of ICF International. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1999

. 1998 Report of the Solvents, Coatings, and Adhesives Technical Options Committee (STOC): 1998 Assessment . Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secretariat. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. Report of the UNEP Medical Technical Options
Committee : 2 010 Assessment. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secretariat.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990

– 2010: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions. EPA #000 -F- 97

- 000. Washington, DC:
USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). June 20 1 1. U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990

- 2010: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions. U.S. EPA #000 -F- 97

- 000. Washington, DC : Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. X- rates.com . 2006. Available at: www.x

- rates.com . Accessed January 2006.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 89HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



# IV.6. HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Protection

IV.6.1 Sector Summary 

# T he fire protection sector emits hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from the use of total flooding fire protection systems in fire suppression. This sector also includes portable (hand

- held) fire extinguishers. Greenhouse gas emissions fr om the fire protection sector (excluding halons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons ) were estimated at roughly 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) in 2010, as shown in Figure 6-1 . By 2030, emissions from this sector are expected to reach over 59 MtCO 2 e. A majority of the growth will result from increased use of HFCs in developing countries.



### Figure 6-1: HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Protection: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: USEPA, 2012

.

This analysis reviews options to reduce emissions from the fire protection sector by using extinguishing agents with low global warming potential (GWP) in lieu of HFCs/PFCs in new total flooding equipment, specifically, replacement of the HFC with inert gas, water mist, or the agent

FK -5-1- 12.

The global abatement potential from the fire protection options reviewed is equal to approximately

11 % of total annual emissions from the fire protection sector and 0.3 % of total annual emissions from all sectors that use ODS substitutes. The opti ons identified to abate emissions in the fire protection sector completely replace the fluorinated fire protection agents, however, they are assumed to only be implemented when new systems are built. Thus, their effectiveness at reducing emissions will inc rease over time as new systems are built, but it will take many years before the existing stock would be replaced. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve results are presented in Figure 6-2 . Maximum abatement potential in the fire extinguishing sector is 6.4 MtCO 2 e in 2030. There are no emission reductions that are

cost

- effective at prices estimated in this analysis. No reductions are available in 2010 as a result of the assumption that the available technologies are only used for new installations and did not start to penetrate the market until 2011.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 91-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 1 2 3 4 5

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 6 2010

2020

2030 HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



### Figure 6-2: Global Abatement Potential in Fire Protection: 2010, 2020, and 2030



## IV.6.2 Emissions from Fire Protection

Emissions from fire protection equipment occur from equipment leakage, accidental discharges, and use during fire extinguishing. In general, fire protection systems have very low leak rates, except when discharged during a fire event. The majority of emiss ions associated with fire extinguishing come from the equipment’s use in the total flooding market (see Figure 6-3 ). Portable extinguishers

— used most frequently in offices, manufacturing and retail facilities, aerospace/marine applications, and homes

— also use HFCs, but such use has been limited ( Wickham, 2003 ).

For the purpose of this analysis, we considered the sector’s two types of fire protection systems
— (1) portable fire extinguishers (i.e., streaming applications) and (2) total flooding applications. Typical portable extinguishers contain 1.3 kg of HFC

- 236fa, which is assumed to be extinguished with a frequency such that emissions are 3.5%/year. The typical flooding application uses HFC

- 227ea; because discharge is infrequent, emissions are 2% per year.

For modeling purposes, data typical for facilities in the U nited S tates are used. Certain cost assumptions, such as capital and electricity costs, are adjusted for developing countries. 1 Otherwise, it is

assumed that the costs and reductions achieved in the modeled facilities could be scaled and would be representative of the costs and reductions in other regions.

1 In developing countries, it is assumed that capital costs are 10% higher and electricity costs are two

- thirds higher

relative to those in the United States.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 92Streaming Agents, 47% Class A Flooding
Agents, 51%

Class B Flooding
Agents, 3% HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



### Figure 6-3: Global HFC and PFC Emissions in 2020 (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

IV.6.2.1 A ctivity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

The key activity data for fire extinguishing emissions is the consumption of the fire extinguishing agent. Fire extinguishing agent consumption is assumed to occur in all countries and to scale with a country’s gross domestic product (GDP); in addition, because there are no regional differences in
emission rates, emissions also scale with GDP.

Globally, HFC and PFC emissions from fire protection have been growing because of the phase out of halon under the Montreal Protocol. Because developed countries phased out the use of halon earlier than developing countries, the growth in global emissions for the past decade has been driven by emissions from developed countries. However, because of the high GDP growth in developing countries, it is anticipated that emissions will grow more quickly from developing countries in the future.

In total flooding applications that require “clean agents,” 2 most developed countries have primarily adopted HF Cs as a replacement for Halon 1301, which is being phased out under the Montreal Protocol. In developing countries, the adoption of HFCs in this application has been delayed by the slower phaseout of halon but will increase over time.



### IV.6.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global emissions from fire protection are currently estimated to be 21 MtCO 2 e and are projected to grow to 43 MtCO 2 e in 2020. Growth in emissions is driven by GDP. The emissions assume a constant

2 “Clean agents” are gaseous extinguishing agents that are electrically nonconductive and leave no residue.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 93HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON

annual release rate of 3.5% and 2% of consumption for streaming and flooding, respectively. 3 Consumption was modeled using USEPA’s Vintaging Model. Emissions for major countries and regions are presented in Table 6-1.



### Table 6-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Fire Protection: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

CAGR a 

### Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Australia 2.9 4.0 4 .8 5.4 6.0 3.8 %

China 2.2 3.2 4.0 4.6 5.2 4.3%

Japan 1.3 2.2 3 .1 4.0 4.7 6.7 %

Poland 1.7 2.5 3 .3 4.0 4.5 5.0%

Mexico 1.1 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 5.1%

Rest of Region

Africa 1.3 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.0 4.5%

Latin America 1.6 2.5 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.1%

Middle East 1.8 2.6 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.5%

Europe 3.9 6.6 9.8 12.4 13.9 6.6%

Eurasia 0.8 1.5 2.4 3.2 3.8 8.5%

Asia 1.8 2.6 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.2%

North America 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 4.9%

World Total 21.2 32.5 43.2 52.2 59.3 5.3%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012.



## IV.6.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

The alternatives to HFCs/PFCs in total flooding applications can be categorized as in

- kind gaseous agent alternatives (i.e., CO 2 , inert gases, fluorinated ketones) and “not

- in

- kind” alternatives (i.e., dispersed and condensed aerosol extinguishing systems, water sprinklers, water mist, foam, or inert gas generators). Already, climate

- friendly clean agents and new not

- in

- kind alternative technologies have

been introduced to the market.

This analysis reviews options to reduce emissions from the fire protection sector by using zero

- GWP

or low

- GWP extinguishing agents in lieu of HFCs/PFCs in new total flooding equipment. Specifically, this analysis assesses alternative agents used in newly built total flooding systems to p rotect against Class A

3 In general, fire protection systems would be expected to have very low leak rates, except when discharged during a

fire event. For modeling purposes, however, total flooding systems are assumed to have an average annua l leak rate of 2% (see Appendix H to this chapter ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 94HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON

surface fire hazards 4 and newly built total flooding systems to protect against Class B fuel hazards 5 in large ( > 3,000 m 3 ) marine applications. All costs are presented in 2010 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Departme nt of Labor, 2011 ).

Facilities/emissions for which no abatement options are considered in this analysis include existing total flooding systems (used to protect against all fire hazards) and all new and existing porta ble extinguishers. Existing flooding systems were not assessed because alternative fire protection agents require larger space requirements, rendering system retrofit costs highly dependent on the particular facility and possibly cost

- prohibitive. Portable extinguishers were not assessed because emissions from
this source are small, and climate

- friendly alternatives are already assumed to be used widely in the

baseline.

The analyzed facilities are assessed on a per

- cubic meter of protected space basis, assuming an average emission rate of 2% per year. Specifically, for Class A surface fire hazards, an average of 0.633 kg

of HFC

- 227ea is needed to protect each cubic meter of protected space; while 0.630 kg is required for large Class B fire hazards (Wickh am, 2003 ).

Three abatement options were considered for this analysis: in new Class A total flooding systems, replacement with either FK -5-1- 12 or inert gas, and in new Class B total flooding systems, replacement

with water mist. Each of these options is described below in Table 6-2.



### Table 6-2: Fire Protection Abatement Options Abatement Option Applicable System Types Reduction Efficiency

FK

- 5

- 1

- 12 New Class A total flooding 100%

Inert gas New Class A total flooding 100%

Water mist New Class B total flooding 100%



### IV.6.3.1 FK -5-1- 12 in New Class A Total Flooding Applications

FK -5-1- 12

- mmy2 (also known as 1,1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5

- nonafluoro -4- (trifluoromethyl) -3- pentanone, and commonly referred to as FK -5-1- 12) is a fluorinated ketone with an atmospheric lifetime of five days and

a 100

- year GWP of approximately one (Kidde Fire Protection, 2011 ). This option examines use of FK -5-1

- 12 in total flooding systems. The option is applicable in new Class A total fl ooding applications, replacing HFCs (primarily HFC

- 227ea). Class A total flooding application end

- uses represent an estimated 95% of

4 This analysis assumes that Class A fire hazards represent an estimated 95% of the total flooding sector. This

estimate is ba sed on Wickham (2002 ), who estimates that over 90% of the H alon 1301 systems ever installed in the United States were designed to protect against hazards where the anticipated fire type was primarily Class A in nature and approximatel y 10% of t he U.S. applications served by H alon 1301 had hazardous materials of the Class B type. However, because much of the former H alon 1301 Class B applications have been replaced by non

- HFC alternatives (e.g., carbon dioxide), this analysis assumes th at only 5% of HFC emissions from the total flooding sector are from Class B applications and the remaining 95% are from Class A applications.

5 This analysis assumes that Class B fire hazards represent an estimated 5% of the total flooding sector, based on Wickham (2002 ) (as explained in previous footnote).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 95HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON

the total flooding sector; 6 the additional adoption of FK -5-1- 12 is assumed to only occur when new systems are installed because replacing installed systems may be cost prohibitive.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is assumed to replace the use of HFC

- 227ea. One

- time costs are estimated at $9.49 per cubic meter of protected space in developed countries; these costs are associated with installation and equipment, as well as construction of additional floor space needed to house large volumes of extinguishing agent. In developing countries, these capital costs are assumed to be 10% higher to account for higher tariffs. Annual costs are estimated at $0.03 per cubic meter of protected space for additional electricity needed to heat/cool the additional space as well as the higher agent replacement costs.



### IV.6.3.2 Inert Gas Systems in New Class A Total Flooding Applications

In ert gas systems extinguish fires using argon, nitrogen, or a blend of the two, sometimes incorporating CO 2 as a third component (UNEP, 2001 ). Inert gas systems provide an equivalent level of both fire protection and life safety/health protection in most Class A (ordinary combustible) fire hazards, including electronics and telecommunications applications. Limitations of the inert gas systems include a slower discharge time than that of HFC systems

— 60 seconds or more compared with 10 to 15 seconds (Kucnerowicz

- Polak, 2002 )— and a larger volume of agent needed than in HFC systems to extinguish fires. The weight

- support structures and space needed for additional steel cylinders of gas may prohibit

the retrofit o f many existing HFC systems, such as those on small ships and in other applications where the system infrastructure is fixed.

This technology option is assumed to be applicable in new Class A application end uses, replacing HFCs (primarily HFC

- 227ea). Clas s A total flooding application end uses represent an estimated 95% of the total flooding sector; 7 the additional adoption of inert gas systems is assumed to only occur when new systems are installed because replacing installed systems may be cost prohibiti ve.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is assumed to replace the use of HFC

- 227ea. One

- time costs are $11.16 per cubic meter of protected space in developed countries; these costs are associated with installation and equipment, as well as construction of additional floor space needed to house large volumes of extinguishing agent. In developing countries, these capital costs are assumed to be 10% higher to account for higher tariffs. Annual costs in developed countries are estimated at $0.17/cubic meter of protected space for additional electricity needed to heat/cool the additional space; the electricity costs are

assumed to be two

- thirds greater in developing countries. Annual costs are offset by annual savings associated with lower agent replacement costs, estimated at $0.28/cubic meter of protected space.



### IV.6.3.3 Water Mist Systems in New Class B Total Flooding Applications

Water mist systems use relatively small droplet sprays under low, medium, or high pressure to extinguish fires. These systems us e specially designed nozzles to produce much smaller droplets than are produced by traditional water

- spray systems or conventional sprinklers, so they use less water to extinguish a fire (UNEP, 2001 ; Wickham, 2002 ). However, some barriers have impeded broad use of water mist systems. First, these systems may be cost prohibitive in small spaces and have not proven

6 See footnote 4.

7 See footnote 4.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 96HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON

effective in extinguishing small fires in large volume spaces (≥ 3,000 m 3 ) ( IMO , 2001 ; Wickham, 2002 ). Additionally, because there is a nonlinear relationship between the volume of space and the amount of water mist needed to extinguish a given fire and because this relationship (referred to as the “mechanism of extingu ishment”) is not well understood, applications of water mist systems have been limited to those where fire test protocols have been developed, based on empirically tested system performance. Other market barriers for this option include additional space requirements for system storage compared with

conventional HFC

- 227ea systems. Water mist systems can provide equivalent fire protection and life safety/health protection for Class B fuel hazards, where low temperature freezing is not a concern (USEPA, 2004 ).

This technology option is assumed to be applicable in large ( > 3,000 m 3 ), new Class B total flooding application end uses, replacing HFCs (primarily HFC

- 227ea). This analysis assumes that systems designed to protect against Class B fire hazards represent an estimated 5% of the total flooding sector; 8 the additional adoption of water mist systems is assumed to only occur when new systems are installed because replacing installed systems may be cost prohibitive.

For cost modeling purposes, this option is assumed to replace the use of HFC

- 227ea. One

- time costs are estimated at $13.14 per cubic meter of protected space in developed countries; these costs are associated with installation and equipment, as well as construction of additional flo or space needed to house large volumes of extinguishing agent. In developing countries, these capital costs are assumed to be 10% higher to account for higher tariffs. Annual costs in developed countries are estimated at $0.36/cubic meter of protected space for additional electricity needed to heat/cool the additional space; these electricity costs are assumed to be 81% greater in developing countries. Annual costs are partly offset by annual savings associated with lower agent replacement costs, estimated at $0.28/cubic meter of protected space.



## IV.6.4 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Table 6-3 presents the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all cost parameters necessary to calculate the break

- even price.



## IV.6.5 Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis

This section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of abatement measures for fire extinguishing.



### IV.6.5.1 Methodological Approach

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for m odel facilities in the developing and developed world. We applied the costs to calculate the break

- even prices for each appropriate option for each country. The model estimates the mitigation potential based on the percentage of the total ODS

substitutes b aseline attributable to each representative facility and the technical effectiveness for each technology in each facility.

8 See footnote 3.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 97FK -5-1- 12 New Class
A total flooding 20 $9.49 $10.44
— $0.03 $0.03 0.04

Inert gas New Class
A total flooding 20 $11.16 $12.28 $0.28 $0.17 $0.31 0.04

Water mist Large, New
Class B
total flooding 20 $13.14 $14.45 $0.28 $0.36 $0.65 0.04 Annual O&M Costs, (2010 USD) Capital Cost (2010 USD) HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



### Table 6-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement

Option Facility Type Project
Lifetime (years) Annual
Revenue

(2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 e) Developed Developing Developed Developing



### IV.6.5.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/class/facility type combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions regarding the distributio n of emissions by Class (A or B), in addition to process

specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. Market penetration rates vary over time; the market penetration used in this calculation is a modeled value that represents the a ssumed rate of penetration of the abatement option into fire protection systems over time, market willingness to adopt the option, and the turnover rate of existing fire protection systems. Table 6-4 summarizes these assumptions and presents technical effectiveness parameters used in the MAC model.



### Table 6-4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Facility Abatement Option Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) a Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness (2030) b

FK -5-1- 12

— Developed New Class A total flooding 40% 100% 31%

FK -5-1- 12

— Developing New Class A total flooding 40% 100% 12%

Inert gas systems

— Developed New Class A total flooding 30% 100% 20%

Inert gas systems

— Developing New Class A total flooding 20% 100% 6%

Water mist systems

— Developed New Class B total flooding 75% 100% 3%

Water mist systems

— Developing New Class B total flooding 50% 100% 1%

a Market penetration assumptions for this analysis vary over time, and the technical effectiveness values are based on the cumulative market penetration rates assumed until that point. More information on the market penetration assumptions is provided in A ppendix H to this chapter.

b Technical effectiveness figures represent the percent age of baseline emissions from the relevant facility type that can be abated in 2030; figures do not account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts associated with increased electricity consumption for heating/cooling of additional space, which is accounted for in the cost analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 98- HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



### IV.6.5.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Table 6-5 provides an example of how the break

- even prices are calculated for each abatement

m easure. Project costs and benefits are calculated for model facilities in developed and developing

countries and are used in the calculation that solves for the break

- even price that sets the project’s benefits equal to its costs. The previous section describes the assumptions used to estimate different costs for developed and developing countries. All options have positive break

- even costs, because the costs of building and maintaining additional space are not offset by any available savings associated wit h lower agent replacement costs.



### Table 6-5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Fire Protection

Abatement Option Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break Even
Price a ($/tCO 2 e)

Developed

FK -5-1- 12 0.04 50.6 0.8 8.6 42.8

Inert gas systems 0.04 59.6

- 2.8 10.1 46.6

Water mist systems 0.04 70.4 2.2 12.0 60.6

Developing

FK -5-1- 12 0.04 55.7 0.8 9.5 47.1

Inert gas systems 0.04 65.5 1.0 11.2 55.4

Water Mist Systems 0.04 77.4 10.2 13.2 74.4

a Break

- even price calculated using a tax rate of 40% and discount rate of 10%.

The break

- even prices presented in Table 6-5 represent model facilities for developed and developing countries. Actual prices vary by country because of the scaling of costs and benefits by international price factors. Complete international MAC results are presented in Section IV.6 .5.4

.



### IV.6.5.4 MA C Analysis Results

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 0.7 and 6.4 MtCO 2 e, respectively. There are no reductions in projected baseline emissions resulting from implementing currently available technologies

that are cost

- effective at projected prices. If an additional emissions reduction value (e.g., tax incentive, subsidy, or tradable emissions reduction credit) above the zero break

- even price were available to users or installers of fire extinguishing systems, then additional emission reductions could be cost

- effective. The results of the MAC analysis are presented in Table 6-6 and Figure 6-4 by major country and regional grouping at select break

- even prices in 2030.



## IV.6.6 Uncertainties and Limitations

One area of uncertainty is how capital costs for these mitigation technologies may vary internationally; cost estimates were developed for several countries when possible. In addition, it should be noted that the global implementation of each option is based on information currently available a nd expert opinion. Great uncertainty is associated with future projections of market behavior.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 99$/tCO2e $60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

$0

-$10

-$20

-$30 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Australia

Japan

China

Mexico

Poland

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



### Table 6-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region

– 10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Australia — — — — — — — — 0.4 0.4 0.4

China — — — — — — — — 0.6 1 .0 1 .0

Japan — — — — — — — — 0.3 0.3 0 .3

Mexico — — — — — — — — 0.1 0.2 0.2

Poland — — — — — — — — 0.2 0.3 0.3

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — — — — 0.4 0.6 0.6

Central and South America — — — — — — — — 0.5 0.7 0.7

Middle East — — — — — — — — 0.4 0.7 0.7

Europe — — — — — — — — 0.8 0.9 0.9

Eurasia — — — — — — — — 0.5 0.7 0.7

Asia — — — — — — — — 0.3 0.5 0.5

North America — — — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1

Total — — — — — — — — 4.6 6.4 6.4



### Figure 6-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 100HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTI ON



## References

ICF International. 2009. Opportunities for Combined Heat and Power in Data Center

. Prepared for Oak Ridge National Labora tory. March 2009. Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/datacenters/pdfs/chp_data_center s.pdf

. I nternational Maritime Organization (IMO). November 30, 2001. Performance Testing and Approval Standards for Fire Safety Systems: Fire Test Protocols for Fire

- Extinguishing Systems . Submitted by Germany to the International Maritime Organization Subcommitt ee on Fire

- Protection, 46 th session, Agenda item 12.

Kidde Fire Protection. 2011. Fire Suppression System Engineered for Use with 3MTM NovecTM 1230 Fire
Protection Fluid . Ref. 6351 -5- 05/11. Available at: http://www.kfp.co.uk/utcfs/ws

- 438/Assets/6351

- 5_Novec_System.pdf

. Kucnerowicz

- Polak, B. March 28, 2002. “Halon Sector Update.” Presented at the 19 th Meeting of the Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG), The World Bank, Washingto n, DC.

R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2007. Means Square Foot Costs, 29 th Annual Edition 2008 . Kingston, MA: R.S. Means Company, Inc. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008. “Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960

- 2007.” Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0810.html

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2001. Standards and Codes of Practice to Eliminate Dependency on Halons: Handbook of Good Practices in the Halon Sector . United Nations Publication ISBN

92

- 807

- 1988

- 1. UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTE) under the OzonAction Programme under the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, in cooperation with The Fire Protection Research Foundation.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Consumer Price Index. Obtained May 2011 at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). October 19, 2011. “Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960

- 2010.” Annual Energy Review. Obtained December

2011 at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb081 0

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Analysis of Costs to Abate
International Ozone

- Depleting Substance Substitute Emissions. EPA 40 -R- 04

- 006. Washington, DC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/emissions/downloads/ODSsubstituteemissions. pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). June 2006. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases.
EPA #430 -R- 06

- 005. Washington, DC : Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2009. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Analysis for Reduction of HFCs in Traditional Ozone Depleting Substan ce (ODS) End

- Use Applications: Draft Report. Prepared by ICF International for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006 . W ashington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. Werner, K. 2011. Personal communication between Kurt Werner of 3M and Pamela Mathis of ICF International, October 14, 2011.

Wickham, R. 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing Agents

. Wickham
Associates. Stratham, New Hampshire. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/status.pdf

. Wickham, R. 2003. Review of the Use of Carbon Dioxide Total Flooding Fire Extinguishing Systems

. Wickham
Associates. Stratham, New Hampshire. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/ co2report2.pdf

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 101ALUMINUM



# IV.7. PFC Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production

IV.7.1 Sector Summary 

# E missions of the perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

— perfluoromethane (CF 4 ) and perfluoroethane (C 2 F 6 )— are generated during brief process upset conditions in the aluminum smelting process. During the aluminum smelting process, when the alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) in the electrolytic bath falls below critical levels required for electrolysis, rapid voltage increases occur. These voltage

excursions are termed “ anode effects ” (AEs). AEs produce CF 4 and C 2 F 6 emissions when carbon from the anode, instead of reacting with alumina, as it does during normal operating conditions, combines with fluorine from the dissociated molten cryolite bath. In general, the magnitude of emissions for a given level of production depends on the frequency and duration of these AEs ; the more frequent and long

lasting the AEs , the greater the emissions. 1

Global emissions of PFCs from primary aluminum production declined from 2000 to 2010, which is likely due to a variety of factors including improvement in process performance of existing smelter capacity, closure of high emitting facilities

, and addition of low emitting new smelting capacity

. However, global emissions of PFCs from this sector are expected to increase from a n estimated value of

26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( MtCO 2 e) in 2010 to a project ed value of 37 MtCO 2 e in

2030 (USEPA, 2012 ) (see Figure 2- 1)

. 2 This projected increase is largely the result of an anticipated

increase in demand for primary aluminum globally over the same period that is increasing at a higher rate than the assumed decrease in PFC emissions intensities (see Emissions from Aluminum Production below)

. Five different electrolytic cell types are used to produce aluminum: Vertical Stud Soderberg (VSS), Horizontal Stud Soderberg (HSS), Side

- Worked Prebake (SWPB), Center

- Worked Prebake (CWPB), and Point Feed Prebake (PFPB). 3 PFPB is considered the most technologically advanced process to produce aluminum and all new greenfield smelters built in the world today utilize this technology. Existing, older and higher PFC emitting PFPB systems can further improve their anode effect performance by implementing management and work practices, as well as improved control sof tware. Facilities using VSS, HSS, SWPB, and CWPB cells can reduce emissions by retrofitting smelters with emission

- reducing technologies such as computer control systems and point

- feeding systems, by shifting production to PFPB technology, and by adopting management and work practices aimed at reducing PFC emissions.

1 It should be noted that over the last several years there has been the discovery and documentation of non

- anode

e ffect (NAE) related emissions. USEPA has supported some of the most significant work on NAE emissions. These emissions can be a significant, perhaps the major, source of PFC emissions in some smelter cells. It should also be noted that NAE emissions and NAE abatement measures are not addressed in this repo rt.

2 Please note that IAI (2011 ) publishes a historical value of 24.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) for 2010.

3 It should be noted that PFPB and CWPB are essentially same cell design, but with different alumina feed processes.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1030 10 20 30 40 50 60MtCO2e 48

26 31 37

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year Australia

Canada

Russia

United States

China

Rest of World ALUMINUM

However, in practice, the greatest potential for reduction in PFC emissions is through addition of new greenfield PFPB capacity in concert with the shutdown of existing high emitting facilities

. 4



### Figure 7-1: PFC Emission s from Primary Aluminum Production : 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012

Global abatement potential in the primary aluminum sector is 22 MtCO 2 e in 2030, which represents approximately 58 % of the projected baseline emissions

. Figure 7-2 shows the global marginal abatement

cost (MAC) curves for 2010, 2020, and 2030.

4 More information on how global primary aluminum production according to cell type changed from 1990

– 2012 is available in “Figure 2: Primary aluminium smelting technology mix, 1990

– 2012” in Results of the 2012 Anode Effect Survey: Report on the Aluminium Industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Programme , International Aluminium Institute, London, United Kingdom. Available online at: http://www.world

aluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/08/20/2012_anode_effect_survey_report.pdf

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 104-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 5 10 15 20 25

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030

ALUMINUM



### Figure 7-2: Global Abatement Potential in Primary Aluminum Production: 2010, 2020, and 2030



## IV.7.2 Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production

Emissions of the PFCs CF 4 and C 2 F 6 from primary aluminum production are estimated using a variety of activity data (e.g., historical emissions, aluminum production, nameplate capacity), key growth assumptions (e.g., production growth rate, country

- specific trends), and emission factors. Calculations of

PFC emissions from this sector are based on historical and expected levels of aluminum production and reported (i.e., International Alumin i um Institute [IAI] ) emission factors from historical experience. Emissions factors vary by aluminum production technology (e.g., electrolytic cell type) and region (e.g.,
China, rest of the wo rld). More information on the estimation methodology is availab le in the update to the Global Emission Report ( US EPA

, 2012 ). Figure 7-3 shows the percentage of total PFC emissions according to production technology type in 2020.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1053 PFPB, 59%

SWPB,

15% VSS, 20% CWPB, 3% HSS, 3% ALUMINUM



### Figure 7-3: Global PFC Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- We ighted Emissions)

For the purpose of developing the cost analysis, five different types of aluminum manufacturing facilities were considered, based on the technology types

— VSS, HSS, SWPB, CWPB, and PFPB. Each

model production facility analyzed produces 200,000 metric tons of aluminum annually. 5



### IV.7.2.1 Activity Data and Important Trends

The main activity data used to estimate emissions from primary aluminum production are historical and projected, country

- specific, annual, primary aluminum production estimates.

Historical, country

- specific, primary aluminum production data for 2010 are compiled from data provide by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Mineral Yearbook: Aluminum (USGS, 2011a ). In 2 010, world primary aluminum production totaled approximately 40,800 thousand metric tons (USGS, 2011a ). 6

Projected, country

- specific, primary aluminum production data for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 are estimated based on a combination o f either applying the global aluminum production compounded annual growth rate of 2.5 % per year as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) (Martchek, 2006 ) to the 2010 country

- specific production estimate, or for certain countries, specific

5 It should be noted that the nameplate capacities of newly

- built PFPB facilities around the world are typically larger
than 200,000 metric tons.

6 It should be noted that the world primary aluminum production total for 2010 was revised from the value available at the time of the analysis for this report

— 40,800 thousand metric tons

— to 41,200 thousand metric tons in 2011

Mineral Yearboo k: Aluminum [Advance Release]. Available online at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1

- 2011

- alumi.pdf

. Most of this increase was in

In dia and Norway.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 106ALUMINUM

production projections provided in comments from the USGS (USGS, 2011b ). 7 For countries with newly developed primary aluminum production (e.g., Qatar

, Saudi Arabia) or newly re

- commissioned primary production (e.g.

, Nigeria), the production projections are based on expected production capacity in future

years. The c ountry

- specific aluminum production data described above is then disaggregated to cell technology type using primary aluminum smelting te chnology mix information derived from IAI’s 2010 Anode Effects Survey Report (IAI, 2011 ). For countries where future production is anticipated to be greater than the nameplate capacity in 2010, the excess production is assigned to PF PB te chnology. All current

and future production in China is also ass umed to be PFPB technology.

New p rimary a luminum production is increasingly taking place in emerging and developing regions

, including China and the Middle East

, and other countries, includin g Iceland, where there is the availability of long term, economically attractive power. N ew facilities open using new

, less emissive

PFPB technologies

. In addition, over time old er facilities , which use older, more emissive technologies

,

are likely to close , especially if they do not have continued access to competitive power (and labor)
agreements. For example, China is anticipated to continue to be the major primary aluminum producer

, and now uses PFPB technology across all of its facilities. 8 Other h igh

- production countries use a mix of technology types, and production in some of these countries is anticipated to grow, while production in others is expected to remain constant. For example, a fter 2015

, the United States is anticipated to no longer be a top five producer of primary aluminum. Thus, emissions in countries with new production are likely to grow more slowly than emissions from countries with existing production given similar increases in the rate of primary aluminum produced.



### IV.7.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

As previously mentioned, global emissions of PFCs from primary aluminum production are estimate

as 26 Mt CO 2 e in 2010

, and ar e projected to grow to 37 Mt CO 2 e in 2030. Emissions from aluminum production can generally be described in terms of historical emissions and projected emissions. Historical, global, PFC emissions data for 1990 through 2010 are compiled from data provided by the IAI

in 2010 Anode Effects Survey Report (IAI , 20 11 ) . Projected, country

- specific, PFC emissions data for 2010 through 2030 are estimated based on the product of the country

- specific production by cell technology type and the technology

- specific mean emission fact or for the respective year.

Table 7-1 shows the top countries and regional breakout of emissions of PFCs from primary aluminum production from 2010 to 2030.

7 It should be noted that growth rates in primary aluminum production have exceeded this value over the past

decade

— e.g., 5.3% this decade based on IAI statistics (see http://www.world

- aluminium.org/statistics/primary

aluminium

- production/#data )— and aluminum industry leaders have publically estimated growth rates of at least 5% in the foreseeable future. Growth rates in aluminum production have historically tracked GDP growth in developed countries, and aluminum growth rates have been historically greater than GDP growth in developing countries based on the need for aluminum in infrastructure and transportation development. In addition, p roduction growth rates are region specific

, and consumption is not driven by an average (mean) global GDP growth. Rather, aluminum demand is driven by fast growing economies, thus is more influenced by high growth GDP regions. Therefore, the published valu e of 2.5 % available at the time of the analysis for this report is likely too small , even taking into account the current globa l slowdown. Out to 2020 and beyond, as China, India and other countries increasingly urbanize, this growth rate will likely furth er accelerate.

8 It should be noted that while China has converted to PFPB technology, the country’s cell designs and control strategies result in PFC emission factors great than those for PFPB technology operated in the rest of world (ROW).
As a result, separate PFPB emission factors were applied for China versus ROW.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 107ALUMINUM



### Table 7-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 11.1 12.6 14.3 16.2 18.3 2.5%

United States 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6

− 0.1%

Russia 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 1.6%

Canada 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.5%

Australia 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5%

Rest of Regions

Africa 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1%

Central & South America 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.8%

Middle East 1.2 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.6%

Europe 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.5%

Eurasia 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.8%

Asia 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6%

North America — — — — — —

World Total 26.0 28.9 31.4 34.3 37.4 1.8%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: USEPA, 2012



## IV.7.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

PFC emission reductions can primarily be achieved by installing/upgrading process computer control
systems 9 and install ing alumina point

- feed systems

. 10 The two abatement options consi dered for this analysis are (1) a minor retrofit involving the upgrade of process comput er control systems only and (2) a maj or retrofit involving both the installation/upgrade of process computer control systems and the installation of alumina point

- feed systems

. 11 The installation of alumina point

- feed systems is not analyzed on its own, because it would be very unlikely that an aluminum production facility would install alumina point

- feed systems without also installing or upgrading process computer control
systems. 12

9 Process computer control systems control the repositioning of carbon anodes as they are consumed and provide greater control over raw material (alumina) feeding. All smelters operate w ith process control computers. The upgrade would involve changes in the algorithms controlling feed and anode effect detection.

10 Point

- feed systems allow more precise alumina feeding.

11 A major retrofit results in PFPB technology , which is the state

- of

- the

- ar t technology in aluminum production. Conversion to PFPB technology results in the most reliable increases in operational and production efficiency; although the capital outlay for this option is significant. In addition, retrofit options are usually implem ented after extensive computer modeling and large

- scale development work is conducted on test cells.

12 It should be noted that, as previously mentioned, e xisting, older

, and higher PFC emitting systems can further improve their anode effect performance by implementing management and work practices, as well as improved

control software.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 108ALUMINUM



### IV.7.3.1 Minor Retrofit

A minor retrofit involves the installation/upgrade of process computer control systems. Minor retrofits can be performed at any facility type other than the state

- of

- the

- art PFPB facilities. For the purpose of the cost analysis, a minor retrofit has a lifetime of 10 years for VSS, HSS, and SWPB facility
types ; 20 years at the CWPB facility ; and 30 years at the PFPB facilities, based on expert judgment. The lifetime of the minor retrofit at older facilities is shorter because the estimated remaining lifetime of the

facilities themselves is shorter.

• Capital Costs : Capital costs represent the co sts associated with purchasing and installing the process computer control systems at the aluminum production facilities. The capital costs, obtained from International Energy Agency (IEA) (2000 ) and confirmed by Marks (2011a ), range from $6 million to $8 million (2010 USD), depending on the facility type.

• Annual O&M Costs: The annual O&M costs associated with the retrofits are strictly the additional operating costs for the increased aluminum production. The addition al operating costs were assumed to equal the percent age increase in current efficiency multiplied by the capital costs of the retrofit, which is the method used to estimate O&M costs by IEA (2000 ). These costs range from approximately $60 ,000 to $120 ,000 (2010 USD ) , depending on the facility type

.

• Annual Revenue : Based on expert judgment, it is assumed that the increased current efficiency ( aluminum production/unit of electricity) resulting from the retrofits would be used by the model facilities to produce more aluminum with the same amount of electricity consumption as before (rather than producing the previous levels of aluminum production and realizing the electricity savings)

. 13 Consequently, additional revenues of app r oximately $0.5 million to $1 million (2010 USD) are associated with the minor retrofit option , depending on the facility type

.

• Technical Lifetime : The expected lifetime range is assumed to be 10 years for VSS, HSS, and SWPB facility types. Longer lifetimes of 20 and 30 years are applied to CWPB and PFPB facility
types

, respectively.

• Reduction Efficiency : The minor retrofits reduction efficienc y varies by facility type (see Table 7-2).



### Table 7-2: Primary Aluminum Production Abatement Options
Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency Applicability

Minor retrofit 24%

– 55% All facility types other than state

- of

- the

- art PFPB facilities

Major retrofit 77%

– 96% VSS, HSS, SWPB facilities



### IV.7.3.2 Major Retrofit

A major retrofit involves both the installation/upgrade of process computer control systems and the

installation of alumina point

- feed systems . A major retrofit results in AE performance approaching that

of PFPB technology , which is the state

- of

- the

- art te chnology in aluminum production. A major retrofit

also results in increases in operational and production efficiency

, although the capital outlay for this option is significant. In addition, retrofit options are usually implemented after extensive computer modeling and large

- scale development work are conducted on test cells. Major retrofits can be performed

13 Note that this is a simplifying assumption for the purpose of this analysis; any increase in production would be driven by demand for aluminum, not specifically driven by a set level of electricity consumption.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 109ALUMINUM

for the older facility types (VSS, HSS, and SWPB). A ccording to Marks (2011b ), there is no opportunity for

conventional CWPBs to i nstall point feeders because they already have “ bar break ” feed systems, which have roughly the same anode effect performance as point feeders ; and by definition , a PFPB model facility has point

- feeding systems , so there is no opportunity for additional ap plication

. For the purpose of the cost analysis, a major retrofit has a lifetime of 10 years, based on expert judgment.

• Capital Costs: Capital costs represent the costs associated with purchasing and installing the process computer control systems and alumina point

- feeding technologies at the aluminum production facilities. The capital costs, obtained from IEA (2000 ) and confirmed by Marks ( 2011a ), range from $12 million to $90 million (2010 USD), depending on facility type.

• Annual Operation and Maintenance ( O&M ) Costs: The annual O&M costs associated with the

retrofits are strictly the additional operating costs for the increased aluminum production. The

additiona l operating costs were assumed to equal the percent age increase in current efficiency multiplied by the capital costs of the retrofit, which is the method used to estimate O&M costs by IEA (2000 ), and range from $350 ,000 to $3.4 million (2010 USD), depending on facility type.

• Annual Revenue : Based on expert judgment, it is assumed that the increased current efficiency ( aluminum production/unit of electricity) resulting from the retrofits would be used by the model facilities to produce mor e aluminum with the same amount of electricity consumption as before (rather than producing the previous levels of aluminum production and realizing the electricity savings). Increased current efficiencies for each facility and retrofit are available from IEA (2000 ). For a major retrofit, these revenues range from $1 million to $2 million (2010 USD), depending on facility type.

• Technical Lifetime : The expected lifetime of this technology is 10 years.

• Reduction Efficiency : This analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 78 % for HSS , 96% for

SWPB

, and 77 % for VSS facilities.



### IV.7.3.3 Engineering Cost Data Summary

Table 7-3 presents the engineering cost data for each abatement measure outlined above, including all
cost parame ters necessary to calculate the break

- even price.



## IV.7.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for the primary aluminum production sector.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 110ALUMINUM



### Table 7-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement Option Facility Type Project
Lifetime (Years) Capital Cost (2010 USD) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 e)

Minor retrofit VSS 10 $5,980,801 $1,019,402 $119,616 21,277

HSS 10 $5,980,801 $509,701 $59,808 112,894

SWPB 10 $6,238,348 $764,552 $93,575 41,900

CWPB 20 $7,125,452 $509,701 $71,255 83,800

PFPB 30 $8,026,865 $509,701 $80,269 129,607

Major retrofit VSS 10 $84,546,778 $2,038,805 $3,381,871 112,894

HSS 10 $89,039,533 $1,019,402 $1,780,791 41,900

SWPB 10 $11,804,213 $1,529,104 $354,126 83,800



### IV.7.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous Section 7 .3 of this chapter at the five model facilities to calculate a break

- even price for the applicable options at each facility.



### IV.7.4.2 Definition of Model Facilities

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, f ive different electrolytic cell types are used to produce aluminum

— VSS, HSS, SWPB, CWPB, and PFPB, which is considered the most technologically

advanced process to produce aluminum.

A facilit y’s performance may be represented by the mean or median (depending on the size of the

cohort of facilitie s and the range of performance) PFC emission factor

— PFC emissions per unit production (e.g., metric tons CO 2 e/metric ton Al)

— for a particular cell technology type. However, in the case of PFPB technology, the universe of facilities using this technology is further subdivided into state

of

- the

- art (i.e., newer) PFPB facilities for which no abatement measures are applicable and other (i.e., older) PFPB facilities for which certain abatement measures are an option. The performance for state

- of

the

- art (as oppo sed to other) PFPB technology is therefore better represented by a PFC emission factor less than the average (i.e., the median). Table 7-4 presents a description of the model facilities considered for this analysis.



### IV.7.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effecti veness

To assess the abatement potential from each technology option, one additional parameter is needed, which is termed the technical effectiveness. The technical effectiveness parameter determines the share of

emissions reductions attributed to each aba tement measure. Similar to other industrial process sectors covered in this report, the technical effectiveness parameter is defined as the percentage of emissions reductions achievable by each technology/facility combination. Estimating this parameter requires assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions by manufacturing process (i.e., VSS, HSS, SWPB, CWPB, and PFPB) in addition to process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. The technical applicability, market penet ration, and reduction efficiency assumptions are

held constan t for all model years. Table 7-5 reports the technical applicability parameters estimated of each abatement measure/facility type combination. Table 7-5 also presents the market penetration,

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 111ALUMINUM



### Tab le 7- 4: Description of Primary Aluminum Production Facilities

Facility Type Description

VSS This facility uses VSS technology, with an average PFC emission factor of 1.01 metric tons
CO 2 e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.

HSS This facility uses HSS technology, with an average PFC emission factor of 1.07 metric tons
CO 2 e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.

SWPB This facility uses SWPB technology, with an average PFC emission factor of 5.41 metric tons
CO 2 e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.

CWPB This facility uses CWPB technology, with an average PFC emission factor of 0.51 metric tons
CO 2 e/metr ic ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.

PFPB (state of the art) This facility uses state

- of

- the

- art PFPB technology, with a median PFC emission factor of 0.23 metric
tons CO 2 e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.

PFPB (other) This facility uses other PFPB technology, with an average PFC emission factor of 0.51 metric tons
CO 2 e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year. a

a It should be n ote d that “state of the art” has been improving rapidly with respect to anode effect performance and the best PFPB facilities (top 10%) are performing at better than 0.06 metric t ons CO 2 e/metric t on Al. Median performance for all IAI non

- Chinese producers is about 0.23

metric t ons CO 2 e/ metric t on Al, while median Chinese PFPB performance is about 0.7 metric t ons CO 2 e/metric t on Al.



### Table 7-5: Technical Effectiveness Summary
Model Facility Technical Market Reduction Technical Abatement Option Type Applicability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness

Minor retrofit

VSS 27% 100% 39% 11%

HSS 100% 50% 39% 20%

SWPB 100% 50% 24% 12%

CWPB 100% 100% 55% 55%

PFPB 100% 100% 55% 55%

Major retrofit

VSS 73% 100% 77% 56%

HSS 100% 50% 78% 39%

SWPB 100% 50% 96% 48%

technical applicability, and reduction efficiency assumptions used to develop the abatement measures’ technical effectiveness parameter. Technical effectiveness is equal to the product of the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency.

Technical applicability factor for VSS is based on the assumption that roughly 27% of VSS capacity already has point feeding ( Marks

, 2011b ). This percentage is described in m ore detail in Appendix I.



### IV.7.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

The MAC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits as described in

Section IV.7 .3 to calculate the break

- even price for each mitigation optio n/facility combination. Table 7-6

illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 112-

– – ALUMINUM



### Table 7-6: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Primary Aluminum Production

Abatement Option Model Facility Type Reduced
E missions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Minor retrofit

VSS 21,277 $76 −$42 $19 $4

HSS 41,900 $39 −$11 $10 $9

SWPB 129,607 $13 −$5 $3 $2

CWPB 56,667 $25 −$8 $4 $13

PFPB 56,087 $25 −$8 $3 $14

Major retrofit

VSS 112,894 $203 $12 $50 $ 120

HSS 83,800 $288 $9 $71 $ 113

SWPB 518,429 $6

− $2 $2 $1



### IV.7.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for PFC emissions in the primary aluminum production sector is 22

MtCO 2 e, which is approximately 58 % of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 7-7 presents the

cumulative reductions achieved at selected break

- even prices. F igure 7-4 shows the MAC curve for the
top five emitting countries and the rest of world

. 

### Table 7-7: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break -E ven Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Country/Region 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Australia — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6

Canada — — — 0.21 0.2 1.1 1 .1 1.1 1 .1 1.1 1.3

China — 0.3 1.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 10.6 10.6 10.6

Russia — 0.1 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0

United States
— — — 0.34 0.4 1.7 1.7 1 .7 1.7 1.7 2.1

Rest of Region

Africa
— 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 .7 0.8 0.8 0.8

C entral and South America
— — 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0 .5 0.5 0 .5 0.6 0.6

Middle East — — 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2

Europe — — 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4

Eurasia — 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Asia — — 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0 .6 0.6 0 .6 0.7 0.7

North America — — — — — — — — — — —

World Total — 0.43 2.53 12.4 14.0 16.7 17.3 17.5 20.1 20.5 21.6

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 113-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 2 4 6 8 10

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 12 Australia

China

Canada

Russia

United States ALUMINUM



### Figure 7-4: Margin al Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030



## IV.7.4 Uncertainties and Limitations

The emission projections (i.e., baseline emissions) account for the historical reduction in the effective emission factor (i.e., metric ton CO 2 e/metric ton Al) realized by facilities

, but do not assume that aluminum producers have conducted retrofits

, or will continue to introduce technologies and practices aimed at reducing PFC emissions. That said, the global primary aluminum industry through the IAI has a

vol untary PFC emission reduction goal of reduce emissions of PFCs per metric ton of alumin um by at least 50% by 2020 as compared to 2006 (IAI, 2013 ). In addition, c ommissioning of new

— less emissive
— facilities to meet global demand will also have the result of reducing the effective emission factor.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 114ALUMINUM



## References

Harbor Intelligence. 2009. “Interesting Trends in the Chinese Aluminum Market.” Obtained at: http://www.harboraluminum.com/archivos/China_Aluminum_Monitor_(Jan_2009).pdf

. International Aluminium Institute (IAI). 2010. Results of the 2009 Anode Effects Survey: Report on the Aluminum industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Program . London, United Kingdom. July 5. Obtained at: http://www.world

- aluminium.org/cache/fl0000361.pdf

. International Aluminium Institute (IAI), 2011. Results of the 2010 Anode Effects Survey: Report on the
Alumin um Industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Program . London, UK. August 24.
International Aluminium Institute (IAI), 2013. Res ults of the 201 2 Anode Effects Survey: Report on the
Alumin um Industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Program . London, UK. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2000. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Aluminium Industry. The
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program. Cheltenham, United Kingdom. London Metals Exchange (LME). 2011. LME Official Prices for Aluminum. Obtained at: http://www.lme.com/aluminium.asp . Accessed on October 31, 2011. Marks, J. 2006. Personal communication with Jerry Marks, IAI. as cited in USEPA. 2006. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases

. Washington, DC : U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Marks , J. 2011a. Personal communication with Jerry Marks via e

- mail

. June 22

. Mark s, J. 2011b. Personal communication with Jerry Marks via e

- mail

. July 14

. Martchek, K.J. 2006. Modelin g More Sustainable Aluminum: Case Study. Int. J. LCA 11(1) 2006:4.
Obtained at: http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/pdfs/KMartchek_IJLCA_7772.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emiss ions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011a. 20 10 Mineral Yearbook: Aluminum [Advanced Release] . U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. September. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/

. U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) . 2011 b . Personal communication with E. Lee Bray, U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Specialist

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1150 50 100 150 200 250 300 350MtCO2e

132 128 259 286

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year United States

Russia

Mexico

India

China

ROW HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



# IV.8. HFC -23 Emissions from HCFC- 22 Production

IV.8.1 Sector Summary 

# T rifluoromethane (HFC

- 23) is generated and emitted as a by

- product during the production of

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC

- 22). HCFC

- 22 is used both in emissive applications (primarily

air

- conditioning and refrigeration) and as a feedstock for production of synthetic polymers.

Because HCFC

- 22 depletes stratospheric ozone, its production for dispersive uses is scheduled t o be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. However, feedstock production, a nondispersive use, is permitted to continue indefinitely.

Global HCF

- 23 emissions are projected to more than double, growing from 127.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equi valent ( MtCO 2 e) in 2010 to 286.4 MtCO 2 e in 2030. Figure 8-1 shows the projected changes in annual emissions of HFC

- 23 out to year 2030. China, India

, and Mexico are projected to see the largest increases in HFC

- 23 emissions primarily because of increased H CFC

- 22 production capacity in

these countries.



### Figure 8-1: HCF

- 23 Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 201 2

The production of HCFC

- 22 in developed countries has decreased in the last decade, while growth of

annual HCFC

- 22 production in developing countries has grown substantially, driven primarily by the demand for its use as feedstock in fluoropolymer manufacture (Montzka et al., 2010 ). All HCFC

- 22 producers in developed countries have implemented either process optimization and/ or thermal

destruction to reduce HFC

- 23 emissions. In a few cases, HFC

- 23 is collected and used as a substitute for Ozone Depleting Substances ( ODSs )

, mainly in very

- low temperature refrigeration and air

- conditioning
systems. 1 Several HCFC

- 22 production facilities in developing countries participa te in the United Nations

1 Emissions from this use are quantified in the air conditioning and refrigeration chapters and are therefore not

included here.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 117-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 50 100 150 200 250

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 300 2010

2020

2030 HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS

Framework on Climate Change ’ s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and through their de struction of coproduced HFC

- 23, they are eligible for Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits. Such projects were approved beginning in 2003

, and although currently 19 projects are approved, a large fraction of facilities producing HCFC

- 22 in developing countries are not CDM participants , in part because not all

HCFC

- 22 facilities are e ligible to earn credits under CDM

. Current CDM rules state that HCFC

- 22 production facilities must have an operating history of at least three years between January 2000 a nd December 2004 in order to be eligible for a project. A study published in 2010 reported that approximately 57 percent of HCFC

- 22 were produced but not covered by existing CDM projects (Montzka et al

. , 2010 ). In a nother asses sment, a pproximately 43 production lines within 26 existing

HCFC

- 22 facilities were identified in Article 5 countries. There are about 23 production lines within 17 facilities in Article 5 countries with CDM Projects approved or awaiting approval ( Hufford et al. , 2012 ).

This analysis examines the costs to mitigate HFC

- 23 emissions from HCFC

- 22 production plants that do not have incineration technology installed and the cost s to mitigate HFC

- 23 emissions from those

facilities tha t have thermal destruction devices installed because of a CDM project but are assumed not to choose to continue their operation after the CDM crediting period expires. T here is uncertainty regarding

the future of HFC

- 23 CDM projects and compliance carbon m arkets in general ; the assumptions chosen to develop projected abatement potential in this analysis represent one potential scenario. A discussion regarding the limitations of this analysis is presented in Section IV.8 .4

Global mitigation potential of HFC

- 23 from HCFC

- 22 production in 2030 is 255 MtCO 2 e, roughly 89% of the projected baseline emissions. Figure 8-2 presents the sector marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves
for 2010, 2020, and 2030. This analysis examines the abatement option employed by product ion facilities to destroy HFC

- 23

— installation and/or operation of thermal oxidation devices; as shown in the figure,

abatement can be achieved at a low break

- even price between $0/tCO 2 e and $1/tCO 2 e.



### Figure 8-2: Global Abatement Potential in HCFC

- 22 Production: 2010 , 2020, and 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 118HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### IV.8.1.1 Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production

In the production of HCFC

- 22, HFC

- 23 is separated as a vapor from the condensed HCFC

- 22

, and emissions occur through venting of HFC

- 23 to t he atmosphere as an unwante d by

- product

. For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing HFC

- 23 emissions from HCFC

- 22 production, this analysis considers reduction costs for a typical HCFC

- 22 production facility, characterized as having a production capacity of approximately 22,400 metric tons of HCFC

- 22 (the average production capacity of

all HCFC

- 22 production plants) and HCFC

- 22 production at 82 % of that production capacity based on production estimates (Will et al.

, 2004; 2008 ).

Additionall y, this analysis considers several possibilities for the level of abatement technology used at the typical HCFC

- 22 production facility, reflecting different levels of emissions. The analysis examines four possible categories of facilities. The first two categories address current and historic al levels of

emissions from current facilities:

1. Facilities with abatement controls in place already. This level of abatement is true for all production
facilities in the Annex I countries and facilities that have CDM projects. Since the start of Clean Development Mechanism ( CDM ) projects for HCFC

- 22 production, there have been 19 CDM projects; the majority of these projects are at HCFC

- 22 production facilities in China (11 in total), followed by India (5), Argentina (1), Mexico (1), and the Republic of Korea (1).

2. Facilities wi th no abatement technology controls installed. Such facilities currently exist in China and
Venezuela.
The third and fourth facility categories assist in projecting future emissions from current and new

facilities:

1. New facilities entering the market. To meet future global demand of HCFC

- 22, the analysis estimates new facilities to enter the market once projected production for a non

- Annex country exceeds current capacity of the facilities within the country. New facilities are characterized as being buil t without control technology.

2. Facilities having previously participated in a CDM project , but not currently incinerating

. When a CDM crediting period is over and the CDM project is completed, this analysis assumes that the
incineration device installed as a result of the CDM project will not be kept in operation. The cost assumptions for these facilities differ from those of a new uncontrolled facility in that no capital

costs will be needed to install the incinerator. This analysis assumes that all facilities participating in CDM have completed their crediting periods by 2020.



### IV.8.1.2 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

The primary activity data for HFC

- 23 emissions from this sector are the level of HCFC

- 22 production in the country and whether the production uses any HFC

- 23 abatement. A total of 20 countries produce

HCFC

- 22, and of this total, only 12 countries are assumed to continue to produce HCFC

- 22 between 2015

and 2030. Regionally, abatement of HFC

- 23 emissions is occurring in d eveloped countries, and in developing countries, abatement is driven by the CDM incentives for HFC

- 23 abatement. Thus, the most significant regional trends are driven by assumptions about the extent to which abatement is occurring by country and whether th at abatement will continue in the future. Overall, global HCFC

- 22 production is assumed to continue to grow at a modest rate to meet the demand of HCFC

- 22 use for feedstock in fluoropolymer manufac turing, despite restrictions on HCFC

- 22 production for disp ersive uses of

HCFC

- 22 in response to the controls of HCFC

- 22 consumption under the Montreal Protocol. Figure 8-3

shows the projected distribution of global HFC

- 23 emissions by facility type in 2020.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 119Residual

Emissions (controlled facility), 7% Existing

Uncontrolled Facility, 10%

New

Uncontrolled Facility, 6%

Post CDM Facility, 78% HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### Figure 8-3: Global HFC

- 23 E missions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

IV.8.1.3 Em i ssion Estimates and Related Assumptions

Emissions of HFC

- 23 from HCFC

- 22 production were estimated to be 127.9 MtCO 2 e in 2010, growing

to 286.4 MtCO 2 e in 2030. Table 8-1 presents the projected annual HFC

- 23 emissions between 2010 and 2030 for the top five emitting countries and rest of global regions.



### Table 8-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from HCFC

- 22 Production: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 62.1 70.0 132.2 142.3 147.0 4.4%

India 29.1 37.3 75.2 80.9 83.6 5.4%

Mexico 10.2 13.1 26.5 28.5 29.4 5.4%

Russia 9.3 6.9 4.6 5.9 7.5

- 1.1%

United States 11.8 10.6 10.8 7.9 6.0

- 3.3%

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — —
Central & South America 2.5 2.8 3.7 4.0 4.1 2.6%

Middle East — — — — — — Europe 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.9%

Eurasia — — — — — —
Asia 1.9 2.4 4.7 5.4 6.8 6.7%

North America — — — — — —
World Total 127.9 144.2 258.8 276.3 286.4 4.1%

a CAGR= Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: USEPA

, 20 12

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 120HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS

To estimate historical emissions of HFC

- 23, dispersive and feedstock HCFC

- 22 p roduction levels were developed and subsequently multiplied by a HFC

- 23/HCFC

- 22 co production ratio (i.e., tons of

HFC

- 23 emitted per ton of HCFC

- 22 produced). To account for thermal abatement technologies in the baseline, the analysis used a lower HFC

- 23/HCFC

- 22 production ratio. Depending on how well the process is optimized, these ratios can range from 1.4 % to 4 % (Rotherham, 2004 ; McCulloch and Lindley,

2007 ). The emission rate for Annex I countries was assumed t o be 2 % across the entire time series (Montzka et al., 2010 ). The emission rate for non

- Annex I countries and Russia was assumed to be 3 % from 1990 through 2005 ( US EPA, 2006 ) and 2. 9% from 2006 through 2007 ( Miller et al., 2010). The lower emission rate takes into account any HFC

- 23 emission offsets from CDM projects in these countries and the Joint Implementation (JI) project at Russia ’ s HCFC

- 22 plant in Perm. Where UNFCCC

- reporte d HFC

23 emission estimates were available through the UNFCCC flexible query system, these estimates were used in place of estimates calculated using production data (UNFCCC , 2009 ).

HFC

- 23 emission projections were developed for Annex I countries including Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States. For the United States, National Communications projections of emissions were used for 2010 to 2020 (UNFCCC, 2009 ); emissions trends were used to project HFC

- 23 emissions for the remainder of the time series (2025 through 2030). For all other Annex I countries, the dispersive production and feedstock production portion of emissions were projected separately to account for the decline in the production for dispersive purposes because of the phaseout requirements of the Montreal Protocol. To project the feedstock production portion of HFC

- 23 emissions,

US EPA applied the 5 % global growth rate of feedstock HCFC

- 22 production as reported in Montzka et al. (2010 ).

HFC

- 23 emission projections were developed for non

- Annex I countries including China, India,
Mexico, South Korea, and Venezuela. To do so, non

- Annex I aggregate HCFC

- 22 production was projected for both dispersive and feedstock production; the production was then disaggregated by country using the percent age of each country ’ s contribution to 2007 non

- Annex I HCFC

- 22 production. Each country ’ s HCFC

- 22 projected production was then apportioned into four different model facilities for each developing country, and two HFC

- 23/HCFC

- 22 coproduction ratios were applied to develop

emission estimates

— to address the varying use of abatement technologies by facilities. Table 8-2 presents
the assumed distribution of baseline emiss ions by model facility and country/country group over time.



### Table 8-2: Distribution of HCF

- 23 Emissions by Location and Facility Type: 2010

– 2030

Country/Group Model Facility Type 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Annex I Residual emissions 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Annex I Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Annex I New uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Annex I Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Argentina Residual emissions 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Argentina Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Argentina New uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Argentina Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

China Residual emissions 68% 68% 0% 0% 0%

China Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 32% 32% 17% 16% 15.9%

China New uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 6% 8.8%

China Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 83% 78% 75.2%

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 121HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### Table 8-2: Distribution of HCF

- 23 Emissions by Location and Facility Type: 2010

– 2030 (continued)

Country/Group Model Facility Type 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

India Residual emissions 100% 78% 0% 0% 0%

India Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

India New uncontrolled facility 0% 22% 14% 20% 22.6%

India Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 86% 80% 77.4%

Mexico Residual emissions 100% 78% 0% 0% 0%

Mexico Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Mexico New uncontrolled facility 0% 22% 14% 20% 22.6%

Mexico Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 86% 80% 77.4%

South Korea Residual emissions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

South Korea Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

South Korea New uncontrolled facility 0% 11% 14% 20% 22.6%

South Korea Post

- CDM facility 100% 89% 86% 80% 77.4%

Venezuela Residual emissions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Venezuela Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 100% 89% 86% 80% 77.4%

Venezuela New uncontrolled facility 0% 11% 14% 20% 22.6%

Venezuela Post

- CDM facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



## IV.8.2 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

One abatement option, thermal oxidation, is examined in this analysis of the HCFC

- 22 production

sector; Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 provide a technology overview of this abatement measure. For more detailed information on the abatement measures considered for this sector see Appendix J.



### Table 8-3: HCFC

- 22 Production Abatement Options

Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency Applicability

Facilities with no abatement technology controls installed

Thermal Oxidation 95% N ew facilities entering the market

Facilities having previously participated in a CDM project



### Table 8-4: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Facility Type Project
Lifetime (years) Capital Cost (2010 USD) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2 0 10 USD) Abatement Amount (tCO 2 e)

Facilities with no abatement
t echnology controls installed $ 4,800,000

New facilities entering the
market 20 $ 3,700,000 $0 $ 119,000 5,932,661

Facilities having previously participated in a CDM project $0

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 122HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### IV.8.2.1 Thermal Oxidation

Thermal oxidation, the process of oxidizing HFC

- 23 to CO 2 , h ydrogen fluoride , and water, is a

demonstrated technology for the destruction of halogenated organic compounds. For example,

destruction of more than 99 % of HFC

- 23 can be achieved under optimal conditions (i.e., a relatively

concentrated HFC

- 23 vent stream with a low flow rate) (Rand et al., 1999). In practice, actual reductions will be determined by the fraction of production time that the destruction device is actually operating. Units may experience some downtime because of the extreme corrosivity of h ydrogen fluoride and the high temperatures required for complete destruction. This analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of

95 %. 2

The destruction of HFC

- 23 by thermal oxidation is assumed to be 100% applicable to all facilities, and the analysis assumes a project lifeti me of 20 years. Cost estimates for installing and operating a thermal

oxidizer are summarized below: 3

• Capital Costs : The capital cost for a thermal oxidation system is estimated to be approximately $4.8 million to install at an existing plant and $3. 7 million to install as part of constructi ng a new plant (Irrgang, 2011 ).

• Annual O&M Costs: O&M costs are approximately 2% to 3% of total capital costs (Irrgang, 2011 ). This analysis assumes an annual cost that is 2.5 % of total capital costs for facilities with no abatement technology control installed and just over 3% of total capital costs for new facilities that are entering the market

.

• Annual Revenue : No annual savings or revenues are associated with the thermal oxidation abatement option. 4

• Technical Lifetime: 20 years

• Reduction Efficiency: Thermal oxidation technology is assumed to be 95% efficient in abating

HFC

- 23 emissions.



### IV.8.2.2 Evaluation of Future Mitigation Options and Trends

This analysis evaluates ho w thermal oxidation can be applied to facilities that are current CDM participants after the crediting period is over and the CDM project is completed. Because an incineration device is already installed as a result of the CDM project, the costs to adopt the abatement measure relate only to its annual operation. Facilities participating in CDM are assumed to have completed their crediting periods by 2020.

This analysis also assumes that new facilities will enter the market to meet future global demand of

HC FC

- 22. New facilities are assumed to enter the market once projected production for a non

- Annex I
country exceeds current plant capacities

. According to industry, the costs of installing thermal oxidation systems in new plants are generally less expensive than the cost of installation at existing plants. This

2 A representative of a company that manufactures thermal oxidation systems stated that new systems are built using materials that better resist corrosion than the materials used in older systems. The representative indicated that such new systems were likely to experience very limited downti me, considerably less than 5 % (Rost, 2006 ).

3 Estimates developed for this analysis are based on communication with industry and best available industry assessments; actual costs of some systems could differ from these estimates.

4 It should be noted that annual revenue is generated for participants of CDM projects; however, CDM projects are not assumed to be covering further abatement of emissions in this analy sis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 123HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS

analysis uses a capital cost for new facilities that is approximately 23 % less than the cost of installation at existing facilities ( Irrgang, 2011 ).



## IV.8.3 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for HCFC

- 22 production sector

.



### IV.8.3.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous section of this chapter at the three model facility types to calculate a break

- even price for each option at each facility. As mentioned earlier, this analysis developed four potential model facilities to model the mitigation potential in thi s sector. These facilities included the following:

• Residual Emission s: These are facilities that have abatement controls in place already. All facilities in the Annex I countries and facilities that have CDM projects (mitigation projects funded by develope d countries under the Kyoto Protocol) in the developing countries are

considered “ residual emission facilities .”

• Non

- CDM and Uncontrolled Facility: Non- CDM facilities are existing facilities that are
uncontrolled. These facilities exist in China, South Kor ea, and Venezuela.

• New Uncontrolled Facility: New facilities are assumed to be uncontrolled when built. It is assumed that a new facility enters the market once projected production exceeds current capacity. In other words, the percent age of emissions from new facilities is 0% until projected production exceeds capacity. It is assumed that new facilities will only be built in non

- Annex I

countries.

• Post -CDM Facility: Similar to the “ less mitigation scenario ” of Miller et al. ( 2011 ) , this analysis assumes that the 12 CDM projects that opted for a 7 -y ea r crediting period (in China, South Korea, Mexico, and Argentina) are not renewed after their first terms (note the remaining seven facilities opted for a one

- time fixed crediting per iod that cannot exceed 10 y ears). Please see Section IV.8 .4 for a discussion on the uncertainty and limitations regarding this assumption. Under this assumption, by 2020, all facilities previously controlled via CDM ( “ residual emission model facility ” ) are considered a “ post

- CDM ” facility. It is assumed that the incineration device installed (via a CDM project) will not be kept in operation once the CDM crediting period is over. This analysis costs out mitigation from these facilities differently than a new uncontrolled facility by taking into account that no capital costs will be needed to install the incinerator.



### IV.8.3.2 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage re ductions achievable by each technology/facility type combination. Market penetration rates vary over time as
systems are upgraded in the future. Table 8-5 summarizes the assumptions regarding technical applicability, market penetration, and technical effec tiveness of thermal oxidation for each facility type

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 124HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### Table 8-5: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Model Facility Type Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Rate (2030) Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness (2030)

Non

- CDM and uncontrolled facility 100% 100% 95% 95%

New uncontrolled facility 100% 100% 95% 95%

Post

- CDM facility 100% 100% 95% 95%



### IV.8.3.3 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

Abatement project costs discussed in the previous section were used to calculate the break

- even price for implementing the thermal oxidation technology at each facility type (excluding residual emission facilities). Using the engineering cost data discuss ed earlier, Table 8-6 presents the example break

- even prices for each facility type.



### Table 8-6: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in HCFC

- 22 Production

Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 e) Net Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 e) Break

- Even
Price ($/tCO 2 e) Model Facility Type

Non

- CDM and uncontrolled f acility 5,932,661 0.16 0.02 0.03 0.15

New uncontrolled facility 5,932,661 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12

Post

- CDM facility 5,932,661 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02



### IV.8.3.4 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for HFC

- 23 reductions in HCFC

- 22 production sector is 255 MtCO 2 e, which is approximately 89% of projected emissions in 2030. Table 8-6 presents the cumulative reductions

achieved at selected break

- even prices

. The results are driven largely by the designation of model facilities in different countries. For example, the United States and Russia have zero mitigation potential because they are included in the Annex I group of countries and were assumed to have 100% of their baseline emissions represented by

the residual emission model facility (see Table 8-2 ).

Figure 8-4 shows the corresponding MAC curves for the six countries with abatement potential in
2030, which include China, India, Mexico, South Korea, and Venezuela . Total abatement potential is

achieved at break -e ven prices betwee n $0/tCO 2 e and $1/tCO 2 e in 2030 , hence the “L” shape of the curves.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 125-

– –$/tCO2e $60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

$0

-$10

-$20

-$30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 China

Mexico

India

South Korea

Venezuela

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



### Table 8-7: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break -E ven Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Country/Region 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — — — 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7 139.7

India — — — 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5 79.5

Mexico — — — 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0

South Korea — — — 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Venezuela — — — 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — — — — — — —
Central and South America — — — 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Middle East — — — — — — — — — — — Europe — — — — — — — — — — —
Eurasia — — — — — — — — — — —
Asia — — — — — — — — — — —
North America — — — — — — — — — — —

World Total — — — 255.4 255.4 255.4 255.4 255.4 255.4 255.4 255.4



### Figure 8-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Countries with Abatement Potential in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 126HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



## IV.8.4 Uncertainties and Limitations

This analysis examines a scenario in which the current CDM projects, including those projects with

seven

- year crediting periods, are completed by 2020. 5 Whether project renewals will occur is uncertain; it

is also uncertain whether facilities w ould continue to abate even in the absence of CDM incentives. Although the first seven

- year crediting period for the South Korean plant in Ulsan, which ended in December 2009, was recently renewed for another seven years by the CDM Executive Board in Novem ber 2011, the European Commission recommended in January 2011 that the EU cease the purchase of certified

emission reductions (CERs) derived from emission mitigation of HFC

- 23 production after May 2013 (Europa

, 2012 ) . In addition to this ban, which has been formally adopted, other countries, such as New Zealand and Australia have announced that they will not accept CERs from HFC

- 23 destruction projects.

The projections in this analysis are limited to this scenario to examine mitigatio n costs in the absence of continued CDM projects post

- 2020; this analysis has not attempted to examine emission projections

and MAC curves under a scenario where CDM projects are renewed post

- 2020.

5 This scenario is similar to the “Less Mitigation” scenario as pre sented by Miller et al. (2011 ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 127HFC

- 23 EMISSIONS



## References

Chemical and Economics Handbook (CEH). 2001. Fluorocarbons CEH Marketing Research Report.
Chemical and Economics Handbook. Europa. 2012. Emissions Trading: Commission Welcomes Vote to Ban Certain Industrial Gas Credits

. Press release. Obtained at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/56

. Accessed February 17, 2012. Hufford, D., C. Newberg, D. Godwin, and E. Rim. 2012 “Benefits of Addressing HFCs under t he Montreal Protocol.” ASHRAE/NIST Ref Conf. Irrgang, G. May 19, 2011. Personal communication between Gene Irrgang of Selas Linde and Veronica Kennedy of ICF International. Information provided by Mr. Rost to Ms. Ottinger in 2006 confirmed by Mr. Irrgang a nd adjusted for inflation.

McCulloch, A. and A. A. Lindley. 2007. “ Global Emissions of HFC

- 23 Estimated to Year 2015 .” Atmos.
Environ. 41 : 1560

- 1566

. M iller, B.R., and L.J.M. Kuijpers. 2011. “ Projecting Future HFC

- 23 E missions. ” Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 11: 23081

- 23102.

M iller, B.R., M. Rigby, L.J.M. Kuijpers, P.B. Krummel, L.P. Steele, M. Leiste, P.J. Fraser, A. McCulloch, C. Harth, P. Salameh, J. Mühle, R.F. Weiss, R.G. Prinn, R.H.J. Wang, S. O ’ Doherty, B.R. Greally, and P.G.
Simmonds. 2010. “ HFC

- 23 (CH F3) Emission Trend Response to HCFC

- 22 (CHClF2) Production and
Recent HFC

- 23 Emission Abatement Measures. ” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10: 7875

- 7890.
Montzka, S.A., L. Kuijpers, M

. O. Battle, M .A.K. Verhulst, E

. S. Saltzman, and D

. W. Fahey. 2010. “ Recent
Increases in Global HFC

- 23 Emissions. ” Geophysical Research Letters. 37: L02808. Rand, S., D. Ottinger, and M. Branscome. 1999. Opportunities for the Reduction of HFC

- 23 Emissions from the Production of HCFC

- 22 . IPCC/TEAP Joint Expert Meeting. Petten, Netherlands, May 26

– 28. Rost, M. April 24, 2006. Personal communication between Marc Rost of T

- thermal and Debora Ottinger of
the USEPA.

Rotherharn, D. 2004. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Verification Audit for Dupont’s Louisville Works Freon®22 Plant, Final Report . I CF Consulting, Toronto, Canada, Obtained at: http://cdm,unfccc.intipublicjnputs/inputamOOO llLetter_DuponLAnnex2_03June04.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. Data Access Centre. HCFC Production.
Obtained at: http://ozone.unep.org/ Data_Reporting/Data_Access/

. UNFCCC. 2012. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Flexible GHG Data Queries. Online Database Accessed: Spring 2012. Available at: http://unfccc. int/di/FlexibleQueries/Setup.do

. U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy (USEPA). 2006. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

– 2020 . Office of Atmospheric Programs: Climate Change Division. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. W ill, R., A. Kishi

, and S. Schlag. 2004. CEH Marketing Research Report: Fluorocarbons. Chemical
Economics Handbook

. S RI Consulting , Menlo Park, California

. Will, R., and H

. Mori. 2008. CEH Marketing Research Report: Fluorocarbons. Chemical Economics Handbook. SRI Consulting , Menlo Park, C A.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1280 5 10 15 20 25 30MtCO2e 28

18 20 22

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year South Korea

Singapore

Japan

United States

China

Rest of World SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



# IV.9. F-GHG Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing

IV.9.1 Sector Summary 

# T he semiconductor manufacturing sector uses several fluorinated greenhouse gases (F

- GHGs) including sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3 ), perfl u orcarbons (PFCs) such as carbon tetrafluoride (CF 4 ) and p erfluoroethane (C 2 F 6 )



### , and the hydrofl u orocarbon HFC

- 23 during fabrication , a portion of which are eventually emitted to the atmosphere. In addition,

nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and several fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs) are used in the sector , but

emissions from HTFs and N 2 O are not included in this analysis.

Between 2000 and 2010 the production levels in the semiconductor manufacturing i ndustry ha ve rapidly grown, and the complexity of devices produced has advanced substantially . However, over this time period F- GHG emissions from thi s sector have declined (see Figure 9-1)

. This reduction can be

attributed to ongoing mitigation efforts in response to voluntary emissions reduction goals set by the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) . For 2010, the WSC set a quantitative emissions target below the
baseline level, and for 2020 it has set a n emissions rate target which will entail further implementation of mitigation technologies

. 1



### Figure 9-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012

1 The emissions projection baseline used here is based on the projection presented in USEPA (2012). That analysis was conducted before the details of the 2020 WSC voluntary commitment were available. The projection assumes a continuation of meeting an absolute emissions

- level goal through 2030. Further analysis is needed to estimate future emissions as a result of the new normalized emission rate goal se t by the WSC, which will depend on future production levels. More information on the specific assumptions in the baseline are available in USEPA ( 2012) , and more information on the new WSC goal can be found at http://www.semiconductors.org/news/2013/05/28/news_2013/global_semiconductor_leaders_reach_agreeme nt_on_pl an_to_strengthen_industry_through_international_cooperation/

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 129-$100 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700$/tCO2e

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

S ix mitigation technologies are considered which reduce F

- GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing : thermal abatement systems, catalytic abatement systems, plasmas abatement systems, the

NF 3 remote chamber clean process, gas replacement, and process optimization

. Significant implem entation of these technologies is included in the baseline projection as part of meeting global voluntary targets. The following mitigation analysis is intended to characterize further reductions beyond this level, meaning that reductions are fewer and mor e costly than reductions would be applied to an

uncontrolled baseline.

Mitigation costs and potentials for a particular facility depend on a variety of factors including the processes and gases used, and emissions reduction technologies already in use. The analysis in this chapter considers mitigation technologies applied to two stylized facilities: one representing a “new facility” with relatively new semiconductor technologies and processes and which has already implemented a suite of mitigation technologies, and one “old facility” which has relatively older semiconductor technologies and processes and limited existing use of emissions reduction technologies.

Full details on the model facilities are in Section IV.9. 4.2.

Global abatement potential of F- GHG emissions in semiconductor manufacturing is estimated to be

12 MtCO 2 e in 2010, 4.6 MtCO 2 e in 2020 and 4.2 MtCO 2 e in 2030

. These abatement amounts correspond to

67 %, 23 %, and 20 % respectively in 2010, 2020, and 2030. Figure 9-2 presents the sector marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves for these three years

. The relative availability of potential further reductions below the baseline projections declines in later years because more mitigation technology is already included in the baseline as part of meeting voluntary reduction goals. In 2030, less than 1% of the technically feasible reductions could be supplied cost

- effectively (at or below a zero break

- even price)

, and nearly 7 % of those reductions would be achievable at a carbon p rice of $50/tCO 2 e.



### Figure 9-2: Global Abatement Potential in Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 130SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

This chapter begins by providing a brief discussion of activities and sources of F- GHG emissions in the semiconductor manufacturing process, and presents the projected emissions from 2010 to 2030

. This is followed by an overview of the abatement measures available to the sector for achieving reductions, their technological parameters

, and e conomic costs and benefits

. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC analysis and regional MAC results.



## IV.9.2 Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing

Semiconductor manufacturing emissions considered in this analysis result from two main types of manufacturing processes used : the etching of substrates and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chambers. In addition to direct emissions of portions of F- GHGs that are not consumed in these

processes, by

- product emissions of CF 4 and other gases (e.g., C 2 F 6 ) occur when a fraction of the gases used in processes react to form other F

- GHGs

.

Other than etching and chamber cleaning

, at least t hree other semiconductor manufacturing processes result in greenhouse gas emissions . This includes the us e of F- GHGs in cleaning wafers, the use

of nitrous oxide in chemical vapor deposition and other processes

, and the use of fluorinated heat

transfer fluids. However

, these emitting processes were not considered in this analysis because there is very limited public information that would make estimat ing emissions from them feasible . In the future, if more quantitative information is gathered on these three emissive uses of F

- GHGs, they can be considered in an updated analysis.

For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing F- GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing , this analysis considers the apparent differences in emissions resulting from newer and older manufacturing processes and mitigation practices ; reduction costs for two typical fabrication facilities ( fabs )

, which were generally characterized based on fab capacity (i.e., the number of manufacturing tools a typical fab may have); and the existing use of various mitigation technologies to

etch and clean emissions. The emissions breakdown illus trated in Figure 9-3 represent emissions from these two types of fabs , further broken out by emission from etch and chamber clean processes

. In 2020,

new facilities are expected to make up 30 % of global emissions, with old facilities accounting for the

rem ainder

. A description of the characteristics of the old and new fab considered for purposes of ana lysis

is contained in Section IV.9 .4.2

.



### IV.9.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

Several important industry trends drive changes in emi ssions and mitigation potential from semiconductor manufacturing : 1) rapid production growth

, 2) evolving manufacturing processes and increasing complexity in devices produced

, and 3) impacts of mitigation efforts resulting from voluntary

emissions reducti on goals . These trends are described below.

Between 2001 and 20 11 , global semiconductor manufacturing

, measured on the basis of total manufactured layer area (TMLA)

, indicate s a compound annual growth rate of approximately 10 % per

year, which is higher than the silicon consumption growth rate of approximately 7% per year ( VLSI, 2012
and WFF, 2012 ). 2 Both silicon area and TMLA are metrics of semiconductor production; however t he

difference in growth rate is driven by the increasing complexity of devices, as TMLA reflects

2 Silicon consumption was taken from VLSI, 2012. TMLA was derived in the EPA PFC Emissions Vintaging Model using data from VLSI, 2012 and WFF, 2012

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 131clean, new,

14% etch,
new, 16%

clean,

old,

55% etch, old,

15% SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



### Figure 9-3: Global F- GHG Emissions in 2020 by Fab Type and Process (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

t he silicon wafer base layer plus all the metal interconnect layers and the silicon consumption reflects just

the base. M ore recently production growth has slowed. Between 2006 and 2011, annual production growth is estimated to be about 5 % on a TMLA basis, or 4 % on a silicon area basis.

Etch and chamber

- clean ing processes have evolved as semiconductor technologies have advanced and understanding of the emission pathway s associated with manufacturing has improved. As technologies advance d, the semiconductor industry used larger wafer sizes to increase to increase chip production (e.g., 150 mm to 200 mm to 300 mm). Fabs that produce semiconductors on smaller wafers

, on

average, tend to be older and use manufacturing processes that result in a different breakdown of F

- GHG emissions from etch and clean processes as co mpared to newer fabs. Older fabs may emit approximately

80% of F- GHG emissions total from chamber

- clean ing processes and about 20% of emissions from etch processes. These percent ages change to about 45%/55% clean/ etch for new er fabs. T his shift in the sour ce of emissions over time is a result of the following: 1) newer fabs generally are trending to NF 3 remote

clean technologies that result in lower emissions on a CO 2 e basis than traditional older C 2 F 6 - or C 4 F 8 - based clean systems

, 2) more technologically a dvanced etch processes have a significantly greater number of steps, resulting in more F

- GHG emissions , and 3) newer fabs can have less physical limitations on using abatement

. As a new generation of fabs come online using 450 mm wafers , it is expected the y will

continue to use NF 3 remote clean technologies, abatement, and more advanced etch processes.

The WSC set an absolute emissions reduction goal for 2010 and a further emissions rate reduction goal for 2020. The 2010 WSC goal was an emission reduction of 10 % relative to 1995 baseline F- GHG

emissions. 3 T his emission reduction goal was met in 2010

. Achievement of the 2010 WSC emissions reduction goal has occurred in the context of significantly increasing underlying manufacturing act ivity. A 2011 joint WSC statement reported that the participating industry associations had achieved a collective 32% reduction from their baselines while semiconductor industry production increased roughly six times over the same time period (WSC, 2011 ).

In 2011, the WSC outlined a new voluntary F

- GHG agreement for 2020 (WSC, 2011 ). This agreement sets a normalized emission rate goal of 0.22 kgCO 2 e/cm 2 , which is a 30% reduction from the 2010 WSC aggregate baseline emissi ons rate (including China, which was not included in the 2010 goal) of 0.33

3 Korea has a baseline year of 1998.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 132SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

kgCO 2 e/cm 2 . In the 2020 voluntary goal the WSC also strongly suggests the use of best practices at newly built manufacturing facilities. 4 EPA has not yet analyzed how this new agre ement would relate to absolute emission reductions in WSC countries, however achieving this goal would require significant use of mitigation technologies. The baseline used for this analysis assumes continued production growth and continued implementation of mitigation technologies; however it was estimated before the details of the 2020 WSC goal were available. Further analysis is necessary to estimate expected semiconductor manufacturing emission accounting for the 2020 WSC goal. Incorporating the new goa l would likely result in somewhat reduced projected emissions in 2020 and somewhat increased projected emissions for

2030.



### IV.9.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

Projected emissions are based on estimated production level and capacity (described above), emissions rates drawn from voluntary reporting in the U.S., emissions as reported to the UNFCCC, and achievement of voluntary goal levels.

The preferred activity data to determine semiconductor emission estimates are gas consumption data.

However , this information is not available globally. Instead, limited data on gas usage from the USEPA Voluntary Semiconductor Partnership was used to calculate emissions in relatio n to production

. Therefore, emissions were estimated using this information, emission estimates from the UNFCCC, and alternative activity data, which is production capacity.

As described above , this analysis take s into account voluntary mitigation activiti es in the various

WSC member countries and assumes that member countries maintain emissions at the goal level in the

future

. Projected emissions for major countries and regions are presented in Table 9-1.



### Table 9-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Semic o nductor Manufacturing: 2010

- 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)
Top 5 Emitting Countries

United States 4.4 6.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 0.7%

China 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0% Japan 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0% Singapore 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.9%

South Korea 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0% Rest of Regions

Africa 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 5.0%

Central and South America — — — — — — Middle East 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 4.3% Europe 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0%

Eurasia 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.6%

Asia 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 5.4%

North America 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 3.0%

World Total 18.2 20.6 20.0 20.7 21.5 0.8%

a CAGR= Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: USEPA, 201 2

4 Best practices, which will be continuously reviewed and updated by the WSC, can be found here: http://w ww.semiconductorcouncil.org/wsc/uploads/Final_WSC_Best_Practice_Guidance_26_Sept_201

- 2.pdf

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 133SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

To estimate potential for further reductions beyond the voluntary control levels included in the baseline emissions projection, emissions must be allocated between uncontrolled emissions and residual emissions remaining after control measures have been imp lemented. Specific information on current use of mitigation technologies is not available, so the degree of mitigation is inferred by considering two stylized model facilities: one where almost full mitigation is used and one where almost no mitigation is
used, and from comparing emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled facilities as determined using data reported through EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (USEPA, 2013) and information gathered during EPA’s voluntary partnership with the semicondu ctor industry

.



## IV.9.3 A batement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

S ix mitigation technology options were considered for the semiconductor manufacturing sector : thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF 3 remote chamber clean, gas rep lacement

, and process optimization

.

• Thermal abatement : These point

- of

- use abatement systems, that use heat to destroy or remove F

GHGs from effluent process streams, are connected directly to a manufacturing tool.

• Catalytic abatement : Tool effluent process streams are run through abatement systems with catalysts (e.g., CuO, ZnO, Al 2 O 3 ) that destroy or remove F

- GHGs.

• Plasma abatement : P lasma

, in a point

- of

- use abatement system

, is used to react with ( thereby destroy ing or remov ing ) F

- GHG s from the process effluent stream.

• NF 3 remote chamber clean : Highly ionized NF 3 is used to clean chemical vapor deposition chambers. This process is very efficient ( using ~98 % of the gas in a process ) resulting in lower

emissions on a mass and CO 2 basi s than traditional in

- situ chamber clean processes that use approximately 20 % to 50 % of the gas in a process and have lower efficiencies ( US EPA, 2010 ).

• Gas replacement : Higher global warming potential ( GWP ) gases are replaced with lower GWP

gase s, and in some cases more efficient gases (e.g., C 4 F 8 may replace C 2 F 6 in a traditional

chambe r- clean ing process).

• Process optimization : Processes are adjusted to become more efficient, using more gas within the

proce ss , and thus resulting in lower emissions.
These technologies reduce emissions from either etch or chamber

- clean ing processes or in some cases

both

. Table 9-2 demonstrates the applicability of each mitigation technology to each process type

. While in reality some of these technologies can be stacked, or used together (e.g., a process can be optimized and then abatement can be applied to that process), the cost and mitigation analysis does not model this

situation.



### Table 9-2: Semiconductor Manufacturing Abatement Options

Thermal Catalytic Plasma NF3 Remote Gas Process Fab/Emissions Type Abatement Abatement Abatement Clean Replacement Optimization
Reduction Efficiency 95% 99% 97% 95% 77% 54%

New fab

Etch emissions X X X

Clean emissions X X

Old fab

Etch emissions X X X

Clean emissions X X X X

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 134n/a SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

Table 9-3 presents a summary of the engineering cost data for each of the mitigation technologies.



### Table 9-3: Engineerin g Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement

Option Project Lifetime (years) Capital Costs (2010 USD) Annual Costs (2010 USD) Abatement Amount (t CO 2 

### e)

New Old New Old New Old New Old

Thermal
abatement 7 7 $ 11,403,942 $ 5,701,971 $ 657,723 $ 328,862 10,497 52,375

Catalytic
abatement 7 7 $ 13,813,189 $ 6,906,594 $ 910,555 $ 455,277 n/a 11,851

Plasma abatement 7 7 $ 3,629, 329 $ 1,814,664 $ 103,695 $ 51,848 n /a 11,612

NF 3 remote clean 22 11 $ 3,005,084 $ 9,200,867 $ 1,214,892 $ 3,374,861 1,166 41,002

Gas replacement 22 11 $ 1,180,000 n/a $ 64,231 n/a 29,911

Process optimization * 22 11 n/a $ 109,440 n/a ($ 129,071) n/a 20,976

Note: Values in parentheses denote negative costs.

* Values listed as capital costs for process optimization represent one

- time labor costs, not cost of capital.



### IV.9.3.1 Thermal Abatement

Thermal abatement systems can be used to abate emissions from both etching and CVD chamber

cleaning processes by heating process effluent streams to high temperatures to remove or destroy

F- GHGs . The use of thermal abatement offers the benefit of not affe c ting the manufacturing process (Applied Materials, 1999 ); however

, the systems do require space that may not be available in sub

- fabs, particularly in older facilities

. In addition , these systems require large amounts of cooling water, and the
system ’ s use results in regulated NO

x emissions. Thermal abatement systems are currently the most widely used abatement system in the semiconductor industry

. The engineering cost estimates for this technology are as follows :

• Capital Costs : Thermal abatement system capital costs cover the cost of the abatement unit with ducting and water recirculation ($157,000 per unit)

, hook

- up costs ($35,550)

, and natural gas

infrastructure costs ($35,550) (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; B urton

, 2003 ). One unit is needed per tool at a facility. The total facility capital cost ranges from $ 11.4 million for new fabs to $ 5.7 million for old

fabs.

• Annual Costs : Annual operating costs p er manufacturing tool

, as presented in Table 9- 4, are the

same for both new and old fabs. Total annual costs (e.g., utilities) for a new fab are estimated to
be $ 658 ,000 and $ 329,000 for an old fab

. The higher capital and annual costs for new fabs are

based on the fact that new fabs typically have larger manufacturing capacities (i.e., more tools) (WFF, 2011 ). Annual costs per tool are s ummarized in Table 9-4

. The per

- tool cost is the same for

both new and old fabs.

• Annual Revenue : N o financial benefits (e.g.

, cost savings) are associated with using this mitigation technology without outside policy or other drivers.

• Reduction Efficiency : This analysis assumes a 95% reduction efficiency ( Fthenakis, 2001 ; Beu

, 2005 ; US EPA

, 2009 ).

• Technical Lifetime: Based on expert judgment, it was estimated that the average lifetime of this system, and other abatement systems discussed in this analysis, is 7 years.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 135SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



### Table 9-4: Annual Cost per Tool for Thermal Abatement S ystems Annual Cost Component Cost (2010 US D)

Water/waste water/maintenance $ 2,370

Consumables $ 5,330

Electricity $ 2,610

Natural gas $ 2,840

Source: Burton, 2003

.



### IV.9.3.2 Catalytic Abatement

A catalytic abatement system uses a catalyst to destroy or remove F- GHG emissions from the

effluents of both plasma etching and CVD chamber

- cleaning processes. This type of abatement is applicable at most facilities, but there may be some space constraints as mentioned above for thermal

abat ement systems. Additionally

, because these systems are based on destruction via catalyst , t hey must be process/stream specific to achieve the 99 % emission re ductions quoted in the literature and use d in this analysis (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton

, 2003 ).

Because catalytic destruction systems operate at relatively low temperatures , their use results in little

or no NO

x emissions

, and the required amounts of water are also low

. Because of the high cost of catalyst repla ce ment , these systems are the least widely used type of abatement ( expert judgment)

.

Cost estimate s for this technology are as follows :

• Capital Costs. Capital costs are associated with purchas ing and install ing the abatement systems (Burton

, 2003 ). One unit costs $217,010, and the installation costs $59,250, leading to estimated
costs of $ 6.9 million and $ 13.8 million for old and new fabs, respectively.

• Annual Costs

. F acilities incur annual costs per tool for water ($3,790), waste chemicals ($60), catalyst replacement ($12,580), and electricity ($1,780) ( Burton

, 2003 ). A new fab incurs annual costs for catalytic abatement of $ 910,600 , and an old fab incurs costs of $ 455,300

.

• Annual Revenue

. No cost savings are a ssociated with this technology.

• Reduction Efficiency : The analysis assumes 99% reduction efficiency for catalytic abatement ( Fthenakis, 2001 ).

• Technical Lifetime: Seven years.



### IV.9.3.3 Plasma Abatement

These systems

, which use plasma to remove or destroy F

- GHGs, are applicable to etch processes in most facilities, with some physical space limitations. (These systems

, though

, are smaller in size compared with thermal and catalytic systems .) Plasma abatement systems use a small plasma source that effectively dissociates the F

- GHG molecules that react with fragments of the additive gas (hydrogen (H 2 ), oxygen (O 2 ) , wa ter (H 2 O), or methane (CH 4 ) to produce low molecular weight by

- products such as hydrogen fluoride (HF) with little or no GWP

. After disassociation, wet scrubbers can remove the molecules. The presence of additive gas is necessary to prevent later downstream reformation of F- GHG molecules (Motorola, 1998 ).

A plasma abatement system is need ed on each tool chamber. The costs of plasma abatement systems

are developed using the following information :

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 136SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

• Capital Costs : The plasma abatement technology requires capital costs that cover the purchase and installation of the system, which total $ 41,500 per chamber, equating to one

- time costs of $3. 6
million for new fabs and $ 1.8 million for old fabs (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton

, 2003 ).

• Annual Costs : Facilities with plasma abatement systems are estimated to incur annual operation costs of $1,190 per chamber, which includes general maintenance and use of the system

. Total

annual facility costs are $ 103,700 for new fabs and $ 51,800 for old fabs , based on the assumption

that there are 3.5 chambers per etch tool and varying numbers of tools for new and old fabs (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton

, 2003 ).

• Annual Revenue : As with other abatement technologies, the use of plasma abatement systems will not result in any cost savings.

• Reduction Efficiency : The emissions reduction efficiency of this option is estimated to be 97% (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Hattori et al

., 2006 ).

• Technical Lifetime: 7 years.



### IV.9.3.4 NF 3 

### Remote Chamber Clean

NF 3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that offers the benefit of having a particularly high (~98%) utilization rate of NF 3 ( IPCC, 2006 ), resulting in relatively low emissions compared with t raditional chamber cleans. NF 3 remote clean systems dissociate NF 3 using argon gas, and converting the source gas to active F

- atoms in the plasma upstream of the process chamber. These electrically neutral atoms can selectively remove material in the chamber. The by

- products of remote clean include HF, fluorine ( F 2 ), and other gases

, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber
systems

. The use of NF 3 remote clean systems is much more prevalent in newer fabs because the technology was not available when many older fabs were constructed.

Capital costs for NF 3 remote clean systems will differ for new and old fabs because of the “ readiness ”

for NF 3 remote clean installation. “ Readiness ” consist s of having the cu rrent infrastructure (e.g., duct
work, hook

- ups) for system installation. I t was assumed that old fabs are do not have the current

infrastructure to use NF3 remote clean, where as new fabs do. Therefore

, the capital costs for old fabs reflect the needed infrastructure changes for the fab.

Cost assumptions include the following :

• Capital Costs : Both facility types would incur capital costs for purchas ing the NF 3 remote system
and the additional necessary F 2 scrub for use after the chamber cleaning of the waste stream. The costs for system purchase for a n ew fab are estimated to be $ 3 million. O ld fabs are assumed to

not be “NF 3 ready ,” or in other words

, these facilities are not assumed to have the current

infrastructure to handle the direct installati on of NF 3 remote systems. Therefore

, old fabs also incur capital costs, in addition to system costs, associated with investments such as gas hook

- ups and necessary hardware such as manifolds and val v es in addition to the costs of the systems

which are assu med to be already installed at new fabs. (These costs are detailed in Table 9-5. ) The
old fab costs are estimated to be $ 9.2 million.

• Annual Costs : Facilities operating NF 3 remote clean systems are subject to annual costs that

include the purchase of large r volumes of gas (NF 3 versus traditional chamber

- clean ing gases such as C 2 F 6 ), general maintenance, and the cost of F 2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas from the effluent. Remote clean requires a lot of NF 3 , so much so that NF 3 purchases are estimated to comprise anywhere from 25 % to upward of 75 % of annual facility gas consumption (expert judgment). New fab costs annually for NF 3 remote clean are estimated to be $ 1.2 million
and to be $ 3 .4 million for o ld fabs (Burton

, 2003 ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 137SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



### Table 9-5: Capital Costs per CVD Chamber for Making a Facility NF 3 

### Ready
Activity Capital Cost (2010 USD)

Labor/gas hookup $3,980

NF 3 manifold, valves, etc. $16,591

Toxic monitor $7,700

Stainless steel line (double walled) $10,310

Source: Burton

, 2003

• Annual Revenue : No cost savings are assumed to be associated with this technology.

• Reduction Efficiency : The analysis assumes this technology offers a reduction of 95 % of

emissions (Beu, 2005 ).

• Technical Lifetime: Once the remote clean systems are installed, they will last for the lifetime of a facility. Based on information from the World Fab Forecast

, the average remaining lifetime of a facility is 11 years for an o ld fab and 22 years for a n ew fab.



### IV.9.3.5 Gas Replacement

Gas replacement can be used to mitigate emissions from the traditional CVD chamber

- cleaning process. This method can be applied in most facilities and has already been used throughout the industry in many instances

. For this strategy, a lower GWP gas replaces a higher GWP gas. The most common replacement seen is using C 4 F 8 to replace C 3 F 8 or C 2 F 6 . In addition, the replacement gas (C 4 F 8 ) is often used/consumed more efficiently during CVD chamber cleaning than the original gas C 2 F 6 or C 3 F 8 , which, combined with the differences in GWP, yields lower emissions.

As with most other technologies considered in this analysis, there are no associated cost savings.

• Capital Costs. Facilities replacing C 2 F 6 or C 3 F 8 with C 4 F 8 face a capital expenditure that reflects the aggregate cost of the C 4 F 8 gas hook

- up and an engineer ’s time cost for implementation. Based on the Clean Development Me chanism (CDM) number NM0317

, the aggregated cost of equipment, C 4 F 8 gas hook

- up, and an engineer ’s time f or implementation and installation is
estimated to be $1.2 millio n for old fabs (the technology is not assumed to be used at new fabs)

.

• Annual Costs

. Facilities face an annual cost that reflects the cost of replacing C 2 F 6 or C 3 F 8 with the more expensive C 4 F 8. The costs of these gases, taken from CDM NM0 303, are $35 per kilogram of C 2 F 6 , $26 per kilogram of C 3 F 8 , and $72 per kilogram of C 4 F 8 . C osts for old fabs were estimated to be $64,230, which is based on an average amount of gas consumed per facility. Ga s consumption information was estimated based on US EPA Voluntary Partnership data, in which facility age and gas consumption relationships were not distinguishable.

• Annual Revenue. No cost savings are associated with this technology.

• Reduction Efficiency : The analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 77% for this mitigation technology (C DM methods NM0289, NM303, NM0317, NM0335)

.

• Technical Lifetime: As with NF 3 remote clean, once a gas is replaced, the “ new ” process will last

for the lifetime of a fab. Based on information from the World Fab Forecast

, the average remaining lifetime of a facility is 11 years for an old fab.



### IV.9.3.6 Process Optimization

Process optimization is the reduction in GHG emissions fr om a process by modif ying or add ing to the process recipe

. Process optimization is considered to be only applicable for chamber cleans because

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 138SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

these processes offer the opportunity for more flexibility than etch processes. Etch processes are typically

deve loped to optimize production yield, and they are only adjusted to increase this yield; a company

would n ot risk negatively impacting it (Beu, 2005 ; Fthenakis, 2001). Process gas optimizations for CVD clean processe s can be implemented because adjustments to these processes are much less precise than etch processes. There is room to reduce emission s without affecting yield. Optimization of clean processes

to reduce emissions usually result s in small production gains but sometimes can result in large increases in efficiency

. Facilities optimizing processes incur labor costs of an estimated $109,440 ; it is assumed that old fabs
incur this cost, while new fabs do not implement this technology due to their assumed use of NF3 remote clean for the majority of clean processes.

Details of the cost estimates for this technology include the following :

• One Time Labor Costs : Facilities ’ optimizing processes incur a one

- time labor cost. Labor costs of
$43 per hour were used for a materials engineer in the semiconductor industry based on BLS ( 2010 ) information and an estimated 2,560 hours of work, resulting in a total labor cost for each model facility of $109,440.

• Annual Costs : N o annual costs are associated with process optimization for clean processes that

are outside of business

- as

- usual ( BAU ) annual facility costs.

• Annual Revenue : Because process optimization involves a djusting a process to perform more efficiently, the cost savings associated with this option are due to a lowered amount of gas required to be purchased

. For simplicity

, the process considered in this analysis for this option

was a C 2 F 6 traditional chamber clean, and the related savings were estimated to be $129,070. As

for the gas replacement annual cost, this number var ies depending on the size of the facility. However, consumption information was only able to be estimated based on US EPA Voluntary

Partner ship data, in which facility age and gas consumption relationships were not distinguishable.

• Reduction Efficiency : Observed reduction efficiencies for abatement of C 2 F 6 in the literature range from 10 % to 56% (Beu, 2005 ) and as high as 75% (Fthenakis

, 2001 ). For the purposes of this analysis, an average reduction efficiency of 54% was used, and we assumed the change in process is permanent over the life of a facility.

• Technical Lifetime: As with NF 3 remote clean, once a gas is replaced, the “ new ” process will last

for the lifetime of a fab. Based on information from the World Fab Forecast

, the average remaining lifetime of a facility is 11 years for an old fab

.



## IV.9.4 Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis

T his section d iscusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in

the MAC analysis for semiconductor manufacturing.



### IV.9.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous section of th is chapter at two hypothetical facilities to calculate a break

- even price for each option at each facility (new and old). This section presents detailed information on how each type of fab was defined in this analysis,

and detailed information on how costs were built out for each mitigation technology.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 139SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



### IV.9.4.2 Definition of Model Facilities

For this sector

, two fab types were considered: an old fab and a new fab

. The differences between

these two fabs are discussed in more detail below:

• Old: The old fab is intended to capture facilities that use smaller wafer sizes , such as 150 mm and below, as well as some older 200 mm manufacturing facilities (i.e., fabs built before 2000). This fab is expected to use less current manufacturing processes and produce less, in terms of silicon

area. was estimated for this analysis, based emissions data reported through the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, that a typical “old” fab breakdown of emissions on a CO 2 e basis is approximately 20% etch emissions and 80% clean emissions. This is because older etch processes involve less GHG

- using steps and more commonly use traditional chamber cleans with gases such as C 2 F 6 as opposed to remote chamber cleaning processes

. This fab is also expected to not use any abatement and only use minimal process optimization and gas switching. It was assumed that an old fab has an average of 30 tools with 3.5 chambers per tool. 5

• New: The new fab type encompasses facilities that use larger wafer, such as 300 mm wafers

. It is
estimated, bas ed again on emissions data reported through the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, that the total emission breakdown for the new fab is approximately 55% etch

emissions and 45% clean emissions. In contrast to the old fab, the new fab uses more rece nt etch processes that have comparatively many more GHG

- using steps and the fab has higher production, in terms of silicon area

. 6 Another process shift seen in newer fabs is the trend toward using NF 3 remote chamber clean s as opposed to traditional chamber cleans, which results in relatively lower cleaning emissions. New fabs are assumed to use NF 3 remote clean mainly, and have abatement on all etch processes and all in situ chamber cleaning processes. It was assumed

that n ew fab facility has about 50 tools with 3.5 chambers per tool.
The emission breakdowns are essential to this analysis, because some mitigation technologies are applicable to either both or just one type of manufacturing process. One other important factor is facility size. Newer fabs tend to have relatively larger production capacities than older fabs, and this difference

was take n into account in this analysis.

The facilities used represent two clearly defined and distinct types of facilities. These define d facilities
represent two existing scenarios , a better existing mitigation case and a worse existing mitigation case, for semiconductor manufacturing fabs. Given the variety of mitigation options, there are facilities that exist that may be in the somewhe re between the two scenarios modeled . For instance , some fabs may partially abate emissions as opposed to using full abatement or no abatement . These fabs were not explicitly considered in this analysis due to the uncertainty associated with developing ass umptions about their current mitigation practices.



### IV.9.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each technology/process/facility type comb ination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions by manufact uring process (etch and clean) in addition to process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. The

5 CVD and etch tools generally vary between having three to four chambers.

6 Although newer etch processes are more efficient (i.e., gas utilization is higher) than older processes, the relative

number of GHG

- using steps in more recent processes negates the potential benefit of higher utilization of gas when considering overall facility etch emissions.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1400% SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

sp lit of etch to clean emissions is held constant for all years. The technical applicability and market penetration of mitigation technologies is held constant over time for new facilities as it is assumed these facilities are addressing emissions as much as possible already

. Whereas, technical applicability and market penetration for old facilities varies over time as it is assumed that more action will need to be taken by older facilities to meet stated voluntary reduction goals. Table 9-6 presents the assu med distribution of annual facility

- level emissions by process for each fab type

. 

### Table 9-6: Percent age of Annual Emissions by Process and Fab Type

Percent age of Total Annual Emissions

Process New Old

Etch 54 % 22 %

Clean 46 % 78 %

Total 100 % 100 %

Table 9-7 and Table 9-8 report the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency assumptions used to develop the abatement measures’ technical effectiveness at new and old fabs. The technical effectiveness is the weighted average of the abatement measures using the process emissions presented in Table 9-6 for each process as the weight multiplied by the product of the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency.



### Table 9-7: Technical Effectiveness Summary for New Fabs (Constant Over Time) Etch ( 54 %) Clean ( 46 %)

Technical Market Technical Market Reduction Technical
Abatement Measure Applicability Penetration Applicability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness

Thermal abatement 0 % 0% 90 % 50 % 95% 20 %

Catalytic abatement 0 % 0% 0 % 0% 99% 0 %

Plasma abatement 0 % 0% 0% 0% 97% 0 %

NF 3 remote clean 0% 0% 10% 50 % 95% 2%

Gas replacement 0% 0% 0 % 0% 77% 0 %

Process optimization 0% 0% 0% 54% 0 %



### Table 9-8: Technical Effectiveness Summary for Old Fabs (in 2020) Etch (20%) Clean (80%)

Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness Abatement Measure

Thermal abatement 50 % 90 % 50 % 15% 95% 15 %

Catalytic abatement 50 % 5% 0 % 5% 99% 1 %

Plasma abatement 50 % 5% 0% 0% 97% 1 %

NF 3 remote clean 0% 0% 100% 5% 95% 4 %

Gas replacement 0% 0% 10 % 40 % 77% 2 %

Process optimization 0% 0% 10 % 40 % 54% 2 %

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 141

### - SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

Technical applicability assumptions presented in Table 9- 7 and Table 9- 8 are intended to reflect the space limitations or preexisting process performance issues that are likely to be found at a fraction of all
facilities, particularly old facilities, preventing the total implementation of the abatement measures. Assumed market pene tration rates are based on cost (lower cost options will penetrate the market more) and expert knowledge of industry trends. For example, fabs tend to use thermal abatement more than the other technologies in their etching processes

. In addition, i t was assumed that because most new fabs already have NF 3 remote systems in place less market share would go to gas replacement and process optimization.

The technical effectiveness estimates are then multiplied by the share of total emissions for each

fac ility type to estimate the abatement potential achievable under each abatement measure

. For the purposes of this analysis we as sume a 10 /9 0 split in 2010 for the distribution of annual emissions coming

from new and old fabs

. In future years, we assume base d on expert judgment the share of total emissions coming from new fabs increases by 10 % each year to account for the use of best practices by WSC
members, old fabs closing and changes in wafer size/technology demands

.



### IV.9.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

The MAC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits as described in Section

IV.9 .3 to calculate the break

- even price for each mitigation option at both new and old fab facilities

. Table 9-9 illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD

. Although n ew fabs have lower break

- even prices for thermal, catalytic, and plasma abatement measures,

old fabs have lower break

- even prices for NF 3 remote clean, gas replacement

, and process opt imization because of their relatively smaller size

. Note that process optimization is the only negative break

- even price option because of its low one

- time cost and relatively high annual cost savings.



### Table 9-9: Example Break -E ven Prices for Abatement Mea sures in Semiconductor Manufacturing

Reduced Annualized Net Annual Tax Benefit of Break Even
Emissions Capital Costs Cost Depreciation Price a 

### Abatement Option (tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e)

New fabs

Thermal abatement 41,199 85 14 24 76

Catalytic abatement 8,096 526 101 146 481

Plasma abatement 11,833 94 8 26 76

NF 3 remote clean 22,551 114 242 18 338

Gas replacement 6,240 36 10 6 40

P rocess O ptimization 1,648 13

− 78 2

− 68

O ld fabs

Thermal abatement 22,802 103 17 29 91

Catalytic abatement 4,575 620 119 173 567

Plasma abatement 3,293 226 19 63 182

NF3 remote clean 37,768 75 107 18 165

Gas replacement 9,753 31 7 7 30

Process optimization 3,864 7

− 33 2

− 28

a Break

- even price calculated using a tax rate of 40% and discount rate of 10%.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 142

### -

– –

-$50

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 1.2 Japan

China

Singapore

South Korea

United States SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



### IV.9.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for F- GHG reduction in the semiconductor manufacturing sector is

estimated to be 87% of total projected emissions in 2030

. Table 9- 10 presents the cumulative reductions

achieved at selected break

- even prices. Figure 9-4 shows the MAC curve for the top five emitting

countries for this sector.



### Table 9- 10 : Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e) Country/Region 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+
Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.0
Japan — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.8
Singapore — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5

South Korea — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

United States — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.9
Rest of Region

Africa — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Central and South America —
Middle East — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Europe — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3

Eurasia — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Asia — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

North America — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

World Total — 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.6 4.2



### Figure 9-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve s for Top Five Emitters in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 143SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

As stated earlier, early voluntary action by the semiconductor manufacturing industry resulted in a

dramatic decrease in the level of F- GHG emissions emitted in 2010 and later years as compared with

2000 . However

, emissions are expected to grow from the current level based on increased demand for

semiconductors over the next 20 years , and this may be particularly true in light of the new WSC normalized emission rate goal The MAC analysis suggests that additional reductions from this sector are costly

. In the absence of any external climate policy drivers, major reductions in the semiconductor manufacturing sector would require a significantly high carbon price (>$100/tCO 2 e) to incentivize manufacturers to adopt additional mitigation options

.



## IV.9.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

A few key uncertainties exist with respect to the analysis for the semiconductor sector

. The extent

of c urrent abatement is unclear; there is no comprehensive published information on the extent abatement systems are really in use in the industry

. In addition , abatement system reduction efficiencies assumed in this analysis are really only achievable if the systems are properly operated and maintained, which may not always be the case. Also

, abatement system reduction efficiencies may vary by gas (e.g.,

CF 4 is harder to abate than other F

- GHGs because of its relatively high thermo

- stability , or bond strengths ). Finally, the pace at which the semiconductor manufacturing sector has advanced has been historically very fast

- paced. This continues to be true, but it cannot be certain that this will continue to be true given the continued rising costs of advancement.

The limitations to this analysis are that it could not consider the full picture of emissions from semiconductor manufacturing (e.g., heat transfer fluid emissions are not included), and that the new

WSC nor malized emission rate goal was not known at the time of the analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 144SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING



## References

Applied Materials. 1999. Catalytic Abatement of PFC Emissions . Presented at Semicon Southwest 99: A Partnership for PFC Emissions Reductions, October 18, 1999, Austin, TX.

Beu, L. 2005

. “ Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 State

- of

- the

- Technology Report .”
TT#0510469A -ENG. International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), Albany, New York.
December 2005. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf

. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 201 0. Overview of BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation. Available at: http://bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm Burton, S. 2003. Personal communication with Brown of Motorola (2002) supplemented by personal communication with Von Gompel of BOC Edwards (2003), research of DuPont’s Zyron Web site (2003), and personal communication with Air Liquide regarding thermal destruction, NF 3 remote clean, and capture membrane unit costs.

Fthenakis, V. December 2001. Options for Abating Greenhouse Gases from Exhaust Streams. Brookhaven National Laboratory. Obtained at : http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/23784.pdf

. Hattori et al., 2006. “Application of Atmospheric Plasma Abatement System for Exhausted Gas from MEMS Etching Process.” Presetned at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing 2006, Tokyo, Japan, September 25

- 27,
2006 . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (Volume 3, Chapter 6: Electronics Industry Emissions), The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Motorola. October 18, 1998. Long

- Term Evaluation of Litmus “ Blue ” Inductively

- Coupled Plasma Device for
Point

- of

- Use PFC and HFC Abatement . Presented at Semicon Southwest 99: A Partnership for PFC Emissions Reductions, Austin, TX.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009 . Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F

- GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM (EPA 430 -R- 10

- 004), Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climat e Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

pfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf

. U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Draft Emission Factors for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories. Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available in
docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0927.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 2013 ) . Data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 40 CFR Part 98. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/

VLSI, 2012. VLSI Research, Inc. (2012) Worldwide Silicon Demand. August 2012.

W SC, 2011. Joint Statement of 15th Meeting of the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) . Resulting from the

Wo rld Semiconductor Council in Fukuoka, Japan. May 26, 2011.

Ba rtos, Scott, Kshetry, Nina, and C. Shepherd Burton. 2007. Modelling China’s Semiconductor Industry Fluorinated Compound Emissions and Drafting a Roadmap for Climate Protection. Obtained at: http: //www.climatevision.gov/sectors/semiconductors/pdfs/ISESH_2007_Final.pdf

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 145SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFA CTURING

Brown et. al., 2012. “ Catalytic technology for PFC emissions control.” Solid State Technology. Obtained

at: http://www.electroiq.com/content/eiq

- 2/en/articles/sst/print/volume

- 44/issue

- 7/features/emissions

control/catalytic

- technology

- for

- pfc

- emissions

- control.html . Accessed August 2012. Molina, Wooldridge, and Molina. 1995. Atmospheric Geophysical Research Letters 22(13).

Other Sources Reviewed for this Analysis:

• Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Industry. 2011 World Fab Forecast, May 2011 Edition

.

• Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Industry. 2012 World Fab Forecast, August 201 2
Edition

.

• WSC, 2012

. Joint Statement of 16 th Meeting of the World Semiconductor Council (WSC). Resulting from the World Semiconductor Council in Saratoga Spring, New York, United States. May 24, 2012.

Clean Development Mechanism Proposed Methodologies Reviewed :

• NM0289: PFC gas emission reduction by gas replacement for CVD cleaning at 200 mm (8 inches) process by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (submitted September 2008)

• NM0303: PF C gas emissions reduction by gas replacement for CVD cleaning processes in semiconductor processing operations (submitted April 2009)

• NM0317: Substitution of fluorinated compound (FC) gases for cleaning CVD reactors in the semiconductor industry (submitted June 2009)

• NM0330: Substitution of fluorinated compound (FC) gases for cleaning CVD reactors in the semiconductor industry (submitted December 2009)

• NM0332: PFCs emission reduction from installation of an abatement device in a semiconductor manufacturing facility (submitted January 2010)

• NM0335: PFC emission reduction by gas replacement in the process of CVD cleaning in semiconductor production (submitted February 2010)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1460 10 20 30 40 50 60 70MtCO2e

29 44 53 64

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year South Korea

Brazil

India

United States

China

ROW SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS



# IV.10. SF 6 

# Emissions from Electric Power Systems

IV.10.1 Sector Summary 

# E lectric utilities use transmission and distribution equipment that contains sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). Equipment insulated with SF 6 is most frequently found at electrical substations.

Emissions of SF 6 occur as a result of leaking equipment and improper handling practices during servicing and disposal

.

Global SF 6 emissions from electric power systems (EPSs) are expected to increase through 2030, reaching 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( MtCO 2 e) (see Figure 10 -1 ). In these projections, China represent s a signif icant share of total emissions by 2030

. Brazil, India, South Korea, and

the rest of world increa se their SF 6 emissions marginally, while the United States experiences a decline over the same time period

.



### Figure 10 -1: SF 6 

### Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA ), 2012

The following technologies and handling practices can be implemented to reduce both causes of

emissions

— leaking equipment and improper handling :

• Leak detection and leak repair (LD A R) : Various monitoring and repair methods reduce g as leakage from gaskets and faulty seals in equipment

.

• Equipment refurbishment : Refurbish ing old equipment reduce s lo nger

- term leakage problems that cannot be addressed sufficiently by LD AR.

• SF 6 recycling : T echnicians transfer SF 6 to special gas carts prio r to maintenance or decommissioning , reducing emissions that would otherwise result from the venting of SF 6 to the atmosphere.

• Improved SF 6 handling : Employee training efforts that improve general handling practices of

SF 6 to reduce and avoid instances such as accidentally venting the gas, using inappropriate

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 147-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)

fittings to connect transfer hoses to cylinders or equipment , misplacing gas cylinders, and other similar situations that result in handling losses

. Europe and Japan h ave largely adopted emission reduction measures to the greatest extent possible ; it is believed that few opportunities remain for reduction; data reported to the UNFCCC indicate a downward trend of emissions within the last decade (UNFCCC

, 2009 ) . In the United States, SF 6 recycling is widely used, but there remains significant potential for reductions through other measures, particularly improved SF 6 handling

. In the developing world, SF 6 recycling is rarely conducted ; therefore

, there are significant opportunities for reductions from increased SF 6 recycling in addition to significant reduction opportunities from improved SF 6 handling (NCGC, 2010 ; NEPA

, 2005 )

. The most cost

- effective

reduction s can be achieved by improving general SF 6 handling practices at EPS s in the developing world. In these cases, the cost per ton is

− $ 1.20/tCO 2 e. The most expensive emission reductions for the developing world are from implement ing LD A R at $1.98 /t CO 2 e. Oppo rtunities to reduce emissions in the United States are more expensive, expected to range from

− $ 0.20/tCO 2 e for improved SF 6 handling to
$9.40/ tCO 2 e for equipment refurbishment.

The manufacture of equipment for electrical transmission and distribution can also result in SF 6 emissions, but this type of emission is not included in this assessment.

The global abatement potential in the EPS sector is 42.8 MtCO 2 e in 2030

, which represents 6 7% of projected baseline emissions. This represents the maximum level of reductions that are technically achievable by applying the four abatement measures in the EPS sector. For example, leak detection and leak repair is assumed to have a reduction efficiency of 50%, and is applied only to a the stream of

emissions that occur due to periodic leakage; other options have a greater reduction efficiency, but no options are available to reduce 100% of emissions from all emission streams. Figure 10 -2 presents the global marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves charting the potential emis sion reductions in 2010 , 2020,

and 2030

.



### Figure 10 -2: Global Abatement Potential in Electric Power Systems: 2010, 2020, and 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 148Venting gas during
equipment

maintenance and disposal

24%

Periodic leakage from
equipment

9% Chronic leakage

from
equipment

23% Improper handling of SF6

38% Residual

Emissions

6% SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS

In 2030, approximately 7.5 MtCO 2 e, or a 12 % reduction in baseline emis sions

, is technically

achievable at a break

- even price of $0/tCO 2 e

. At $5/tCO 2 e, an additional 28 MtCO 2 e may be reduced

, equating to a cumulative reduction of 56 % of the global emissions baseline

. The remaining reductions of 7

MtCO 2 e are available at incrementally higher prices.

In the following sections of this chapter , we first characteriz e the source of SF 6 emissions in the EPS

sector and the trends driving future emissions projections

. Next

, we discuss the projected baselines from

2010 to 2030

. This is followed by a descri ption of the abatement measures’ engineering and cost assumptions assumed for this analysis

. Section IV.10 .4 presents the additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis unique to the EPS sector

. The final section presents the MAC results in more detail an d discusses some of the uncertainties and limitations to the analysis

.



## IV.10.2 SF 6 

## Emissions from Electric Power Systems

Emissions of SF 6 from electrical equipment used in EPS s broadly occur through two routes: equipment leakage and handling losses. Leakag e losses can occur at gasket seals, flanges, and threaded fittings and are generally larger in older equipment. E missions from improper handling can include intentional venting to the atmosphere or unintentional venting, such as transferring SF 6 between containers and equipment using improperly attached or improperly sized fittings. Figure 10 -3 presents the global distribution of SF 6 emissions by emission stream assumed for this analysis. Leakage losses correspond to p e riodic leakage from equipme nt (9 %) and chronic leakage from equipment ( 23 %). Improper h andling and venting losses correspond to venting gas during equipment maintenance and disposal and improper handling. The break

- out percentages are based on assumptions used to develop

the technic al applicability of the options identified to mitigate these emission streams.



### Figure 10 -3: Percent age of Global SF 6 

### Emissions in 2020 by Emission Stream (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 149SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)

The amount of SF 6 gas that each piece of electrical transmission and distribution equipment can hold when properly insulated is referred to as “nameplate capacity ,” which is measured in pounds or kilograms of the gas. For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing SF 6 e missions from EPSs , this analysis considers reduction costs for a typical electric transmission and distribution system that uses SF 6 - insulated electrical equipment totaling 100,000 pounds of nameplate capacity . The system includes a variety of SF 6 - insulat ed electrical equipment (including circuit breakers, circuit switchers, and gas

insulated substations), although the vast majority of SF 6 is contained in high voltage circuit breakers. Circuit breakers within the system are assumed to be produced by ABB, A lstom, HVB AE, Mitsubishi, and Siemens, with an equal proportion of breakers from each manufacturer.

The analysis considers several possibilities for the maintenance and SF 6 handling procedures used at the typical electric transmission and distribution sys tem , reflecting different levels of emissions

. For the purpose of this analysis, t he three types of systems include the following :

• Residual emissions system : In Europe and Japan, abatement options are close to fully implemented. Therefore, a residual e missions system represents an EPS containing SF 6 - insulated equipment located in Europe or Japan.

• Uncontrolled system : In contrast, abatement options have only been minimally applied or not applied at all in most developing countries (Czerepuszko

, 2011a ; NCGC

, 2010 ; NEPA

, 2005 ; Rothlisberger

, 2011a ). Therefore, the uncontrolled a batement system represents an EPS containing SF 6 - insulated equipment located in a developing country, which for this analysis would mean any country outside of Europe, Japan, and the United States. 1

• Partial ly controlled system : Abatement options have been partially to fully applied in the United

States. 2 The partially controlled system represents an EPS containing SF 6 - insulated equipment

located in the United States.

Figure 10

- 4 displays the breakdown of global emissions by system type as projected for 2020. For the purpose of this analysis, the uncontrolled systems and p artial ly uncontrolled s ystems are representative of every system within their identifying regions. Therefore, the engineering cost results will not vary among systems within the developing world or among systems within the United States.



### IV.10.2.1 Activity D a ta or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

The key activity data that drives SF 6 emissions from EPS s is the amount of SF 6 - insulated electrical equipment in use ; this quantity is important for both leakage and handling losses.

However, d ata are not available on the total amount of SF 6 - insulated equipment currently in use or historically in use at the countr y level. In the absence of such data, changes in the amount of SF 6 - insulated electrical equipment in use ( both historically and in the future ) can be estimated from the historical and projected changes in electricity demand at the regional level. This is because electricity demand is correlated with the size of the electrical grid required to service that demand, and the size of the electrical grid is correlated to the amount of SF 6 consumed by utilities within the region. Thus, the key activity data used to drive emissions is electricity demand. Other important activity data include the characteristics of the equipment in use (such as age) to estimate leakage em issions and employee training and investments

in SF 6 handling technologies to estimate handling emissions

. In this analysis, these drivers are addressed on a regional level.

1 Australia and New Zealand are considered to have uncontrolled systems, which may be one limitation to this
assumption.

2 This system is also assumed for Canada.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 150Uncontrolled

Abatement

System (Developing),

73% Partially

Controlled

Abatement System (U.S.),

22% Residual System (Europe/Japan),

6% SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS



### Figure 10 -4: Global SF 6 

### Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emis sions)

A ccording to EIA ( 2009 ) , electricity demand through 2030 is projected to grow two to three times

faster in developing countries than developed countries.



### Leakage Emissions

Over the past 30 to 40 years, the amount of SF 6 necessary for the operation of switchgear has declined significantly and the tightness of equipment has improved

. Such engineering d esign change s ha ve resulted in smaller leakage amounts and less frequent leak age over time (McCracken et al., 2000 ; Rhiemeier et al., 2010 ). The average age of SF 6 - insulated equipment in developed countries (including Europe, J apan, and the United States ) is considerably older than in developing countries. Until rece ntly, developing countries were slow to adopt SF 6 - insulated equipment because of its relatively high cost compared with other traditional technologies, such as oil

- insulated circuit breakers (Rothlisberger

, 2011b ) . Also, the electrical grid in developing countries has grown rapidly over the last decade with economic growth, so the average age of all types of electrical equipment tends to be newer in developing

countries than in developed countries, whose electrical grid has historically grow n at a mor e gradual

pace

. The average SF 6 - insulated circuit breaker in developing countries

, therefore

, is assumed to leak less than the average SF 6 - insulated circuit breaker in developed countries.



### Handling Emissions

Employee tr aining and investments in SF 6 handling technologies (such as SF 6 recovery carts) vary widely among countries and regions. The use of equipment and accessories to properly handle SF 6 is high

in developed countries (Rothlisberger

, 2011 a ) yet low to nonexistent in at least some developing countries (NCGC

, 2010 ; NEPA

, 2005 ). Employee training is perhaps strongest in Europe, where the European Commission requires that personnel who handle SF 6 r eceive formal training and certification (EC Reg. No. 842/2006). In the U nited States, employee training has improved significantly since 1999 by companies participating in the US EPA’s voluntary SF 6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems , but

, in general

, training is not as rigorous as in Europe, and it is uncertain what level of training ( if any ) has been instituted by companies not part of the US EPA voluntary program. Employee training is

low to nonexistent in at least some developing c ountries (NEPA

, 2005 ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 151SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)



### IV.10.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global SF 6 emissions from EPSs in 2010 were estimated to be 44 MtCO 2 e, which represents a 10 %

decrease from 1990 levels. This emissions decline , despite increases in the amount of SF 6 in use over the

same time period, was based largely on improved management practices and the retirement of old leak

prone equipment in the United States and EU. However, it is estimated that emissions have increased in recent years because of the rapid increase in the amount of SF 6 - insulated equipment being used in the developing world without the application of SF 6 abatement technologies and practices. These emission increases have been offset somewhat by the improv ed design of modern SF 6 - insulated equipment being installed in the developing world. But from 20 10 to 2030, global SF 6 emissions from EPS s are still projected to increase 44 % from 44 to 64 MtCO 2 e (see Table 10 -1) , driven largely by increases in emissions

f rom developing countries in Asia.



### Table 10 -1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

CAGRa Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010

- 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 12.8 15.6 18.9 22.7 26.3 3.7%

United States 12.1 12.1 11.1 10.8 10.3

− 0.8%

India 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 3.3%

Brazil 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.7%

South Korea 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3%

Rest of Region

Africa 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.4%

Central and South America 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.2%

Middle East 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.2%

Europe 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.5 2.1

− 2.6%

Eurasia 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0%

Asia 3.4 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.7 2.6%

North America 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.4%

World Total 44.2 48.8 53.2 58.4 63.8 1.8%

a CAGR= Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: USEPA. 2012

Historical emission estimates of SF 6 from electrical equipment use are available for most developed countries through the UNFCCC flexible query system (UNFCCC

, 2009 ). In the absence of UNFCCC reported data, historical global emissions were estimated using the 2004 RAND survey (Smythe

, 2004 ) of global SF 6 sales to electric utilities and estimates of net electricity consumption by region. This method assumes that purchases of SF 6 by electric utilities are equal to emissions of SF 6 by utilities and that a country’s share of global emissions is equal to the country’s share of global electricity consumption. 3 Emissions projections are based on projected changes in electricity de mand (EIA, 2009 ) for the country’s

3 The assumption that SF 6 purchases are equal to emissions is conservative in that some EPSs purchase SF 6 to fill new equipment rather than to replace SF 6 lost through emissions.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 152SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS

region ; as described above, changes in electricity demand correlate to changes in the electrical grid, which correlate to changes in SF 6 emissions.



## IV.10.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

The four abatement options for this sector are SF 6 recycling, LD A R, equipment refurbishment , and improved SF 6 handling

. Replacing existing SF 6 - insulated equipment with newer equipment that holds

less SF 6 and is more leak

- tight is another possible abatement option; however, this mitigation practice is

assumed to already occur in the baseline . Given that the investment to replace a circuit breaker or other

SF 6 - containing equipment can be as high as a million to several million dollars, it is not exam ined in this analysis for systems located in developing countries. All options are applicable to EPS s that are subject to abatement (those outside of Europe and Japan)

. For the purpose of this analysis, four distin ct emission

streams were analyzed for the sector, and each emission stream can only be abated by one of t he abatement options (the abatement options are not capable of abating emissions for any of the other streams). Hence, the application of an abatement option to its unique emission stream does not affect the applicability of any other options to their own emission streams. Table 10

- 2 shows the reduction efficiency used for each abatement option.



### Table 10 -2: EPS Abatement Options
Abatement Option Applicable System Types Reduction Efficiency

SF 6 Recycling Uncontrolled abatem ent system

Partially controlled system 90%

LD AR Uncontrolled system

Partially controlled system 50%

Equipment Refurbishment Uncontrolled system

Partially controlled system 95%

Improved SF 6 Handling Uncontrolled system

Partially controlled system 90%

Table 10

- 3 presents the engineering cost data for each mitigation option outlined above, including all cost parameters necessary to calculate the break

- even price

. The characteristics, applicability, and key engineering cost results for each abatement option are presented below. For additional information on these technologies see Appendix K.



### IV.10.3.1 SF 6 

### Recycling

This option involves transferring SF 6 from electrical equipment into storage containers during equipment servicing or decommissioning so that the SF 6 can be reused. Recycling is conducted using an

SF 6 reclamation cart (commonly referred to as a gas cart). The gas cart recovers the SF 6 from the equipment and purifies it for future use ; the recovered and purified SF 6 gas can then be stored within the

cart

, in a separate storage container, or transferred back to the equipment for reuse

. Proper recycling techniques are documented in technical literature (CIGRE

, 2005 ; IEC

, 2008 ; IEEE

, 2012 )

. The alternative to using a gas cart is venting the used SF 6 into the atmosphere and then replacing it with fresh SF 6 . Venting is typically performed in areas where environmental consideration is low because the cost of purchasing new gas is often cheaper than purchasing gas carts and paying technicians to reclaim gas from equipment

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 153SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)



### Table 10 -3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement Option Project Lifetime (Years) Capital Cost (2010 USD) Annual Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2010 USD) Abatement Amount (tCO 2 e)

SF 6 Recycling 15 $479,560 $67,994 $5,372 46,833

$71,934 $6,256 $19,937 8,618

LD AR 5 $95,420 $12,592 $534 8,673

$91,485 $3,476 $6,339 4,788

Equipment
Refurbishment 20 $126,069 $9,570
— 6,591

$453,849 $5,283
— 7,278

Improved SF 6 Handling 1 $13,526

$13,526 $90,659

$25,025 $253

$2,508 62,444

34,474

The SF 6 recycling option addresses emissions that occur if SF 6 contained inside equipment is vented directly to the atmosphere, either because the equipment is undergoing a maintenance/repair activity requiring removal of the gas or because the equipment is being decommissioned

. Based on expert judgment, SF 6 v ented to the atmosphere account s for 30 % of emissions from uncontrolled systems ( in developing countries ) and 10 % of emissions from partially controlled systems ( in the United States).

SF 6 recycling can reduce emissions by 4,320 pounds for the uncontrolled syste ms and 795 pounds for

the partially controlled systems

. The lifetime of this abatement option is 15 years (Rothlisberger

, 2011a ).

Cost and revenue estimates for the SF 6 recycling option are summarized below:

• Capital costs. Th e average total capital cost s associated with the purchase of gas carts were
estimated to be about $480,000 for the uncontrolled system and $72,000 for the partially

controlled system . The cost per gas cart unit was the same for both systems at approximately $96,000. Gas carts can range in cost from as low as $20,000 to as high as $175,000 depending on their size (Rothlisberger, 2011a ) , and a mid

- range gas cart size was assumed for both system types in this analysis. The average c apital costs for the partially controlled system are less than the cost per unit, because U.S. systems have implemented SF 6 recycling to a greater extent and fewer gas carts are needed across U.S. systems: less than one per system

.

• Annual operation and mai ntenance ( O&M ) costs. O&M costs were estimated to be $5,000 for the

uncontrolled system and $20,000 for the partially controlled system

. The lower O&M costs for the

uncontrolled system w ere driven by the significantly lower labor cost in developing countries

relative to the United States

.

• Annual revenue

. Annual revenue, which was estimated based on the reduction of SF 6 emissions multiplied by the cost per pound of SF 6 gas, was close to $68,000 for the uncontrolled system and
$6,000 for the partially controlled system

. Annual revenues are significantly higher for the

uncontrolled system because the uncontrolled system has not implemented the option at all,

while the partially controlled system has implemented the option to 85% of its potential
— therefore the potential for reductions is greater

. In addition, the cost of SF 6 per pound varies regionally and is relatively low in the United States (Rothlisberger, 2011a ) , so less money is saved through reduced emissions.

• Technical Lifetime: The technical lifetime of this option is 15 years

.

• Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for SF 6 recycling is 90%.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 154SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS



### IV.10.3.2 Leak Detection and Leak Repair (LD A R)

LD A R is a two

- step process. First, a leak detection technique is us ed to identify gas leaks from SF 6 - insulated equipment. Leak detection methods vary and can involve simple techniques such as us ing soap and water solutions to more sophisticated techniq ues such as those requir ing cameras to visualize the

source of SF 6 leaks by exploiting the strong infrared adsorption of SF 6 for detection. Thermal imaging cameras allow the detection of even minor leaks without the need to take equipment out of service

. T he abatement option a nalyzed in this analysis is the use of a thermal imaging camera

. Identified leaks are typically repaired by applying a sealing material to the component that is leaking, although in some cases the component needs to be replaced complet ely. The International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE) , published “ SF6 Tightness Guide ” ( Brochure No. 430 ) offers details on more specific methods for leak detection and tightness procedures and test methods (CIGRE

, 2010 ).

E mission s addressed by LD A R occur when a piece of equipment periodically develops a manageable leak from a specific component such as a bushing flange gasket. Once the leak is repaired, the equipment tends to last months to years without another major leak. SF 6 emissions from periodic equipment leakage

account for 10% of emissions from both uncontrolled systems ( in de veloping countries ) and partially

controlled systems ( in the United States) (Rothlisberger

, 2011a ; 2011b ).

Emission reductions from LD A R were estimated to be 800 pounds for the uncontrolled system and 440 pounds for the partially controlled system

. The life time of this abatement option is five years ( Czerepuszko

, 2011a )

. Cost and revenue estimates for LD A R are summarized below:

• Capital costs

. The capital costs associated with purchas ing thermal imaging camera s were estimated to be $95,000 for a n uncontrolled a batement system and $91,000 for a partially

controlled system . The c ost for a single thermal imaging camera was approximately $98, 0 00 (Czerepuszko

, 2011 a ).

• Annual O&M costs. O&M costs were estimated to be $540 for the uncontrolled system and
$6,300 for the partially controlled system

. The lower O &M costs for the uncontrolled system w ere driven by the significantly lower labor cost in developing countries relative to the United States

.

• Annual revenue

. Ann ual revenue, which was estimated based on the reduction of SF 6 emissions multiplied by the cost per pound of SF 6 gas, was $12,600 for the uncontrolled system and $3,500

for the partially controlled system

. Annual revenues are significantly higher for the uncontrolled
system primarily because it was assumed that the uncontrolled system has implemente d the option to a lesser extent than the partially controlled system

— therefore the potential for reductions is greater . In addition, because the cost of SF 6 per pound varies regionally and costs significantly less in the United States (Rothlisberger, 2011 a ), the cost of SF 6 per pound is significantly less for the partially controlled system relative to systems in other regions

, and so less money is saved through reduced emissions

.

• Technical Lifetime: The techni cal lifetime of this option is five years.

• Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for LD A R is 50%.



### IV.10.3.3 Equipment Refurbishment

Unlike LD A R, which tends to focus on small leaks on specific components such as a bushing flange gasket, refurbishment addresses the need for a comprehensive repair from equipment that chronically leaks large amounts of SF 6 gas . Refurbishment is a process in which equipment is disassembled and rebuilt (and possibly upgraded) using remachined, cleaned, and/or new components. The option is focused mostly toward dual

- pressure circuit breakers built before 1980, which hold large amounts of SF 6

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 155SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)

and were initially built with gasket material that corroded metal within the breaker (resulting in numerous leaks over time).

Although the leaks can be temporarily repaired using the LD A R option (and often are), using LD A R over time requires high servicing costs because of the extent of the LD A R required and the amount of gas needed to replace the emitted gas. Using LD AR only for this category of equipment also increases the risk

for system reliability issues. Ultimately the equipment needs to be refurbished or replaced for these issues

to be solved.

Based on expert judgment, SF 6 from chronically leaking equipment account s for 20% of emissions

from uncontrolled systems ( in developing countries ) and 40 % of emissions from partially controlled systems ( in the United States).

Emission reductions from equipment refurbishment were estimated to be 600 pounds for the

uncontrolled system and 670 pounds for t he partially controlled system

. The life time of this abatement option was estimated to be 20 years based on the assumption that the average lifetime of new equipment

was 40 years, and the lifetime of refurbished equipment will be about half that of new equ ipment. Cost and revenue estimates for equipment refurbishment are summarized below:

• Capital costs. The capital costs associated with equipment refurbishment were estimated to be
$125,000 for a n uncontrolled system and $450,000 for a partially controlled system

. The estimated cost to replace a single 1

, 130

- pound nameplate capacity circuit breaker was estimated to be $143,000 (developed from McCracken et al. [2000 ] ).

• Annual O&M costs. It was assumed that the equipment refurbi shment is conducted off

- site of

the system facility by the manufacturer and that there are no incremental O&M costs associated with the equipment after it has been refurbished and returned to the EPS

.

• Annual revenue

. Ann ual revenue, which was estimated bas ed on the reduction of SF 6 emissions multiplied by the cost per pound of SF 6 gas, was $9,600 for the uncontrolled system and $5,300

for the partially controlled system

. Annual revenues are significantly higher for the uncontrolled
system primarily because it was assumed that the uncontrolled system has implemented the option to a lesser extent than the partially controlled system

— therefore the potential for reductions is greater . In addition, the cost of SF 6 per pound is significantly less for the partiall y controlled system , so less money is saved through reduced emissions

.

• Technical Lifetime: The technical lifetime of this option is 20 years.

• Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for equipment refurbishment is 95%.



### IV.10.3.4 Improved SF 6 

### Handling

This option involves improving the procedures and techniques for handling SF 6 , especially when maintenance is being performed on gas

- insulated circuit breakers. Handling

- related leaks can occur when (1) inappropriate fittings are used to connect transfer hoses to cylinders or equipment ; (2) SF 6 is not cleared from transfer hoses before the hoses are disconnected from cylinders/equipment ; (3) gas cylinders are not monitored/maintained because they have been misplaced or stored improperly ; and (4) any time

SF 6 is accidently vented by a technician. Improving SF 6 handling involves both training technicians to properly handle gas and purchasing adapter kits that ensure proper fittings are available for connecting hoses to all gas

- insulated equipment throughout the system.

SF 6 emissions from handling

- related leaks account for 40% of emissions from both uncontrolled systems ( in developing countries ) and partially controlled systems ( in the United States) (Rothlisberger

, 2011a ; 2011b ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 156SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS

Employee training and investments in SF 6 handling technologies (such as SF 6 recovery carts) are measures that improve SF 6 handling; several technical references are available with detailed guidance on the proper techniques for recovering, disposing and other handling practices of SF 6 gas (CIGRE

, 2005 ; IEC, 2008 ; IEEE

, 2012 )

. Emission reductions from improved SF 6 handling were estimated to be 5,800 pounds for the uncontrolled system and 3,200 pounds for the partially controlled system . The life time of this abatement option was one year , with training conducted on an annual basis (Rothlisberger

, 2011a ).

Cost and revenue estimates for the improved SF 6 handling option are summarized below:

• Capital costs. The capital costs associated with improved SF 6 handling were estimated to be
$13,500 for both the uncontrolled system and the partially controlled system

. This capital cost consists entirely of purchasing adapter kits, which were estimated to cost $1,350 each (middle of cost range provided by Rothlisberger [ 2011a ]).

• Annual O&M costs. O&M costs were estimated to be $250 for the uncontrolled syste m and
$2,500 for the partially controlled system

. The lower O&M cost for the uncontrolled system was driven by the significantly lower labor cost in developing countries relative to the United States

.

• Annual revenue

. Ann ual revenue, which was estimated based on the reduction of SF 6 emissions multiplied by the cost per pound of SF 6 gas, was $91,000 for the uncontrolled system and $25,000

for the partially controlled system

. Annual revenue was significantly higher for the uncontrolled
system primarily beca use it was assumed that the uncontrolled system has implemented the option to a lesser extent than the partially controlled system

— therefore the potential for reductions is greater . In addition, the cost of SF 6 per pound is significantly less for the part ially

controlled system , so less money is saved through reduced emissions

.

• Technical Lifetime: The techni cal lifetime of this option is 1 year.

• Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for improved SF 6 handling is 90%.



## IV.10.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for SF 6 emissio ns reduction

.



### IV.10.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous section for two types of EPS systems

, defined earlier as uncontrolled and partially controlled systems , t o calculate a

break

- even price for the options available for each EPS system.



### IV.10.4.2 Definition of EPS M odel F acilities

**Key Characteristics of the Residual Emissions System**

Facilities in Europe and Japan have been classified as residual emission systems. In these regions, abatement options are close to fully implemented. The vast majority of the SF 6 emissions that do occur are considered residual emissions from occurrences such as catastrophic equipment failure and accidents

associated with gas handling (Rhiemeier et al

., 2010 ). Japanese equipment designs and maintenance practices are believed to be similar to those in Europe (Yokota et al., 2005 ). Country

- reported data as reported in UNFCCC inventory submissions for Europe and Japan show that SF 6 emissions from electric power systems have declined from 1990 through 2003. Emissions are expected to continue to decline in these regions as utilities, through government

- sponsored voluntary and mandatory programs,

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 157SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)

implement reduction measures such as leak detection and repair and gas recycling practices ( US EPA,

2012 ).



### Key Characteristics of the **Partially C**  **ontrolled System**

In the last decade, electric utilities have begun to voluntarily red uce SF 6 emissions by applying the abatement options included in this analysis ( US EPA , 2011 a)

. The baseline emis sion projections for the partially controlled system were developed under the assumption that the adoption of abatement technologies and practices in the U nited States will continue to grow into the future (as it has over the last decade through voluntary efforts such as US EP A’s SF 6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems)

. For purposes of the engineering cost analysis, the emission rate for the partially controlled system was 8.8%, which was the average U.S. emission rate in 2009 as estimated by US EPA ( 2011 b ). The

size of the partially controlled system was a typical medium

- sized facility with 100,000 pounds of

installed SF 6 nameplate capacity. The size of the system was chosen to yield realistic nominal abatement

and cost values because the size of a system in the United States does not significantly influence the system’s emission rate, baseline abatement levels, or other key characteristics.

F igure 10

- 5 presents 2010 emission rates from EPS s that participate in the US EPA voluntary Partnership. E mission rates reported through the Partnership contributed to the average U.S. emission rate of 8.8% used in this analysis ( US EPA

, 201 1a ).



### Figure 10 -5: Distribution of 2010 Emission Rates Reported through US EPA’s Voluntary Partnership



### 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%Cumulative Fraction of Partners



### SF 6 

### Emission Rate

Source: USEPA, 201 1a



### Key Characteristics of the **Uncontrolled System** 

The baseline emission projections for developing countries were developed under the assumption that the application of abatement technologies does not increase in the future. For purposes of the engineering cost analysis, the assumed emission rate for the uncontrolled system was 16 % , which is approximately double the U.S. emission rate. The emission rate for the developing world is very

uncertain because a published emission rate based on actual measurements of emissions is not known. The 16% emission rate was developed by considering a probable emission rate for an EPS in the U nited

States (for which emission rates are available) if that system had similar characteristics to the average

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 158SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS

system in the developing world. The size of the uncontrolled system was a typical medium

- sized system with 100,000 pounds of installed SF 6 nameplate capacity. The size of the system was chosen simply to yield realistic nominal abatement and cost values because the size of a system in developing countries does not significan t ly influence the system’s emission rate, baseline abatement levels, or other key

characteristics.

Table 10 -4 lists the countries or regions associated with each model facility system. The residual emissions systems include Japan and Europe, which includes a majority of European Union member

countries , in additional to Norway and Switzerland

. The United States and Canada represent partially

controlled systems, and the rest of the world reflect s uncontrolled systems.



### Table 10 -4: EPS s System Country Mapping

Residual Emission Systems Partial ly Controlled Uncontrolled Systems

Japan United States Rest of World

Europe Canada

Austria Greece Portugal

Belgium Hungary Romania

Bulgaria Ireland Slovakia

Cyprus Italy Slovenia

Czech Republic Latvia Spain

Denmark Lithuania Sweden

Estonia Luxembourg Switzerland

Finland Netherlands United Kingdom

France Norway

Germany Poland



### IV.10.4.3 Parameters Used to Estimate Technical Effectiveness

The analysis also developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions achievable by each abatement measure/ system type combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a number of assumptions regarding estimates of technical applicability, market penetration , and reduction efficiency. These assumptions are held constant for all model years. Table 10

- 5 presents the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency assumptions used to develop the

abatement measures’ technical effectiveness.



### IV.10.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

The MAC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits and technical lifetime as described in Section IV.10.3 to calculate the break

- even price for each mitigation option at each mode l facility. Table 10 -6 illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010

USD. Improved SF 6 handling is the only options with a negative break

- even price, also known as a “no

regrets” option because the benefits of adopting the abatement measure outweigh the costs of implementation. The remaining three options have break

- even prices greater than $0/tCO 2 e.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 159SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)



### Table 10 -5: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Technical Market Reduction Technical Abatement Option Applicability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness
Developing Countries

SF 6 Recycling

LD AR
Equipment Refurbishment
Improved SF 6 Handling

United States/Canada

SF 6 Recycling

LD AR
Equipment Refurbishment
Improved SF 6 Handling 30%

10%

20 %

40%

10%

10%

40%

40% 100%

100%

20 %

100%

100%

100%

20%

100% 90%

50%

95 %

90%

90%

50%

95%

90% 27%

5%

4%

36%

9%

5%

8%

36%



### Table 10 -6: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in EPS s

Reduced Annualized Net Annual Tax Benefit of Break

- Even
Emissions Capital Costs Cost Depreciation Price a Abatement Option (tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e) ($/tCO 2 e)

Developing Countries

SF 6 Recycling 46,833 $2.2

− $1.3 $0.5 $0.45

LD A R 8,673 $4.8

− $1.4 $1.5 $1.98

Equipment Refurbishment 6,591 $3.7

− $1.5 $0.6 $1.65

Improved SF 6 Handling 62,444 $0.4

− $1.4 $0.1

− $1.20

United States/Canada

SF 6 Recycling 8,618 $1.8 $1.6 $0.4 $3.05

LD AR 4,788 $8.4 $0.6 $2.5 $6.45

Equipment Refurbishment 7,278 $12.2

− $0.7 $2.1 $9.40

Improved SF 6 Handling 34,474 $0.7

− $0.7 $0.3

− $0.20

a Break

- even prices were calculated using a tax rate of 40% and a discount rate of 10%.



### IV.10.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for SF 6 reductions in the EPS sector is estimated to be 43 MtCO 2 e, which is 67 % of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 10 -7 presents the cumulative reductions achieved

at selected break

- even prices. Figure 10 -6 shows the MAC curve for the top five emitting countries in the

EPS sector. Over 8 3% of the maximum abatement potential is achieved at brea k- even prices below
$5 /tCO 2 e in 2030.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 160-

– –

Africa — — 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

1.2

2.2

0.7

0.8

3.4

1.0

42.8 Central and South America — — 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2

Middle East — 0.0 0.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2

Europe — — 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7

Eurasia — — 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8

Asia — — 0.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4

North America — — 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0

World Total — 0.0 7.5 35.9 36.0 36.0 36.0 37.6 41.0 41.5

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 5 10 15 20$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) Brazil

China

India

South Korea

United States

Rest of World —

—

—

—

— — — 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0

— — 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 17.9 18.9 18.9 18.9

— — 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0

— 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5

— 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.6 4.6 5.9 SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS



### Table 10 -7: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break -E ven Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Country/Region 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

Brazil

China

India

South Korea

United States

Rest of Regions

a The World Total may not equal the sum of the country and region break

- even prices due to small differences in rounding.



### Figure 10 -6: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five and Rest of World Emitters in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 161SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)



## IV.10.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

Despite a comprehensive literature review and correspondence with some of the most knowledgeable representatives from the electric power transmission and distribution industry

, considerable u ncertainty is associated with some of the engineering cost data used for this analysis

. Emission data account for the greatest area of uncertainty.

We are not aware of any publish ed information on emission levels or rates in the developing world that are based on actual measurements. Also, there is very limited information on t he distribution of emissions within a typical EPS because the system

- level mass

- balance approach (currently the standard emissions monitoring method) does not track where or how emissions occur. The lack of reliable continuous emission monitoring methods a t specific points within EPSs also ma kes it difficult to accurately monitor the reduction efficiencies associated with specific abatement options, so the reduction efficiencies used for this analysis are based on judgments from industry experts rather than the studies involving emissions monitoring. M uch less uncertainty is associated with cost data because most cost
data were obtained directly from industry representatives that provide the equipment and services for abating emissions.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 162SF 6 EMISSI ONS FROM ELECTRIC PO WER SYSTEMS



## References

Czerepuszko, P. May 13, 2011a. Documentation of meeting between Paul Czerepuszko of FLIR Systems
and Paul Stewart of ICF International. Czerepuszko, P. May 23, 2011b. Documentation of meeting between Paul Czerepuszko of FLIR Systems
and Paul Stewart of ICF International.

International Council on L arge E lectric S ystems (CIGRE) . 2005. Guide for the P reparation of C ustomised
“Practical SF6 H andling I nstructions .” Brochure No. 276.

International Council on L arge E lectric S ystems (CIGRE) . 2010. SF 6 Tightness Guide ; Brochure No. 430.

International Electrotech nical Commission (IEC). 2008. High

- voltage S witchgear and C ontrolgear
– Part 303: Use and H andling of S ulphur H exafluoride (SF6) . IEC Technical Report 62271

- 303. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi neers (IEEE). 2012. IEEE Guide for Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) Gas Handling for High

- Voltage (over 1000 Vac) Equipment . IEEE Std C37.122.3. McCracken, G., R. Christiansen, and M. Turpin. 2000. The Environmental Benefits of Remanufacturing: Beyond SF 6 Emissi on Remediation. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/electricpower

sf6/documents/conf00_mccracken_paper.pdf

. North China Grid Company (NCGC). 2010. SF 6 Recycling Project o f North China Grid

— Project Design Document. North China Grid Company. CDM Project 3707. Obtained at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/

MPHV 4MMDLVU2I0E4ZP69TWKSRAT3HB/view.html

. National Electric Power Authority (NEPA). 2005. Reducing SF 6 Emissions in High

- Voltage Transmission/Distribution Systems in Nigeria

— Project Design Document. National Electric Power Authority. NM0135. Obtained at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/pnm/byref/NM0135

. Rhiemeier, J., S. Wartmann, M. Pagnotta, N. Makowska, and X. Li. 2010. Update on Global SF 6 Emissions

Tren ds from Electrical Equipment

— Edition 1.1. Ecofys Emission Scenario Initiative on Sulphur Hexafluoride for Electric Industry. Obtained at: http://www.ecofys.com/f iles/files/esi

sf6_finalreport_edition11_100701_v01.pdf

. Rothlisberger, L. May 5, 2011a. Documentation of meeting between Lukas Rothlisberger of DILO and
Paul Stewart of ICF International. Rothlisberger, L. June 2, 2011b. Documentation of meeting between L ukas Rothlisberger of DILO and
Paul Stewart of ICF International. Smythe, K. December 1

- 3, 2004. Trends in SF 6 Sales and End

- Use Applications: 1961

- 2003. International
Conference on SF 6 and the Environment: Emission Reduction Technologies, Scottsdale, AZ. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2009. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Flexible GHG Data Queries. Obtained at: http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries/Setup.do

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2011. “International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing.” Press Release on December 21, 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor. USDL

- 11

- 1778. Obtained at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009. International Energy Outlook 2009. Energy
Information Administratio n, U.S. Department of Energy. Report# DOE/EIA

- 0484(2009). Obtained at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/ ieo09/index.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2011 a) . SF 6 Emissio n Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems

— 2010 Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/electricpower

- sf6/documents/ sf6_2010_ann_report.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA ). ( 2011 b)

. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990

- 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA #430 -R- 11

- 005. Obtained at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 163SF 6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. Yokota, T., K. Yokotsu, K., Kawakita, H. Yonezawa, T. Sakai, and T. Yamagiwa. 2005. Recent Practice for Huge Reduction of SF 6 Gas Emissions from GIS&GCB in Japan. Presented at the CIGRE SC A3 & B3 Joint Colloquium in Tokyo.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1640 2 4 6 8 10 12MtCO2e 10

5 5 5

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year Ukraine

Israel

Kazakhstan

Russia

China

ROW MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



# IV.11. SF 6 

# Emissions from Magnesium Production

IV.11.1 Sector Summary 

# T he magnesium metal production and casting industry uses SF 6 as a cover gas to prevent the spontaneous combustion of molten magnesium in the presence of air. Fugitive SF 6 emissions occur primarily during three magnesium manufacturing processes: primary production, die

casting, and recycling

- based production. Additi onal processes that may use SF 6 include sand and gravity casting, as well as wrought, anode

, and permanent mo ld casting; however, these are not included in this analysis.

Between 2000 and 2010, global SF 6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing have decreased 50%,

from 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) to 5 MtCO 2 e (USEPA

, 2012 ). Over this time period, magnesium production has increased, but growth has been offset by major initiatives to phase out the use of SF 6 in magnesium production in numerous countries. As Figure 11 -1 shows, from 2010 to 2030, emissions from magnesium production are projected to stay in the range of approximately

5 MtCO 2 e (USEPA

, 20 12 ).



### Figure 11 -1: SF 6 

### Emissions from Magnesium Production : 2000

– 2030 (M t CO 2 

### e)

ROW = Rest of World

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 20 12

.

Global abatement potential of SF 6 in the magnesium manufacturing sector is 5 MtCO 2 e in 2030, which is approximately 98% of the projected emissions. Figure 11 -2 presents the sector marginal abatement cost ( MAC ) curves for 2010, 2020, and 2030. Three potential options are available for reducing SF 6 emissions from magnesium production and processing operations. These emission abatement measures all include substituting SF 6 with an alternate cover gas : SO 2 , HFC

- 134a, or NovecTM 612.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 165-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 MAGNESIUM MANUFACTUR ING



### Figure 11 -2: Global Abatement Potential in Magnesium Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

T his chapter follows a structure similar to previous chapters, starting with a description of the industrial activity, facility types

, and source of emissions

, followed by a discussion of the projected

em issions out to 2030. Section IV.11 .3 characterizes the abatement measures by providing a brief description of each option and information on their costs and performance assumptions. The chapter concludes with a discussion of regional MAC results.



## IV.11.2 SF 6 

## Emissions from Magnesium Manufacturing

Use of SF 6 as a cover gas is the only source of emissions from magnesium production. Although

studies indicate some destruction of SF 6 in its use as a cover gas (Bartos et al., 2003 ), the analysis described here follows current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) guidelines (IPCC,

2006 ), which assumes that all SF 6 used is emitted to the atmosphere. This analysis uses three model facilities to define magne sium production across die casting, primary production

, and reprocessing (recycle/remelt) facilities. Global SF 6 emissions from magnesium production by facility type are shown in Figure 11 -3. Model facilities are based on industry data from the United Stat es, but apply to magnesium facilities globally.

For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing SF 6 emissions from magn esium production, this analysis considers reduction costs for three typical magnesium production facilities

— die casting, recycle/remel t, and primary production, which were generally characterized based on facility

- specific case studies measuring average SF 6 consumption, production capacity

, and type. We characterize these typical facilities as follows:

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 166Die casting,

51%

Recycle, 2% Primary production,

47% MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



### Figure 11 -3: Global SF 6 

### Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

• D ie Casting Facility: This model facility represents a medium

- sized die casting facility. The facility is characterized based on real data from a case study (USEPA, 2011 ) where a given abatement option was implemented in 2008. The facility produces 26,014 metric ton s of magnesium per year, and emits 0.17 kg of SF 6 per metric ton of magnesium produced, representing a total annual facility emission of 4,483 kg of SF 6 . Production an d emissions data from 2007 is used to define the pre

- abatement emissions baseline ( USEPA

, 2011 ). Emissions data was reported by the facility based on its consumption of SF 6 , assuming all SF 6 used is emitted to the atmosphere.

• Recycle/Re melt Facility: This model facility represents a medium

- sized recycle facility. The facility is characterized based on real data from a case study where a given abatement option was implemented in 2008. The facility produces 18,453 metric ton s of magnesium per year, and emits

1.09 kg of SF 6 per metric ton of magnesium produced, representing a total annual facility emission of 20,026 kg of SF 6 . Production and emissions data from 2007 is used to define the pre

abatement emissions baseline ( USEPA, 2011 ). Emissions data were reported by the facility based on its consumption of SF 6 , assuming all SF 6 used is emitted to the atmosphere.

• Primary Production Facility: Assumes the same characteristics as the die casting facility.



### IV.11.2.1 Activit y Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends

The primary activity data for this sector are the quantit ies of magnesium produced or processed. Between 1990 and 2010, global SF 6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing have decreased 58 %, from

12 MtCO 2 e to 5 MtCO 2 e (USEPA

, 2012 ). Over this time period, magnesium production has increased, but this growth has been offset by major initiatives to phase out the use of SF 6 in magnesium production in

numerous countries.

From 2010 to 2030, emissions from magnesium production are projected to stay in the range of approximately 5 MtCO 2 e (USEPA

, 20 12 ). Emissions from Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development ( OECD ) countries decrease substantially in the short t erm because of facility closures in

North America and SF 6 phaseout efforts (U.S. Geological Survey [ USGS ], 2011 ). As a result, the OECD share of global SF 6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing is projected to decrease from 40% in 2010

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 167MAGNESIUM MANUFACTUR ING

to 12% in 2030. Major SF 6 phaseout efforts are driven by the US EPA’s voluntary partnership in the United
States, and the regulatory directives in Japan and Europe.

SF 6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing in non

- OECD Asia are projected to increase signif icantly between 2010 and 2030, increasing the region’s global share of emissions from 20% to 44%.

Emissions in the non

- OECD Europe and Eurasia region experience similar growth. The overall increase in

non

- OECD Asia’s share of global emissions results from an increase in Chinese primary magnesium production and die casting fueled by local and foreign investment. China’s emissions growth is driven by

their die casting operations as well as by the share of China’s primary production (approximately 10%)

that is assumed to use SF 6 as the cover gas mechanism. Emissions from Central and South America are driven by production in Brazil. Brazil’s emissions were estimated to have declined considerably since implementation of a Clean Development Mechanism project after 2005 involving a switch to SO 2 as the cover gas (UNFCCC, 2010 ).



### IV.11.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions

Global emissions from the magnesium production sector were 5.13 MtCO 2 e in 2010, growing to 5.22

MtCO 2 e in 2030. Emission estimates for U.S facilities were based on magnesium production statistics and specific emissions factors for each manufacturing process using data from the USEPA SF 6 Emissio n Reduction Partnership ( USEPA, 2011 ) and USGS (2011 ). As per IPCC 2006 guidelines, it is assumed that

all SF 6 used as a cover gas is emitted. Data used in this analysis on magnesium production and cover gas use for a typical facility were taken from a case study on U .S. facilities ( USEPA, 2011 ) and may vary for

facilities in other countries. Table 11 -1 presents projected emissions between 2010 and 2030 by country and region.



### Table 11

- 1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Magnesium Production : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

CAGR a 

### Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010

– 2 030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.2%

Russia 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.6%

Kazakhstan 0.4 0.5 0 .5 0.5 0.6 1.7%

Israel 0.4 0.4 0 .5 0.5 0.6 1.7%

Ukraine 0.1 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0.1 1.7%

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — —
Central and South America 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —
Middle East — — — — — — Europe 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 −22.2%

Eurasia —

0.6 — — — — —

Asia 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 −20.8%

North America 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 −13.3%

World Total 5.1 4.6 5.1 4.8 5.2 0.1%

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: U SEPA, 20 12

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 168MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



## IV.11.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

Three potential options are available for reducing SF 6 emissions from magnesium production and processing operations. These emission abatement measures all include replacing SF 6 with an alternative cover gas: SO 2 , HFC

- 134a, or NovecTM 612. Table 11 -2 presents the reduction efficiency and applicability for the three alternative cover gas options.

The remainder of this section provides an overview of each abatement option and details the cost and reduction assumptions.



### Table 11 -2: Magnesium Production Abatement Options

Abatement Option Reduction Efficiency Applic ability

Alternat iv e cover gas

— Novec TM 612 100% Die casting

Recycle/remelt

Primary production

Alternat iv e cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 95% Die casting

Recycle/remelt

Primary production

Alternat iv e cover gas

— SO 2 100% Die casting

Recycle/remelt

Primary production



### IV.11.3.1 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas

— Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### )

Historically, SO 2 has been used as a cover gas in magnesium production and processing activities. However, because of toxicity, odor, and corrosivity concerns, SO 2 use was discontinued in most

countries. Current SO 2 technology research aims to improve process feed systems and control technology, as well as to address the toxicity and odor issues with improved containment and pollution control systems (Environment Ca nada, 1998 ). The use of SO 2 has the potential to reduce SF 6 emissions by 100% because a complete replacement of the cover gas system is involved. Currently, SO 2 is being used as a cover gas; for example, it is used as a cov er gas at one diecasting facility in Brazil (UNFCCC, 2010 ). This option is assumed to be technically applicable to all three model facilities. The maximum market penetration for this option is assumed to be 80% of the emissions of SF 6 for recycle/remelt facilities, and 10% for both die casting and primary production facilities. The lifetime of this option is assumed to be 15

years.

Facilities implementing SO 2 as an alternative cover gas incur capital costs related to the cost for new

p iping, pollution control equipment, and safety equipment for workers. The total capital cost was $490,781 for all three facility types. Facilities also incur annual costs (or generate annual cost savings) based on the purchase price of the alternate cover gas. This option results in annual gas purchase costs of
$16,763 each for die casting and primary production facilit ies and an annual gas purchase cost of $74,833 for recycle/remelt facilities. SO 2 is significantly less expensive than SF 6 , and the required gas replacement
ratio is 1:1, resulting in a significant net savings in material costs. Replacing SF 6 with SO 2 also results in

avoided costs of $131,633 each for both die casting and primary production model facilities and $588,018 for the recycle/remelt model facility associated with the purchase of SF 6 .

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 169MAGNESIUM MANUFACTUR ING



### IV.11.3.2 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas

— HFC 134a

Research has shown that candidate fluorinated compounds such as HFC

- 134a can be a cover gas

substitute for SF 6 (Mi l brath, 2002 ; Ricket t s, 2002; Hillis, 2002 ). In addition, currently, HFC

- 134a is used as a cover gas at two diecasting facilities in Israel (UNFCCC, 2008a, 2008 b ). While fluorinated gases have an advantage over SO 2 because they have potentially fewer associated health, safety, odor

, and corrosive impacts, some current fluorinated gas alternatives (including HFC

- 134a) still have global warming potential ( GWP ) . However, the GWP of HFC

- 134a is signif icantly less than that of SF 6 : thus, the GWP

weighted cover gas emissions could be reduced by 95 % . HFC

- 134a is assumed to be technically applicable to all model facilities. The maximum market penetration for this option is assumed to be 45 %

of the emissions of SF 6 for die casting and primary production facilities, and 10% for recycle/remelt facilities. The lifetime of this option is assumed to be 15 years.

Facilities implementing HFC

- 134a as an alternative cover gas do not incur up

- front ca pital costs, as

use of HFC

- 134a is a simple drop

- in option and does not require additional/new systems or training. They incur annual costs (or generate annual cost savings) based on the purchase price of the alternate

cover gas. Use of HFC

- 134 a result s in annual gas purchase costs of $32,908 each for die casting and primary production facilit ies and $147,005 for the recycle/remelt facility. HFC

- 134a is not only less expensive than SF 6 , but additionally HFC

- 134a has a gas replacement ratio of 0.5:1, resulti ng in significant net savings in material costs. R eplacing SF 6 with HFC

- 134a results in avoided costs of $131,633 each for

both die casting and primary production model facilities and $588,018 for the recycle/remelt facility associated with the purchase of SF 6 .



### IV.11.3.3 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas

— NovecTM 612

Research has shown that candidate fluorinated compounds such as NovecTM 612 can be a cover gas

substitute for SF 6 (Mi l brath, 2002 ; Ricket t s, 2002 ; Hillis, 2002 ). Additionally, currently, Novec TM 612 is being used at one die casting facility in the United States. The use of NovecTM 612 as an alternative cover

gas represents an advantage over SO 2 because, like other fluorinated gases, NovecTM 612 has potentially fewer associated health, safety, odor

, and corrosive impacts. NovecTM 612 is a zero GWP gas and therefore has a reduction efficiency of 100 % compared with SF 6 . NovecTM 612 is assumed to be technically applicable to all model faci lities.

Facilities implementing NovecTM 612 as an alternative cover gas incur capital costs related to the purchase of computerized mass flow control cabinets and piping material to direct the gas. The total capital cost was $245,390 for the die casting facility, $33,128 for the recycle/remelt facility, and $496,916

for the primary production facility. Facilities also incur annual costs (or generate annual cost savings) based on the purchase price of the alternate cover gas. Use of Novec TM 612 resu lts in annual gas purchase
costs of $60,754 for die casting and primary production facilities and $271,393 for the recycle/remelt facility. However, because the replacement ratio of NovecTM 612 to SF 6 is 0.3 : 1, significantly less NovecTM 612 is required to p rocess the same quantity of magnesium. These costs are offset by the avoided costs of purchasing SF 6 , an annual cost savings of $131,633 for both die casting and primary production model facilities and $588,018 for the recycle/remelt model facility.



### IV.11. 3.4 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics

Table 11 -3 present s all of the data needed to calculate the break

- even price for the options analyzed. All options have an assumed lifetime of 15 years.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 170MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



### Table 11 -3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis
Project
Li fetime (Years) Annual Savings* ( 2010 USD ) Annual O&M Costs ( 2010
USD ) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 

### e) Abatement Option Capital Costs ( 2010 USD ) Fa cility Type

SO 2 Die casting 15 $490, 781 $131,633 $16,763 107,144

Recycle/remelt 15 $490, 781 $588,018 $74,883 478,621

Primary production 15 $490, 781 $131,633 $16,763 107,144

HFC

- 134a Die casting 15 — $131,633 $32,908 101,316

Recycle/remelt 15 — $588,018 $147,005 452,588

Primary production 15 — $131,633 $32,908 101,316

NovecTM 612 Die casting 15 $245,390 $131,633 $60,754 107,139

Recycle/remelt 15 $33, 128 $588,018 $271,393 478,601

Primary production 15 496,916 $131,633 $60,754 107,139

* These numbers are not net annual savings

.



## IV.11.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for magnesium production

.



### IV.11.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous secti on of this chapter at three magnesium production facility types to calculate a break

- even price for each option at each facility (i.e., die casting, recycle /remelt , and primary production). This section presents detailed information on how each type of fac ility was defined in this analysis and detailed information on how costs were built out for each mitigation technology.



### IV.11.4.2 Model Facilities Defined

The break

- even cost analysis is conducted on three model facility types defined as follows:

• Die casting facility

— Represents medium

- size d facility currently in production in the United States where abatement option was implemented in 2008. Annual production is assumed to be 26

kilo ton s. The annual SF 6 usage rate was 0.17kg/ ton produced (based on dat a reported by facility

under USEPA SF 6 Emission R eduction P artnership). This emission factor multiplied by the annual production of magnesium yields annual facility emissions of approximately 4.4 tons of

SF 6 (equal to 107,550 tCO 2 e).

• Recycle/Remelt facilit y

— Represents medium

- size d facility currently in production in the United States where abatement option was implemented in 2008. Production data is from 2007, prior to implementation of abatement option. Annual production is assumed to be 18 kilo ton s. The

annual SF 6 usage rate was 1.09 kg/ ton of magnesium produced (based on data reported by facility under USEPA SF 6 Emission R eduction P artnership). This emission factor multiplied by

the annual production yields annual facility emissions of approximately 20 tons of SF 6 .

• Primary production facility

— Assumes similar characteristics as the die casting model facility. Annual magnesium production is 26 kilo ton s and a SF 6 usage rate of 0.17 kg/ ton of production. The model primary production facility annual emissions are 4.4 ton s of SF 6.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 171MAGNESIUM MANUFACTUR ING



### IV.11.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

For this analysis, we developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage

reductions achievable by each technology/f acility

- type combination. Table 11 -4 lists the assumptions regarding technical applicability, market penetration

, and technical effectiveness of each option.



### Table 11 -4: Technical Effectiveness Summary

Technical Market Reduction Technical Abatement Option Applic ability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness

Die C asting Facility

Alternat iv e cover gas

— Novec TM 612 100% 45% 100% 45%

Alte r nat iv e cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 100% 45% 95% 43%

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 100% 10% 100% 10%
Recycle /Remelt Facility

Alternative cover gas

— Novec TM 612 100% 10% 100% 10%

Alternative cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 100% 10% 95% 9%

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 100% 80% 100% 80%
Primary Production Facility

Alternative cover gas

— Novec TM 612 100% 45% 100% 45%

Alternative cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 100% 45% 95% 43%

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 100% 10% 100% 10%

We assume that all three abatement measures are technically applicable to all facility types , h ence the technical applicability factor of 100%. Market penetration rates were assumed based on expert judgment. For example, for die casting facility experts believe that a facility would adopt both Novec TM 612 and

HFC

- 134a over SO 2 , with an equal chance of adopting either Novec TM 612 or HFC

- 134a. The s ame

assum ptions were made for a primary production facility. For recycle/remelt facility, experts believed that there would be a preference for SO 2 over the other two alternative cover gases, with an equal chance of adopting either Novec TM 612 or HFC

- 134a. Multiplyi ng the technical applicability, market penetration

, and reduction efficiency for each alternative cover gas at each facility type produces the technical effectiveness estimates for each facility type. These assumptions are held constant for all model years

.



### IV.11.4.4 Estimating Abatement Project Costs and Benefits

The MAC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits as described in Section

IV.11 .3 to calculate the break

- even price for each mitigation option at each model facility. Table 11 -5

illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD. Die casting and recycle facility types have negative break

- even prices for all three abatement measures. The only positive

break

- even price estimated was for alternate cover gas

— Novec TM 612 when applied to the primary production facility due to a higher initial capital cost compared with other facility types. The remaining two abatement measures applied to the primary production facility have negative break

- even price s.



### IV.11.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for SF 6 reductions in the magnesium manufacturing sector is estimated to be 98% of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 11 -6 presents the cumulative reductions

achieved at selected break

- even prices. Figure 11 -4 shows the MAC curve for the top five emitting countries for this sector. Total abatement potential is achieved at break

- even prices below $ 5 /tCO 2 e in

2030.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 172– – MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



### Table 11 -5: E xample Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Magnesium Manufacturing

Abatement Option Reduced
Emissions
(tCO 2 

### e) Annualized Capital
Costs
($/tCO 2 

### e) Net
Annual
Cost
($/tCO 2 

### e)

Die Casting Facility

Alternative cover gas

— Novec TM 612 107,139 $0.50

− $0.66 $0.10

− $0.26

Alternative cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 104,230 $0.00

− $0.95 $0.00

− $0.95

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 107,144 $1.00

− $1.07 $0.20

− $0.27

Recycle /Remelt Facility

Alternative cover gas

— Novec TM 612 478,601 $0.02

− $0.66 $0.00

− $0.65

Alternative cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 465,605 $0.00

− $0.95 $0.00

− $0.95

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 478,621 $0.22

− $1.07 $0.05

− $0.89

Primary Production Facility

Alternative cover gas

— Novec TM 612 107,139 $1.02

− $0.66 $0.21 $0.15

Alternative cover gas

— HFC

- 134a 104,230 $0.00

− $0.95 $0.00

− $0.95

Alternative cover gas

— SO 2 107,144 $1.00

− $1.07 $0.20

− $0.27 

### Tax Benefit
of Depreciation
($/tCO 2 

### e) Break

Even
Price
($/tCO 2 

### e)

Table 11 -6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 e)

Country/Region 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — — — 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

Israel — — — 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Kazakhstan — — — 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Russia — — — 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Ukraine — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — — — — — — —
Central and South America — — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Middle East — — — — — — — — — — — Europe — — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eurasia — — — — — — — — — — —
Asia — — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North America — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

World Total — — — 5. 1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 173-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2.5 China

Kazakhstan

Israel

Russia

Ukraine MAGNESIUM MANUFACTUR ING



### Figure 11 -4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve s for Top Five Emitters in 2030



## IV.11.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

As per IPCC guidelines (2006), this analysis assumes that all cover gas used is emitted during magnesium production. However

, any SF 6 destruction that occurs during use would result in lower emission estimates than currently assumed in this analysis. In addition, this analysis uses data available

from U.S. facilities that implemented the three abatement options available. Although the data are representative of abatement costs for U.S. facilities

, the data may not be equally applicable to facilities in other countries. Finally, uncertainties are associated with the emission estimates, which are detailed in

the Global Emissi ons Report.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 174MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION



## References

Bartos

, S., J. Marks, R. Kantamaneni, C. Laush. 2003. Measured SF 6 Emissions from Magnesium Die Casting Operations. Magnesium Technology 2003, Proceedings of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) Conference, March 2003.

Environment Canada. 1998. Powering GHG Reductions through Technology Advancement. Clean Technology Advancement Division, Environment Canada.

Hillis , J.E., 2002. The International Program to Identify Alternatives to SF 6 in Magnesium Melt Protection.

Present ed at the International Conference on SF 6 and the Environment: Emissions Reduction Technologies, November 21

- 22, San Diego, CA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Meridian . 2011. Personal Communication between Charles Woodburn of Meridia n Magnesium Products
and Neha Mukhi of ICF International. May 24, 2011.

Milbrath , D . 2002. Development of 3M Novec 612 Magnesium Protection Fluid as a Substitute for SF 6 in the Magnesium Industry. Presented at the International Conference on SF 6 and the En vironment: Emissions Reduction Technologies, November 21

- 22, San Diego, CA.

Ricketts , N . 2002. Environmental Implications of Using HFC

- 134a as a Replacement for SF 6 in the Magnesium Industry. Presented at the International Conference on SF 6 and the Environment: Emissions Reduction Technologies, November 21

- 22, San Diego, CA. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 200 8a . SF 6 Switch at Ortal

Die casting 1993 Ltd. Production. United Nations Framework Convention on Climat e Change. Obtained May 2010 at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV

- SUED1233931497.2/view

. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 200 8b . SF 6 Switch at Dead Sea Magnesium . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Obtained May 2010 at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV

- SUED1235638608.46/view

. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2010. Conversion of SF 6 to the
Alternative SO 2 at RIMA Magnesium Production. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Obtained May 2010 at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV

- SUE D1239262577.48/view

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ( 201 2)

. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006

. Washington

, DC : USEPA

. Obtained from : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 20 11 . Case Study: U.S. Magnesium Industry Adopts New Technolog y for Climate Protection. Washington, DC: USEPA. In process.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Minerals Yearbook 2010: Magnesium. GPO Stock #024

- 004

- 02538

- 7, Reston, VA.

Werner K., and D. Milbrath. 2011. Novec TM 612 as a Substitute for SF 6 in Magnesium Processing: Experience to Date in Varied Casting Operations. 3M

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1750 1 1 2 2 3MtCO2e

0.02 2.29

2.11

1.87

2000 2010 2020 2030

Year Malaysia

Germany

United States

Japan

China

Rest of World PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



# IV.12. Emissions from Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing

IV.12.1 Sector Summary 

# T he photovoltaic (PV) cell manufacturing process can use multiple fluorinated greenhouse gases (F

- GHGs) during production, including nitrogen trifluoride ( NF 3 ) and the perfluorocompounds (PFCs) carbon tetraflu o ride ( CF 4 ) and p erfluoroethane (C 2 F 6 ,) . Dur ing the

manufacture of PV cells some of the F

- GHGs not used in process es are released to the atmosphere.

F- GHG emissions from PV cell manufacturing are estimated to be approximately 2.3 million metric

tons of carbon dioxide equivalent s ( MtCO 2 e) in 2010. As Figure 12

- 1 shows, by 2030, emissions from the

manufa cturing of PV cells are expected to decrease to 1.9 MtCO 2 e

. The baseline projections presented here are updated relative to those presented in Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

1990 to 2030 (USEPA, 2012 ) . The update s incorporate new market information which has resulted in significantly lower emission estimat es . The decrease in emissions can be attributed to lower expected growth in production and lower fraction of production assumed to us e F- GHGs. Emissions projections for this sector are particularly uncertain to due limited information on emissions rates, use of fluorinated gases, production growth rates, and policies to encourage renewable energy development.



### Figure 12 -1: F- GHG Emissions from PV Ce ll Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: Update of projections presented in USEPA, 2012

.

Four mitigation technologies were considered in this analysis as options for reducing F

- GHG emissions from PV manufacturing: thermal abatement systems, catalytic abatement systems, plasmas abatement systems, and the NF 3 remote chamber clean process. Due to the lack of mitigation cost information specific to PV production, data is drawn from experience reducing emissions from sim ilar processes in semiconductor manufacturing.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 177$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2.5 2010

2020

2030 PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

The marginal abatement cost ( MAC ) analysis estimates a global mitigation potential of 1.7 MtCO 2 e, based on the four abatement measures. The abatement potential represents 90% of the projected

emissions in 2030

. Figure 12 -2 presents the global MAC curves for 2010, 2020, and 2030 for the PV manufacturing sector.



### Figure 12 -2: Global Abatement Potential in PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

H igh capital costs and relatively low emissions reduction amounts result in relatively high break

even prices for abatement measures in the PV manufacturing sector relative to other industrial process

sectors. As a result, break

- even prices in this sector are all greater tha n $120 /tCO 2 e.

The following sections of this chapter first describe the activities and sources of F

- GHG emissions in the PV manufacturing sector and present the projected emissions for 2010 to 2030. Subsequent sections characterize the four abatement measures considered and present the engineering cost assumptions used in the MAC analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the MAC modeling assumptions that were used to estimate the global abatement potential. We conclude the chapter by presenting the MAC curves for a select number of individual countries and discuss some of the major uncertainties and limitations.



## IV.12.2 Emissions from Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing

PV manufacturing may use F

- GHGs, thereby result ing in F

- GHG emissions , including CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , and

NF 3 , from etching and chamber cleaning processes used during the manufacture of PV cells . Etching is

done on various substrates

, including crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, and other thin

- films. CF 4 and

C 2 F 6 are used during the manufacture o f some crystalline silicon (c

- Si) PV cells

, and NF 3 is used during

the manufacture of amorphous silicon (a

- Si) and tandem a

- Si/nanocr ystaline (nc) silicon PV cells.
However, not all poly -s ilicon manufacturing process use F

- GHG s , this was taken into consideration in the analysis. P rocesses for PV cells manufactured on other thin films do not require the use of GHGs ; therefore

, these processes were not considered in this analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 178Etch,

10%

Clean, 90% PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

The emission estimates presented in Figure 12 -1 represent a piece of the total life cycle emissions associated with manufacturing PV cells. One motivation of using PV cells is the production of reliable low carbon energy, so it is not only important to consider the life cycle GHG emissions but also to consider the benefits from using PV cells versus traditional fossil generated power. The European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) analyzed the life cycle of a PV cell (from material sourcing, through manufacturing, transportation, construction, op eration, dismantling and to product collection and recycling into account) and estimated that “ The carbon footprint of PV systems

— assuming a location in southern Europe

— ranges from 16 to 32 gCO 2 eq. per kWh compared to between 300 and 1000 g CO 2 eq. per kWh when produced from fossil fuels .” EPIA also estimates that solar power will still have a carbon footprint of 10 to 20 times less than traditional fossil

- based power with carbon capture and storage. While solar power is a good low

- carbon alternative to fossil based power and over the lifetime of the cell it has climate benefits over traditional power sources, there is still potential to make it even more beneficial. According to EPIA “ The carbon footprint of PV has decreased by approximately 50% in the

las t 10 years thanks to performance improvements, raw material savings and manufacturing process improvements ” (EPIA, 2011 ). Implementing PFC and NF 3 mitigation strategies offers an opportunity to further decrease the carbon footprint of PV cells, particularly given the high potency of these gases.

To evaluate the cost of reducing F

- GHG emissions from the manufacture of PV cells, this analysis considers the emissions and reduction costs for a typical PV manufacturing facility, characterized based on an average facility capacity and the applicability of various mitigation technologies to etch and clean emissions. The facility has an average capacity of 80 megawatts ( MW ) with an estimated 25 tools with 3.5 chambers. The facility uses only three F- GHG s: CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , and NF 3 . 1 Figure 12 -3 shows the breakdown of etch and clean emissions for the typical facility.



### Figure 12 -3: Global F- GHG E missions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

1 Although these gases are used for different PV technologies, for simplicity in this analysis, one general facility producing an unidentifiable PV technology was considered.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 179PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



### IV.12.2.1 Activity Data and Important Sectoral/Regional Trends

Several industry trends which will influence future emissions from this sector include the rate of growth in PV panel production, the overall penetration of PV into the global energy market, an d the relative proportion of various PV technologies with different rates of F

- gas usage or emissions rates.

Current market trends indicate an increase and then a dip in production , and therefore

, increases followed by decreases in annual emissions

. Despite many slowing sectors because of the global economic

slowdown

, the PV sector continued to exceed expected growth rates while other sectors saw slowdowns

. According to the Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics Until 2016

, the main reasons for the l arge historic and continued growth in the PV sector are: 1. “Renewable energy has continued to prove itself to be a mainstream energy source and a significant contributor to achieving energy, environmental and economic goals”; 2. “Some countries have incre ased thei r focus on renewable energy standards in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, requiring them to consider new policies that move the market in this direction”; 3. “PV modules have undergone significant price decreases...”; and 4. “In some coun tries,

qu estions about the future of support

- scheme levels has produced boom

- and

- bust cycles

. ” Also

, many countries are just starting to tap into the installed potential for PV. These factors account for the fact that

there wa s large general growth across all regions of the world. However, in 2012, the Congressional

Research Service noted that “The creation of incentives for solar installations in several countries around 2004 led many companies to enter the PV industry. According to an estimate by Photon I nternational, more than 1,000 PV module manufacturers worldwide supplied the market in 2011. But with demand in some countries declining and prices weak, the industry appears to have entered a phase of rapid consolidation on a global basis” (CRS, 2012 ).

The world saw booms in PV cell manufacturing and installation. This growth however

, led to an oversupply of panels starting in 2011. Balancing out supply with demand for solar panels has and

resulted in factories to c lose, and will also result in a continued decrease in manufacturing (Forbes, 2012 ). There is significant uncertainty in whether production levels will remain relatively constant in the future or resume the rapid annual increases which the industry experienced prior to 2011.

The projections presented in this chapter assume that production levels will be sufficient to achieve the cumulative installed capacities from the “New Policy” Scenario of World Energy Outlook 2012, without accounting for installed capa city replacement. T hese assumptions result in annual production in 2030 decreased to 22.6 GW compared to 24.6 GW in 2010. While there is a growth in demand for solar energy, reflected in forecasted growth in total global installed solar capacity from about 38 gigawatts (GW ) in 2010 to 491 GW in 2030 (IEA

, 2012 ), this is expected to be met through already existing uninstalled stock of solar panels and future annual production. Figure 12 -1 presents the business as usual

emissions from 2000 t o 2030 for the five largest emitting countries and the rest of world (ROW). Uncertainty regarding future policies, panel prices, and PV technology improvement result in particularly uncertain projections of future production and associated emissions.



### IV.12.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

Emissions resulting from PV manufacturing processes were estimated using projected PV cumulative installed capacities from the New Policy Scenario of World Energy Outlook, 2012; capacity and efficiency

data from the DisplaySearch PV Database; an assumed solar constant of 1,000 watts per meter squared; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) Tier 1 emission factors for PV manufacturing; and an

NF 3 emission factor from Fthenakis et al

. (2010 ) and an emission factor developed using sensitive process information. There is little to no variation in manufacturing processes and practices or in emissions trends on a regional basis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 180PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

F- GHG emissions from PV manufacturing ar e estimated to be approximately 2.29 MtCO 2 e in 2010. By 2030, emissions from manufacturing PV cells are expected to decrease to 1.87 MtCO 2 e . This decrease can be attributed to the decrease in the annual PV production for 2030 compared to 2010. T he annual

p roduction in 2030 is expected to decrease to 22.6 GW compared to 24.6 GW in 2010

. In December of 2012 EPA published the Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

1990

– 2030. The baseline emission estimates presented in this analysis have been revised, and the revised estimates are used for the MAC analysis presented in this report. Like the previous estimates, since l ittle

literature is available describing the mitigation activities in the PV cell manufacturing sector

, and unlike

the semiconductor and FPD manufacturing sectors, the PV manufacturing sector has not set a voluntary reduction goal, the revised estimates do not include assumptions about the use of mitigation technologies

for crystalline silicon type manufacturing . However, unlike the previous estimates, the baseline now

assumes that half of the production process for amorphous s ilicon (a

- Si) use abatement based on new literature published (Fthenakis et al., 2010 ). The baseline also assumes that half of the production process for crystalline silicon (c

- Si) technology uses and emits CF 4 and C 2 F 6 during manufacturing, as not all PV processes use F

- GHGs.

The projected revised emissions are estimated based on annual PV production, differentiated by t ype of technology, country, and the emission factors for respective types. However, now t he future annual PV production is estimated from the projected cumulative installed capacity obtained from World Energy Outlook, New Policy Scenario (IEA

, 2012 ) as opposed to assumed growth rates

. The total annual PV production is then differentiated into various types by dividing the total according technology proportion s: 77% crystalline Silicon (c

- Si) , 12% amorphous Silicon (a

- Si) and the rest Cadmium Telluride, Copper Indium G allium S elenide and other categories

, which are from the DisplaySearch database (DisplaySearch

, 2009 )

. Similarly, the capacity is apportioned by country based on the DisplaySearch database (DisplaySearch

, 2009). Like the previous baseline methodology, PV production capacity for each country for historic years was extracted from DisplaySearch database (DisplaySearch, 2009 ). The area of

cell produc ed is est imated based on the cell efficiency, using new data obtained from IEA Solar Photovoltaic Roadmap (IEA, 2010 ), and an assumed solar constant of 1000 W/m 2

.

The NF 3 emission factor for a

- Si has been updated in the revised baseline estimation methodology

. For the a- Si technology, it was assumed that all facilities use NF 3 and out of those, 50% of the facilities

have abatement devices installed

. The emission factor for abated facilities was derived from data presented in literature lo oking at lifecycle NF 3 emissions of PV cells ( Fthenakis et al., 2010 ). The emission

factor for unabated facilities was developed using sensitive process information. Lastly, the revised

baseline assumes that only 50% of c

- Si technology is assumed to use and emit F- GHGs during manufacturing and none of the other technologies are assumed to use and emit F

- GHGs.



## IV.12.3 Abatement Measure s and Engineering Cost Analysis

F our mitigation technology options were identified for the PV manufacturing sector: thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, and NF 3 remote chamber clean.

• Thermal abatement : These point

- of

- use abatement systems

, that use heat to destroy or remove F

GHGs from effluent process streams

, are connected directly to a manufacturing tool.

• Catalytic abatement : Tool effluent process streams are run through abatement systems with catalysts (e.g., CuO, ZnO, Al 2 O 3 ) that destroy or remove F

- GHGs.

• Plasma abatement : P lasma in a point

- of

- use abatement sys tem is used to react (destroy or remove) F

- GHG s from the process effluent stream.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 181

### – PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



### Table 12 -1: Projected Baseline Emissions from PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.8%

Japan 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

− 1.5%

United States 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1%

Germany 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

− 5.6%

Malaysia 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

− 5.0%

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — —
Central and South America — — — — — —
Middle East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

− 5.0%

Europe 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

− 5.0%

Eurasia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

− 5.0%

Asia 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

− 5.0%

North America — — — — — —

World Total 2.3 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.9 −1.0%

a CAGR= Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: Updated from projections presented in USEPA, 2012

• NF 3 remote chamber clean : Highly ionized NF 3 is used to clean chemical vapor deposition chambers. This process is highly efficient (~98 %), resulting in lower emissions on a mass and CO 2 basis than traditional in

- situ chamber clean processes with utilization efficiencies around 20 % to

50 % ( IPCC, 2006 ).
These technologies reduce emissions from either etch or chamber clean processes, or in some cases both.

Table 12 -2 presents the applicability and the reduction efficiency of each abatement measure

. The next sections describe each of these mitigation options and additional detail is provided in Appendix M

. 

### Table 12 -2: PV Cell Manufacturing Abatement Options

Abatement Op tion Applicable 3 s)

Thermal abatement Etch and clean 95 % Fthenakis ( 2001 ) , Beu ( 2005 ) , and US EPA ( 2009 )

Catalytic abatement Etch and clean 99 % Fthenakis ( 2001 ), Brown et al . ( 2012 )

Plasma abatement Etch 97 % Fthenakis ( 2001 ), Hattori et al . ( 2006 )

NF 3 remote chamber clean Clean 95 % Beu ( 2005 ) 

### Reduction Efficiency Information Source

IV.12.3.1 Thermal Abatement

Thermal abatement systems can be used to abate F- GHG emissions from both etching and chamber

cleaning processes. The use of thermal abatement offers the benefit of not affe cting the manufacturing process (Applied Materials, 1999 ); however

, the systems do require space that may not be available in

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 182PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

some facilities. In addition , these systems require large amounts of cooling water, and the use of the
systems result in regulated NO

x emis sions.

T he t otal facility capital cost for install ing thermal abatement systems is estimated to be $5.7 million.

Th is estimate include s costs for the systems, the necessary ducting, water recirculation and hook up

, and natural gas costs (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton, 2003 ). The annual operating cost is estimated to be $328,860 at the facility level. No annual cost savings are associated with us ing this technology



### IV.12.3.2 Catalytic Abatement

A catalytic abatement system uses a catalyst to destroy or remove F- GHG emissions from the

effluents of both plasma etching and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chamber

- cleaning processes. This type of abatement is applicable at most facilities, but again t here may be some space constraints as mentioned for thermal abatement systems. Additionally

, because these systems are based on destruction via catalyst , t hey must be process/stream specific to achieve the 99 % emission re ductions quoted in the

literature a nd used in this analysis (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton, 2003 ).

Because catalytic destruction systems operate at relatively low temperatures

, their use results in little

or no NO

x emissions

, and the required amounts of water are low as well. Because of the high cost of catalyst replace ment , these systems are the least widely used type of abatement ( expert judgment ).

The capital cost associated with the purchase and installation of the abatement systems is estimated

to be $6.9 million per fab (i.e.

, facility) . To use catalytic abatement systems, facilities must factor in the annual cost of resources such as water, waste chemicals, electricity, and catalyst replacements. To cover these operating expenses, a facility manuf acturing PV cells is estimated to incur an annual cost of
$455,280. As with other abatement technologies considered in this sector, the use of catalytic abatement systems will not result in annual cost savings.



### IV.12.3.3 Plasma Abatement

These systems are applicable to etch processes in most facilities, with some physical space limitations. (These systems though are relatively smaller in size compared with thermal and catalytic systems .) Plasma abatement systems use a small plasma source that effectively di ssociates the F- GHG molecules that react with fragments of the additive gas ( hydrogen ( H 2 )

, oxygen ( O 2 ), water ( H 2 O), or methane ( CH 4 ) ) to produce low molecular weigh t by

- products such as hydrogen fluoride ( HF ) with little or no GWP. After disassociation, wet scrubbers can remove the molecules. The presence of additive gas is necessary to prevent later downstream reformation of PFC molecules ( Burton, 2003 ).

The capital cost for plasma abate ment systems is estimated to be $1.8 million per facility (B urton,

2003 ), which covers the purchase and installation of plasma systems. Plasma abatement systems require

an annual operation cost of $1,190 per chamber, which includes general maintenance and use of the systems. Total annual facility costs are $51,850 based on an assumed four chambers per tool and 25 tools per facility. The use of plasma abatement systems will not result in annual cost savings.



### IV.12.3.4 NF 3 

### Remote Chamber Clean

NF 3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that has the benefit of having a particularly high (~98%) utilization rate of NF 3 ( IPCC, 2006 ), resulting in relatively low emissions compared with traditional chamber clean s

. (The stated utilization is based on utilizations for semiconductor manufacturing ; as a result of large gas flows in PV manufacturing

, the actual utilization may be lower

. ) NF 3 remote clean systems dissociate NF 3 using argon gas and converting the source gas to

active F

- atoms in the plasma upstream of the process chamber. These electrically neutral atoms can

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 183PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

selectively remove material in the chamber. The by

- products of remote clean include HF, fluorine ( F 2 ), and other gases

, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber systems.

It is assumed that PV facilities are not “NF 3 ready ” ; in other words

, these facilities do not have the

current infrastructure to handle the direct installation of NF 3 remote systems because this is a relatively new technology. Therefore

, facilities incur capital costs, in addition to system costs, associated with items such as gas hook ups and necessary hardware such as manifolds and values. The facility cost is estimated
to be $9.2 million. The annual f acility cost for NF 3 remote clean is estimated to be $ 3.4 million ( Burton,

2003 ). These costs are associated with the purchase of larger volumes of gas (NF 3 versus traditional chamber clean gases), general maintenance, and F 2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas from the

effluent. N o annual cost savings are associated with using this technology.



### IV.12.3.5 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Chara cteristics

Table 12 -3 summarizes the information used to estimate the break

- even prices in the MAC analysis.



### Table 12 -3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement Option Project
Lifetime (Years) Capital Costs (2010 USD) Annual Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCO 2 

### e)

Thermal abatement 7 $ 5,701,971 $0 $ 328,862 13,625

Catalytic abatement 7 $ 6,906,594 $0 $ 455,277 14,19 9

Plasma abatement 7 $ 1,814,664 $0 $ 51,848 1,398

NF 3 remote clean 25 $ 9,200,867 $0 $ 3,374,861 14,427



## IV.12.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for the PV manufacturing sector.



### IV.12.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous section of this chapter at two hypothetical facilities to calculate a break

- even price for each abatement measure. This section presents how we defined the model facility used in this analysis and the technical effectiveness assumptions used to estimate the incremental reductions for each measure. This section also provides an example of how the break

- even prices were calculated for each option.



### IV.12.4.2 Definition of Model Facility

The manufacture of PV uses F- GHG s depending on the particular substrate and process used in the production. Substrates used in the industry include crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, and other thin

films. F- GHG s are used during the manufacture of crystalline silicon (c

- Si) PV cells

, amorphous silicon (a

Si)

, and tandem a

- Si/nanocrystaline (nc) silicon PV cells. O ther thin film PV technologies do not require

the use of F- GHG s. As with the other electronics manufacturing sectors, emissions in this sector result

from two main types of manufacturing processes: etching substrates and cleaning CVD chambers. Manufacturing processes and uses of GHGs across the industry are generally similar ; therefore

, only one type of model facility was considered for this analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 184PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

• Model: The model facility is a facility that represents a PV manufacturing facility of average manufacturing capacity (DisplaySearch

, 2009 ) of 80 MW with an estimated 25 tools with 3.5 chambers. The facility uses only three F- GHG s: CF 4 , C 2 F 6 , and NF 3 . 2 The emissions breakdown for a PV manufacturing facility is estimated to be 10 % etch emissions and 90 % clean emissions.

The model facility emission breakdown is essential to this analysis, because some mitigation technologies are applicable to either both or just one type of manufacturing process.



### IV.12.4.3 Assessment of Technical Effectiveness

Similar to the methods employed for analyzing abatement in the semiconductor manufacturing

sector , this analysis developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the percentage reductions

achiev able by each technology/process combination. Es timating this parameter required making a number of assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions by manufacturing process (etch and clean)

, in addition to process

- specific estimates of technical applicability and market penetration. These assumptions are held constant for all model years. Table 12 -4 presents the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency assumptions used to develop the abatement measures ’ technical effectiveness parameters.



### Table 12 -4: Technical Effectiveness Summary Etch (10%) Clean (90%)

Technical
A pplicability Market
Penetration Technical
A pplicability Market
Penetration Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness Abatement Measure

Thermal abatement 85 % 65 % 85 % 20 % 95 % 20 %

Catalytic abatement 85 % 10 % 85 % 10 % 99 % 8 %

Plasma abatement 85 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 97 % 2 %

NF 3 remote clea n 0 % 0 % 100 % 70 % 95 % 60 %

The technical effectiveness is the weighted average of the abatement measures using the emissions attributed to each process (i.e.

, 10% etching, and 90% cleaning) as the weight multiplied by the product of the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency for each ab atement measure.

The technical effectiveness estimates are then multiplied by the share of total emissions to estimate the abatement potential achievable under each abatement measure.



### IV.12.4.4 Estimating the Break -E ven Price of Abatement Measures

The MAC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits as described in Section 12 .3

to calculate the break

- even price for each abatement measure. Table 12 -5 illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD.

2 Although these gases are used for different PV technologies, for simplicity in this analysis, one general facility producing an unidentifiable PV technology was considered.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 185

### -

- PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



### Ta ble 12 -5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in PV Cell Manufacturing

Abatement Option Reduced
Emissions

(tCO 2 

### e) Annualized Capital Costs

($/tCO 2 

### e) Net Annual
Cost ($/tCO 2 

### e) Tax Benefit of Depreciation

($/tCO 2 

### e) Break Even
Price a 

### ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Thermal abatement

Catalytic abatement

Plasma abatement

NF 3 remote clean 13,625

14,199

1,398

14,427 $143

$167

$444

$117 $24

$32

$37

$234 $40

$46

$124

$17 $128

$152

$358

$334

a Break

- even price calculated using a tax rate of 40% and discount rate of 10%.

As Table 12 -5 shows, the high capital intensity of the abatement measures coupled with no annual

benefits results in break

- even prices that are all well above $100/tCO 2 e

. These significantly higher break

even prices suggest that achieving emission reductions in the PV manufacturing sector will require additional incentives or regulations to control F

- GHG emissions.



### IV.12.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

The global abatement potential for F- GHG reduction s in the PV manufacturing sector is estimated to

be 1.7 MtCO 2 e, or 90 % of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 12 -6 presents the cumulative reductions

achieved at selected break

- even prices for the top five emitting countries and the grouping of countries that make up the rest of each region

. Figure 12 -4 shows the MAC curve s for the top five emitting

countr ies and the rest of world for this sector.



### Table 12 -6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China — — — — — — — — — — 1.1

Germany — — — — — — — — — — 0.1

Japan — — — — — — — — — — 0.2

Malaysia — — — — — — — — — — 0.1

United States — — — — — — — — — — 0.2

Rest of Region

Africa — — — — — — — — — — 0.0

Central and South America — — — — — — — — — — —

Middle East — — — — — — — — — — — Europe — — — — — — — — — — 0.0

Eurasia — — — — — — — — — — 0.0

Asia — — — — — — — — — — 0.1

North America — — — — — — — — — — —

World Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 186$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) China

Japan

Germany

Malaysia

United States PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



### Figure 12 -4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters and Rest of World in 2030

A s the results show, the abatement potential in the PV manufacturing sector can be significant. Unfortunately, these reductions in the absence of additional regulatory or market incentives would only

be achievable at significantly high break

- even prices (>$200/tCO 2 e).



## IV.12.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

The PV industry is a relatively new manufact uring sector, with high levels of growth to meet continually growing demands for renewable energy. There is no comprehensive published information

on the extent abatement systems are really in use in the industry. Assumed a batement system reduction

efficie ncies are really only achievable if the systems are properly operated and maintained, which may not always be the case ( USEPA

, 2008a and 2008b ) . Also, abatement system reduction efficiencies may vary by gas (e.g., CF 4 is hard er to abate than other F

- GHGs because of its thermo

- stability). Additionally, there are not known voluntary reduction initiatives for the PV sector. Because of this the model facility is
uncontrolled, information about the use of abatement in baseline emis sions is highly uncertain.

Other reasons for uncertainties inherent to the baseline emission estimates include assumptions about the portion of the PV manufacturing industry that uses F

- GHGs, and the unpredictability in the growth

of the solar PV production capacity

. The activity data used, the cumulative solar PV capacity, is modeled with its own set of assumptions from the IEA and is framed by the fast

- growing renewable energy sector

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 187PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

As this is the foundation of future baseline emission estimate s, it gives rise to uncertainties. Furthermore,

market dynamics will also contribute to the fluctuations with respect to facilities ’ utilization rates as well

as fractions of PV cells started and inventoried, all of which are assumed constant for purposes of developing baseline emissions

. Another limitation is that the baseline emission estimates do not take into account the retiring of PV cells

. It is assume s that any new manufacturing is done to meet the increase in

installed capacity and not to replace a ny replacement of capacity The emission estimates are hence conservative as inclusion of this assumption would lead to slightly higher emissions for each year. The use of Tier 1 emission factors to estimate emissions also gives rise uncertainty as it is th e “least accurate estimation method” (IPCC, 2006 ). The Tier 1 method gives an aggregate emission estimate for all of the F

GHG using processes simultaneously, which introduces a higher level of uncertainty as the utilization rates of gas es differ between etch and chamber cleaning processes.

Lastly, due to the similarities between this sector and the semiconductor manufacturing sector, the mitigation technologies considered for PV were those used in the semiconductor sector.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 188PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING



## References

Applied Materials. 1999. “ Catalytic Abatement of PFC Emissions. ” Presented at Semicon Southwest 99: Partnership for PFC Emissions Reductions, Austin, TX , October 18, 1999.

Beu, L. 2005

. “ Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 State

- of

- the

- Techn ology Report .”
TT#0510469A -ENG. International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), Albany, New York.
December 2005. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semi conductor

pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf

. Brown et al., 2012. “Catalytic technology for PFC emissions control.” Solid State Technology. Obtained at: http://www.electroiq.com/content/eiq

- 2/en/articles/sst/print/volume

- 44/issue

- 7/featu res/emissions

control/catalytic

- technology

- for

- pfc

- emissions

- control.html . Accessed August 2012. Burton, S. 2003. Personal communication with Brown of Motorola (2002) supplemented by personal communication with Von Gompel of BOC Edwards (2003), research of DuPont’s Zyron Web site (2003), and personal communication with Air Liquide regarding thermal destruction, NF 3 remote clean, and capture membrane unit costs.

CRS, 2012. “ U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal

S upport .” Congressional Research Service. 7- 5700

. R42509

. June 2012. Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42509.pdf

. DisplaySearch. 2009. DisplaySearch Q4’09 Quarterly PV Cell Capacity Database & Trends Report. DisplaySearch, LLC, Santa Clara, California, 2009. EPIA, 2011. “EPIA Working Group Fact Sheet: Sustainability of Photovoltaic Systems, The Carbon Footprint.” European Photovoltaic Industry Association. March 2011. Available at: http://www.epia.org/publications/factsheets.html

. Forbes, 2012. “Report: Solar Panel Supply Will Far Exceed Demand Beyond 2012”. Forbes. Obtained at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/06/27/report

- solar

- panel

- production

- will

- far

- exceed

demand

- beyond

- 2012/

. Fthenakis, V. December 2001. Options for Abating Gr eenhouse Gases from Exhaust Streams . Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 2001. Obtained at: http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/23784.pdf

. Fthenakis , V, Clark. D. O., Moalem , M., and Chandler, P., “Life

- Cycle Nitrogen Trifluoride Emissions
from Photovoltaics .” Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, vol 44, pp. 8750

- 8757. Hattori et al., 2006. “Application of Atmospheric Plasma Abatement System for Exhausted Gas from MEMS Etching Proces s.” Presetned at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing 2006, Tokyo, Japan, September 25

- 27,
2006 . International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010. Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy
– Foldout.
Available online at: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,28528,en.html

. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2012. World Energy Outlook 2012 Available for purchase at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo

- 2012/

. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (Volume 3, Chapter 6: Electronics Industry Emissions), The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 189PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MA NUFACTURING

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008a). Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F

- GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430 -R- 10

- 005). Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: ht tp://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

pfc/documents/nec_report.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008b). Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F

- GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430 -R- 08

- 017). Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

pfc/documents/qimonda_report.pdf

. U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009

. Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F

GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM

. (EPA 430 -R- 10

- 004)

. Washington, DC : Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

- pfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf

. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropo genic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

– 2030. Washington, DC:USEPA, OAR, Climate Change Division. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006.
Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/EPA_Global_NonCO2_Projections_De c2012.pdf

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 1900 7 12 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2000 2010 2020 2030MtCO2e

Year Singapore

Japan

South Korea

China FLAT PANEL DISPLAY



# IV.13. PFC Emissions from Flat Panel Display Manufacturing

IV.13.1 Sector Summary 

# F lat panel display (FPD) manufacturing processes generate fluorinated greenhouse gas (F

- GHG)

emissions including sulfur hexafluoride ( SF 6 ) , nitrogen trifluoride ( NF 3 ), and carbon tetrafluoride ( CF 4 ) , which are used in etching and chamber

- cleaning processes commonly used

in electronic s manufacturing.

Global annual F

- GHG emissions from FPD manufacturing are estimated to be approximately seven

and a half million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent s (MtCO 2 e) in 2010, projected to grow to 12

MtCO 2 e by 2030. 1 Figure 13

- 1 shows the F

- GHG emission projections by country from 2000 to 2030. The growth in emissions is primarily driven by projected growth in manufacturing capacity in China. The baseline projections presented here are updated relative to those presented in Global Anthropogenic Non

CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990 to 2030 (USEPA, 2012 ). The updated projections include lower expected production le vels of Liquid Crystal Displays and increased mitigation, resulting in significantly lower projected emissions. Emissions projections for this sector are particularly uncertain due to limited
information on emissions rates and reduction efficiencies, varia ble industry production growth rates, and rapidly evolving FPD technologies.



### Figure 13 -1: F- GHG Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2000

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 201 2

1 The term flat panel display encompasses many technologies, such as liquid crystal displays, low temperature polysilicon (LTPS) or transparent amorphous oxide semiconductor (TAOS) , and active matrix light emitting diodes (AMOLED). This analysis focuses on liquid crystal displays and does not include newer technologies such as

AMOLEDs.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 191$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 1 2 3 4 5$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 6 2010

2020

2030 FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

Six mitigation technology options were examined for this sector : central abatement, thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF 3 remote chamber clean, and gas replacement.

Global abatement of F- GHG emission s in FPD manufacturing is estimated to be 9.3 MtCO 2 e in 2020

and 9.6 MtCO 2 e in 2030. The emissions reductions equate to 80% of the projected baseline emissions in each year. While all abatement options identified for this sector reduce emissions significantly, none has the ability to reduce or replace 100% of emissions from FPD manufacturing. Figure 13 -2 presents the global MAC curves for 2010, 2020

, and 2030 for the FPD manufacturing sector.



### Figure 13 -2: Global Abatement P otential in FPD Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030

T he following sections of this chapter first describe the activities and sources of F- GHG emissions in the FPD manufacturing sector and present the project ed emissions for 2010 to 2030. Subsequent sections characterize the six abatement measures considered and present the engineering costs assumpt ions used in the MAC analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the MAC modeling assumptions used to estimate the global abatement potential. We conclud e the chapter by presenting the MAC curves for each emitting country and briefly discuss some of the major uncertainties and limitations to our analysis.



## IV.13.2 Emissions from Flat Panel Display Manufacturing

In FPD manufacturing, high global warming pote ntial (GWP) greenhouse gases are used for chemical vapor deposition (CVD) cleaning processes and plasma dry etching during the manufacture of arrays of

thin

- film transistors on glass substrates, which switch pixels of liquid crystal displays and organic li ght

emitting diode displays.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 192Etch, 23%

Clean, 77% FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

To evaluate the cost of reducing F- GHG emissions from FPD manufacturing, this analysis considers the emissions and reduction costs for a typical FPD manufacturing facility (manufacturing processes and

uses of GHGs across the i ndustry are generally similar), characterized based on an average gas consumption, an assu med 25 tools per facility with approximately 3.5 chambers each, and the average

emissions of F- GHGs for etch and clean processes. Figure 13 -3 shows the breakdown of etch and clean emissions for the typical facility.



### Figure 13 -3: Global F- GHG E missions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP

- Weighted Emissions)

IV.13.2.1 A ctivity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

FPD facility

- level emissions were modeled using estimated gas consumption data based on World LCD Industry Cooperation Committee (WLICC) reported data and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) Tier 2b emission factors. Because the WLICC does not fully repres ent all world manufacturing capacity, global emissions were estimated using estimated global capacity, in terms of area of substrate produced, from the DisplaySearch Equipment Database and IPCC Tier 1 emission factors for FPD manufacturing as opposed to us ing WLICC gas consumption information.

Global emission estimates take into account the WLICC goal, which was agreed to by all three member associations. The goal is to meet and maintain an aggregate 2010 F

- GHG emission target of 10% of projected business -as- usual 2010 emissions, or 3.01 MtCO 2 e (expressed in the goal as 0.82 million tons of carbon equivalent)

. (This emission reduction goal was met in 2010 ; hence

, mitigation technologies and strategies were assumed to have penetrated the market to a certain extent already in WLICC Partner

coun tries Japan, Taiwan, and Korea .) The WLICC member associations are estimated to have 96% of the world’s FPD manufacturing capacity in 2010. It is assumed

, therefore

, that there has already been some level of mitigation te chnology penetration to meet the stated goal in this sector in the baseline projections. Current market trends indicate major growth for capacity in this sector shifting to China, and without a reduction goal or mitigation measures, FPD emissions in China will drastically increase.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 193FLAT PANEL DISPLAY



### IV.13.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

The large majority of FPD manufacturing is in Asia, and production capacity con tinues to grow in that region. As shown in Table 13 -1 , f rom 2010 to 2030, emissions from globa l FPD manufacturing are expected to grow by a factor of 54 times, from 3 MtCO 2 e in 2010 to 162 MtCO 2 e in 2030. Much of this growth occurs between 2015 and 2030. This increase is expected to be attributed to growth in production

and emission s in China for two reasons: (1) an expected increase in China’s domestic demand for FPDs, and much of this demand will be met through domestic p roduction (DisplaySearch

, 2010 ); and (2) China’s share of world emissions is projected to steeply increase partly because e missions for the WLICC member countries are assumed to meet and maintain the reduction goal of 3.01 MtCO 2 e

. 

### Table 13 -1: Projected Baseline Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR a 

### (2010

– 2030)

China 1.9 3.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.8%

South Korea 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.6 0.5%

Japan 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2%

Singapore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.4%

World Total 7.4 9.5 11.7 11.9 12.0 2.4%

a CAGR= Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: USEPA, 201 2



## IV.13.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

S ix mitigation technology options were identified for the FPD manufacturing sector : central abatement, thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF 3 remote chamber clean, and gas replacement.

• Central abatement : These are large

- scale abatement system s that are generally located on the

roof of facilities and are applicable to etch emissions (SF 6 ).

• Thermal abatement : These point

- of

- use (POU) abatement systems, that use heat to destroy or

remove F

- GHGs from effluent process streams, are connected directly to a manufacturing tool.

• Catalytic abatement : Tool effluent process streams are run through POU abatement systems wi th catalysts (e.g., CuO, ZnO, Al 2 O 3 ) that destroy or remove F

- GHGs.

• Plasma abatement : P lasma in a POU abatement system is used to react (destroy or remove)

F- GHG s from the process effluent stream.

• NF 3 remote chamber clean : Highly ionized NF 3 is used to cl ean chemical vapor deposition chambers. This process is highly efficient (using ~98 % of the gas in a process) resulting in lower

emissions on a mass and CO 2 basis than traditional in

- situ chamber clean processes which uses approximately 20 % to 50 % of the g as in a process ( IPCC, 2006 ).

• G as replacement : Higher GWP gases are replaced with lower GWP gases.

Table 13 -2 presents the reduction efficiency and the applicability of each mitigation technology to

emissi ons from a type of process ( etch and/ or clean)

. The next sections describe each of these mitigation options in more detail.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 194Central abatement Etch 77% CDM project #3333

Thermal abatement Etch and clean 95% Fthenaki s ( 2001 ) , Beu ( 2005 ) , and US EPA ( 2009 )

Catalytic abatement Etch and clean 99% Fthenaki s ( 2001 ), Brown et al. ( 2012 )

Plasma abatement Etch 97% Fthenaki s ( 2001 ), Hattori et al. ( 2006 )

NF 3 remote chamber cl ean

Gas replacement Clean 95% Beu ( 2005 )

Clean 77% CDM methods NM0289, NM303, NM0317, NM0335 FLAT PANEL DISPLAY



### Table 13 -2: FPD Manufacturing Abatement Options

Abatement Option Applicable Process Emissions Type(s) Reduction Efficiency Information Source

IV.13.3.1 Central Abatement

Central abatement systems (CAS) have begun to be designed and used to handle the generally high gas (SF 6 ) flows used in FPD manufacturing because of the large size of the substrate being etched. A CAS

is a large

- scale thermal oxidation abatement system that is located on the roof of FPD facilities, so there are little expected space limitations for this technology . This technology has recently started to come online and is only appl icable to etch emissions. T wo CDM projects (one from LG and one from Samsung)

in Korea have use d this technology ( CDM Project #3440 and CDM project #3333 ) . Its use is

, however

, limited throughout the rest of the industry because it is expensive and relatively new

. The capital cost for a CAS is $4.5 million. The annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, which include items such as utilities and parts, is estimated to be $2.5 m illion for a facility. N o revenues are generated from using a CAS.



### IV.13.3.2 Thermal Abatement

Thermal abatement systems can be used to abate emissions from both etching and CVD chamber

cleaning processes. The use of thermal abatement offers the benefit of not affe cting the manufacturing process (Applied Materials, 1999 ) ; however

, the systems do require space that may not be available in

some facilities. In addition , these systems require large amounts of cooling water, and t he use of the
systems results in regulated NO

x emissions.

T he t otal facility capital cost for install ing thermal abatement systems is estimated to be $5.7 million.

This estimate include s costs for the systems, the necessary ducting, water recirculation and hook up, and natural gas costs (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton, 2003 ). The annual operating cost is estimated to be $328,860 at the facility level. N o annual savings are associated with using this technology.



### IV.13.3.3 Catalytic Abatement

A catalytic abatement system is used to abate emissions from both etching and CVD chamber

cleaning processes. This type of abatement is applicable at most facilities, but again there may be some space constraints

, as also discussed for thermal abatement systems , limiting the use of these systems in the market. Another limitation to their use is high catalyst replacement costs.

The capital cost associated with purchas ing and install ing the abatement systems is estimated to be
$6.9 mi llion per facility. To use catalytic abatement systems, facilities must factor in the annual cost of resources such as water, waste chemicals, electricity, and catalyst replacements. To cover these operating expenses, a facility manufacturing FPDs is estim ated to incur an annual cost of $455,280. As with other

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 195FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

abatement technologies considered in this sector, the use of thermal abatement systems will not result in annual savings.



### IV.13.3.4 Plasma Abatement

Plasma abatement systems are assumed to be applicable to etch processes in most facilities, with some physical space limitations. (These systems , however, are relatively smaller in size compared with thermal and catalytic systems .) Plasma abatement systems use a small pla sma source that effectively

dissociates the F- GHG molecules that react with fragments of the additive gas ( hydrogen ( H 2 )

, oxygen (O 2 ) water ( H 2 O ), or methane ( CH 4 ) ) to produce low molecular weigh t by

- products such as hydrogen

, fluoride ( HF ) with little or no global warming potential ( GWP )

. After disassociation, wet scrubbers can remove the molecules. The presence of additive gas is necessary to prevent later downstream reformation

of F- GHG molecules (Motoro la

, 1998 ).

The capital cost for plasma abatement systems is estimated to be $1.8 million per facility (Fthenakis

, 2001 ; Burton, 2003 ), which covers the purchase and installation of plasma systems. Plasma abatement
systems require an annual operation cost of $1,190 per chamber, which includes general maintenance and use of the systems. T he t otal annual facility cost is $51,850 based on an assumed number of tools per facility and chambers per tool. The use of plasma abatement systems will not result in annual cost savings.



### IV.13.3.5 NF 3 

### Remote Chamber Clean

NF 3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that has the benefit of having a particularly high utilization rate of NF 3 (~98 % ; IPCC, 2006 ), resulting in relatively low emissions compared with traditional chamber clean s

. (Note: The stated utilization is based on utilizations for semiconductor manufacturing ; as a result of large gas flows in FPD manufacturing the actual utilization may be l ower.) NF 3 remote clean systems dissociate NF 3 using argon gas, converting the source gas to

active F

- atoms in the plasma, upstream of the process chamber. These electrically neutral atoms can selectively remove material in the chamber. The by

- products of remote clean include HF, fluorine ( F 2 ), and other gases

, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber systems. The use of NF 3 remote clean systems is much more pr evalent in new facilities because the technology was not available when many old facili ties were constructed

.

It is assumed that FPD facilities are not “NF 3 ready” ; in other words

, these facilities do not have the

current infrastructure to handle the direct installation of NF 3 remote systems because this is a relatively new technology. Therefore

, facilities incur capital costs, in addition to system costs, associated with items such as gas hook ups and necessary hardware such as manifolds and values. The facility cost is estimated
to be $9.2 million. The annual f acility cost for NF 3 remo te clean is estimated to be $3.3 million ( Burton,

2003 ). This cost is associated with the purchase of larger volumes of gas (NF 3 versus traditional chamber clean gases), general maintenance, and F 2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas from the effluent. N o annual cost savings are associated with using this technology.



### IV.13.3.6 Gas Replacement

Gas replacement can be used to mitigate emissions from the traditional CVD chamber

- cleaning

process. Gas replacement can be applied in most facilities and has already been used throughout the industry in many instances. For this strategy, a lower GWP gas replaces a higher GWP gas. The most common replacement is using NF 3 to replace SF 6 . Facilities replacing SF 6 with NF 3 incur an estimated ca pital cost of $1.2 million for items such as gas hook ups and implementation

. Annual savings for this option result from the lower cost of the

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 196Central abatement 15 $4,487,400 $0 $2,547,000 13,889

Thermal abatement 7 $5,701,971 $0 $328,862 62,587

Catalytic abatement 7 $6,906,594 $0 $455,277 65,222

Plasma abatement 7 $1,814,664 $0 $ 51,847 14,941

NF 3 remote clean 21 $9,200,867 $0 $3,374,861 56,496

Gas replacement 21 $1,180,000 $34,400 $0 22,797 FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

replacement gas and were estimated to be $34,400 , based on the incremental cost of the gases and the

average amou nt of gas consumed per facility. Gas replacement has no operational costs.



### IV.13.3.7 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics

Table 13 -3 summarizes the information used to estimate the break

- even prices discussed in the following section

. 

### Table 13 -3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis

Abatement Option Project
Lifetime (Years) Capital Costs (2010 USD) Annual
Revenue (2010 USD) Annual O&M
Costs (2010 USD) Abatement
Amount (tCOe)



## IV.13.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This section discusses the modeling approach and documents some additional assumptions used in the MAC analysis for the FPD manufacturing sector.



### IV.13.4.1 Methodological Approach

The MAC analysis applies the abatement measure costs discussed in the previous section at the model FPD manufacturing facility to calculate a break

- even price for each abatement measure. This section presents how we defined the model facility used in this analysis and the technical ef fectiveness assumptions used to estimate the incremental reductions for each measure. This section also provides an example of how the break

- even prices were calculated for each option.



### IV.13.4.2 Facility Definition

The typical facility considered in this analysis represents an average

- sized FPD facility, with an estimated 25 tools and 3.5 chambers per tool. Based on WLICC

- reported emissions data, the facility is

assumed have an emissions breakdown of 23% etch emissions and 7 7 % chamber clean emissions, whic h assumes a certain level of abatement is used. The facility emission breakdown is essential to this analysis,

because some mitigation technologies are applicable to either both or just one type of manufacturing process (see Table 13 -2 above).



### IV.13.4.3 E stimating the Technical Effectiveness Parameter

Similar to the methods employed for analyzing abatement in the semiconductor and photovoltaics manufacturing sectors, this analysis developed a technical effectiveness parameter, defined as the
percentage reductions achievable by each technology/process combination. Estimating this parameter requires assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions by manufacturing process (etch and clean)

, in addition to process

- specific assumptions on technical applica bility and market penetration. These

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 197FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

assumptions are held constant for all model years in the MAC analysis

. Table 13 -4 presents the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency assumptions used to develop the abatement

measures’ technical effectiveness parameters.



### Table 13 -4: Technical Effectiveness Summary Etch (23%) Clean (77%)

Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Technical Applicability Market
Penetration Reduction Efficiency Technical
Effectiveness Abatement Measure

Central abatement 100% 40% 0% n/a 77% 7%

Thermal abatement 85% 30% 85% 55% 95% 40%

Catalytic abatement 85% 10% 85% 15% 99% 12%

Plasma abatement 85% 20% 0% n/a 97% 4%

NF 3 remote clean 0% n/a 100% 20% 95% 15%

Gas replacement 0% n/a 50% 10% 77% 3%

The technical effectiveness is a weighted average of the abatement measure ’s emissions reductions when applied to each applicable process (es) . T he share of total emissions attributed to each process (i.e.

, 23% etching and 77% cleaning) is the weight which is multiplied by the product of the technical applicability, market penetration, and reduction efficiency for each abatement measure. The technical effectiveness estimates are then multiplied by the facility annual emissions to estimate the abatement
poten tial achievable through each of the six abatement measures. Summing the technical effectiveness across the six abatement measures yields the maximum level of emissions reductions that is technically

achievable.



### IV.13.4.4 Estimating Break -E ven Prices

The M AC model uses the estimated abatement project costs and benefits as described in Section 6.3 to
calculate the break

- even price for each abatement measure. Table 13 -5 illustrates the break

- even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD.



### Table 13 -5: Example Break

- Even Prices for Abatement Measures in FPD Manufacturing

Reduced Annualized Net Annual Tax Benefit of Break

- Even
Emissions Capital Costs Cost Depreciation Price Abatement Option (tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e) ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Central Abatement System 13,889 $71 $183 $14 $240

Thermal abatement 62,587 $31 $5 $9 $28

Catalytic abatement 65,222 $36 $7 $10 $33

Plasma abatement 14,941 $42 $7 $12 $37

NF3 remote clean 56,496 $31 $60 $5 $86

Gas replacement 22,797 $10 $0 $2 $8

As Table 13 -5 shows, having no annual benefits and high initial capital costs results in relatively higher break

- even prices. Break

- even prices range between $ 8 and $240 /tCO 2 e based on the initial cost assumptions (unadjusted for country

- specific prices). Gas replacement is the cheapest of the six options

with a break

- even price of $ 8 /tCO 2 e. The CAS is the most expensive at $ 240 /tCO 2 e. These costs are

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 198$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 5.0 China

Singapore

Japan

South Korea FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

relatively high compared to some other sectors examined in this report, however they can be better

understood in perspective of the high costs associated with this manufacturing industry. For example in 2004, Samsung and Sony invested more than $3 billion in capital costs for two new FPD production lines (Ramstad, 2011 ).



### IV.13.4.5 MAC Analys is Results

The global abatement potential for F- GHG emissions reductions in the FPD manufacturing sector is

estimated to be 9.6 MtCO 2 e, or 80% of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 13 -6 presents the

cumulative reductions achieved at selected break

- even prices for China, Japan, Singapor e, and South

Korea. These are the only four countries with projected emissions in 2030 in the FPD manufacturing

sector. Figure 13 -4 presents the resulting MAC curves for each country in 2030.



### Table 13 -6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country

− 10

− 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

China — — — — — — — 2.4 2 .5 2.8 4.7

Japan — — — — — — — — — 0.2 0.4

Singapore — — — — — — — — — 0.0 0.0

South Korea — — — — — — — — 2.2 2.4 4.5

World Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.7 5.3 9.6



### Figure 13 -4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve s by Emitting County in 2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 199FLAT PANEL DISPLAY

As the results show, the abatement potential in the FPD manufacturing sector can be significant (80% of sectoral emissions). Over 2.4 MtCO 2 e of F- GHG emissions could be reduced in China at a carbon price
of ~$25/tCO 2 e; these reductions alone represent 20 % of global emissions in 2030.



## IV.13.5 Uncertainties and Limitations

Because of the similarities between this sector and the semiconductor manufacturing sector, most mitigation technologies (and hence cost estimates) are assumed to be the same as for the semiconductor manufacturing sector (with the exception of the CAS technology)

. W e made this assumption because of the limited amount of public information on the extent to which various types of mitigation technologies are being used in this sector.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 200FLAT PANEL DISPLAY



## References

Applied Materials. 1999. Catalytic Abatement of PFC Emissions . Presented at Semicon Southwest 99: Partnership for PFC Emissions Reductions, October 18, 1999, Austin, TX.

Bartos, S. 2010. Draft: A Review of WLICC’s Progress Toward Reducing Potent GHG Emissions from the Manufacture of Liquid Crystal Displays

. Washington DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Beu, L. December 2005. Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 State

- of

- the

- Technology Report

, TT#0510469A

- ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI)

. Brown et. al., 2012. “ Catalytic technology for PFC emissions control.” Solid State Technology. Obtained

at: http://www.electroiq .com/content/eiq

- 2/en/articles/sst/print/volume

- 44/issue

- 7/features/emissions

control/catalytic

- technology

- for

- pfc

- emissions

- control.html . Accessed August 2012. Burton, S. 2003. Personal communication with Brown of Motorola (2002) supplemented by person al communication with Von Gompel of BOC Edwards (2003), research of DuPont’s Zyron Web site (2003), and personal communication with Air Liquide regarding thermal destruction, NF 3 Remote Clean, and Capture Membrane unit costs. CDM Project #3440 and CDM project #3333 . Project data available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html DisplaySearch. 2010. DisplaySearch Q4'09 Quarterly FPD Supply/Demand and Capital Spending Report

. DisplaySearch , LLC

, Santa Clara, California, 2010

. Fthenakis, V. December 2001. Options for Abating Greenhouse Gases from Exhaust Streams . Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 2001. Obtained at: http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/23784.pdf

. Hattori et al. , 2006. “ Application of Atmospheric Plasma Abatement System for Exhausted Gas from MEMS Etching Process.” Presetned at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Symposium o n Semiconductor Manufacturing 2006, Tokyo, Japan, September 25

- 27,
2006 . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) . 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (Volume 3, Chapter 6: Electronics Industry Emissions), The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Motorola. October 18, 1998. “ Long

- term Evaluation of Litmus “Blue” Induct ively

- Coupled Plasma Device
for Point

- of

- Use PFC and HFC Abatement .” Presented at Semicon Southwest 99: A Partnership for PFC Emissions Reductions, Austin, TX.
Prather, M., and J. Hsu. June 2008. “NF 3 , the Greenhouse Gas Missing from Kyoto.” Geophysical R esearch
Letters 35.
Ramstad, E. December, 2011. “ Samsung Electronics Ends LCD Venture With Sony .” Wall Street Journal
US. Edition. Published on December 27, 2011. Rothlisberger, L. May 5, 2011. Documentation of meeting between Lukas Rothlisberger of DILO a nd Paul
Stewart of ICF International.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009

. Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F

GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM (EPA 430 -R- 10

- 004), Office of Air and Radiation Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor

pfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV

- 201

# V. Agriculture SectorCROPLANDS



# V. 1. Non -Rice Croplands

V.1 .1 Sector Summary 

# L and management in croplands influences soil N 2 O emissions, CH 4 fluxes, and soil organic carbon (C) stocks (and associated CO 2 fluxes to the atmosphere). Soil N 2 O emissions are influenced by human activity, including synthetic nitrogen fertilization practices, application of organic fe rtilizers such as manure, drainage of organic soils, cultivation o f N

- fixing crops , and

enhancement of N mineralization in soils th rough practices such as cultivation/management of na tive grasslands and forests (Mosier et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2007). Globally, N 2 O em issions from agricultura l soils increased by about 19% between 1990 and 2010 While N 2 O emissions from all sources gre w only 4%

. In 2010, soil N 2 O emissions account for approximately 56 % of the global N 2 O emissions , up from 51 % in

1990

. 1 In contrast to soil N 2 O, where there are sizable annual fluxes that depend on human activity, soil organic C stocks are assumed to be approximately in equilibrium. 2

The marginal abatement cost curves presented in this chapter consider mitigation strategies that apply to only a fraction of the total emissions from agriculture. Specifically, the following categories are

included:

• Direct and indirect emissions from mineral

- based cropland soils processes

– Synthetic and organic fertilization

– Residue N

– Mineralization and asymbiotic fixation , based on temperature and moisture, etc.

• Major crops supplemented by selected similar minor crops

– Barley (plus rye)

– Maize (plus green corn)

– Sorghum

– Soybeans (plus lentils, other beans)

– Wheat (plus oats)
In addition, c ompared to the estimates typically developed for GHG inventories, the emissions presented in this chapter will be lower because the following ty pes of emissions are excluded due to data

and resource limitations :

• Drainage of organic soils.

• Grassland soils

• Other crops not mentioned above (e.g. vegetables)

• Restoration of degraded lands

• Burning of residues or biofuel
The focus is on emissions from major crops, which is consistent with our evaluation of mitigation options that can be applied to mitigate emissions from these major crops in this chapter.

1 Global total N 2 O emissions were 3240.7 MtCO 2 e in 1990 and 3,519.6 MtCO 2 e in 2010. Agricultural soils total N 2 O
emissions were 1,658.1 MtCO 2 e in 1990 and 1,969.0 MtCO2e in 2010 (USEPA, 2012)

.

2 Major changes in soil C occurred when land was first cultivated, but changes associated w ith agricultural soil management are approximately balanced at a global scale based on current management and land use change trends (Smith et al., 2007).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 1CROPLANDS

For the period 2010

— 2030 a business

- as

- usual forecast was constructed using projected growth rates in acreage, output, prices, yields, population, and GDP by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) (Nelson et al., 201 0)

. The IFPRI IMPACT model projections provide a set of prices consistent

4 with population and productivity assumptions for the MAC analysis. 3

,
Figure 1- 1 presents projected baseline N 2 O and CH 4 emissions and changes in soil organic carbon

from non

- rice cropland soils; As shown in Figure 20

- 1, N 2 O emissions from global non

- rice cropland soils are projected to be 506, 500 and 504 million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MtCO 2 e) in 2010, 2020 and

203 0, respectively. 5 Non- rice cropland soils are a net sink for methane, sequestering approximately 38

MtCO 2 e of CH 4 per year. The estimated net changes in soil organic carbon suggest that the carbon stock changes are roughly balanced at the global scale.



### Figure 1- 1: Global Baseline Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands by GHG: 2010

- 2030

Net

474.1 Net

459.9 Net

472.3

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2010 2020 2030MtCO2e

Year CH4

N2O

Soil C

3 T he IMPACT outputs separated the world into 116 regions, with larger countries defined individually and smaller countries combined into regions

. A m apping was created between IMPACT regions and the 195 countries in this analysis, using shares of country

- level Non

- Rice Croplands population in 2010 based on US EPA (201 2) to disaggregate regional projection s from the IMPACT model to individual countries within each region.

4 The business as usual forecast excludes such potential drivers as deforestation, biofuels expansion and changes in consumer preferences for meat.

5 The relative constant GHG emissions p rojected in the baseline are mainly driven by the DAYCENT modeling that assumes the same management practices are applied throughout the study period as well as relatively small changes in demand in the IMPACT model projections.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-2CROPLANDS

Figure 1- 2 presents the projected net GHG emissions (N 2 O and CH 4 ) from the top

- five emitting

countries. The top 5 countries of China, India, the United States, Brazil and Argentina represent about 63% of global net emissions from cropland in 2010.



### F igure 1- 2: Baseline Net GHG Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands, Top Five Emitting Countries

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500MtCO2e 474 460 472

2010 2020 2030
Year Argentina

Brazil

India

United_States

China

ROW

Note : ROW indicates Rest of the World



### Table 1-1: Projected Net GHG Baseline Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands by Country: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR
(2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 109 123 116 115 105

- 0.2%

U.S.A 82 80 71 84 86 0.2%

India 60 58 61 61 66 0.5%

Brazil 35 32 33 33 34

- 0.2%

Argentina 14 16 14 16 13

- 0.2%

Rest of Regions

Asia 31 26 27 27 27

- 0.8%

Africa 31 26 30 28 29

- 0.3%

Europe 62 56 59 63 60

- 0.2%

Middle East 4 9 7 9 10 4.2%

Central & South America 13 14 15 15 15 0.8%

Eurasia 18 14 15 15 13

- 1.4%

North America 15 15 14 16 14

- 0.2%

World Totals 474 470 460 482 472 0.0%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 3CROPLANDS

Figure 1-3 presents the MAC curves for the global non

- rice croplands, in 2010, 2020 and 2030. The

non

- rice croplands MAC curves presented in this chapter are distinctive because they show less abatement potential in 2030 than in 2010
– the 2030 curve is to the left or “inside” the 2020 and 2010

curves. This is due to the effect of soils becoming “saturated” with C and reaching a new equilibrium within a few years of a management change. In other words, the 2020 mitigation estimate is the change
from the baseline emissions in 2020, for a management change started in 2010

. MAC analysis of the mitigation options described above suggests that at a relatively low carbon pric e of $5 per ton of CO 2 equivalent ($/tCO 2 e), net GHG abatement potential for global non

- rice cropland soils is approximately 65 MtCO 2 e, or about 1 3% of its baseline net emissions of 476 MtCO 2 e in 2010. Mitigation potential at $5/ tCO 2 e reduces to 1 0 % of th e sector’s baseline emissions in 2020 and 6 % in 2030.



### Figure 1- 3: Global MAC Curve for Net GHG Reductions from Non

- Rice Cropland Soils

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030

The following section offers a brief description of the model used. Section IV.20. 3 present s selected abatement technologies, their technical specifications, costs and potential benefits. Section IV.20. 4

discusses the MAC analysis and estimated abatement potential and at global and regional levels

. The

final section discusses uncertainties and limitations

.



## V.1 .2 Emissions from Non

- Rice Croplands

V. 1 .2.1 Methodology

The DAYCENT ecosystem model was used to estimate crop yields, N 2 O and CH 4 emissi ons, and soil C stocks in this analysis. DAYCENT is a pro cess

- based model (Parton et al., 1998; Del Gr osso et al. , 2001 )

that simulates biogeochemical C and N fluxes between the atmosphere, vegetation, and soil by

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-4CROPLANDS

representing the influence of environmental conditions on these fluxes including soil characteristics and weather patterns, crop and forage qualities

, and management practices. DAYCENT utilizes the soil C modeling framework developed in the Century model (Parton et al. 1987, 1988, 1994; Metherell et al. 1993), with refinement to simulate C dynamics at a daily time

- step. Key processes si mulated by

DAYCEN T include crop production, organic matter formation and decomposition, soil water and temperature regimes by layer, in addition to nitrification and denitrification processes. DAYCENT has

been evaluated in several studies ( e.g., Del Grosso et al. 2002, 200 5, 2009) and has also been recently adopted by EPA to develop the soil C and soil estimates for the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (EPA, 2013) submitted to the UNFCCC.

Crop yields, direct N 2 O and CH 4 emissions, and soil organic C stock changes were simulated by

DAYCENT at a 0.5° grid resolution. Indirect N 2 O emissions 6 were estimated simulated amounts of nitrate leaching, N runoff in overland water flow, and N O
x emissions from a site according to the DAYCENT

model 7 combined with the IPCC default factors for indirect N 2 O emissions ( De Klein et al

., 2006)

. In order to represent the longer term effect of cultivation on soil C, simulations started in 1700 after a simulation of 3000 years of native vegetation, which is a similar procedure to the methods applied in the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory for agricultural soil C and N 2 O ( US EPA

, 201 3 ).

For this study, a number of data sources were used to establish the business

- as

- usual baseline conditions and simulate alternative management options for the global non

- rice croplands. Weather data were based on a dataset generated by the North American Ca rbon Program at a 0.5° resolution with daily minimum and maximum temperatures and daily precipitation

. 8 The soils data were based on the FAO Digitized Soil Map of the World (FAO 1996)

. Major cropland areas of the world were simulated according to a global c ropland map developed by Ramankutty et al. (2008) , with grid cells with less than 5% cropland area excluded in the analysis.

Native vegetation data are described in Cramer and Field (1999) and Melillo et al. (1993). Natural vegetation was converted to cro pland in the DAYCENT simulations at an approximate first year of cultivation, based on historical records compiled by Ramankutty and Foley (199 8 ) and Ramankutty et al., (2008).

Due to lack of global data availability, l ow input crop production with intens ive tillage practices were assumed prior to 1950 , consistent with typical practices in that time period . From 1950 to 2010,

m anagement was based on data including tillage and residue management, weeding practices, mineral N
fertilization, manure N amendmen ts to soils, and irrigation

. Crop planting and harvest dates were based on Sacks et al. (2008). Crops were assumed to grow in monoculture due to in sufficient data for determining typical crop rotation practices from the global datasets. Maize and sorghum were double

cropped in some regions based on Sacks et al. (2008). Model performance was evaluated by comparing simulated crop yields to observed crop yields (Monfreda et al. 2008), and minor adjustments were made to parameters in order to be reasonably cons is tent with the observed yields. More detail on the input data and simulation framework is provided in Appendix O.

6 N 2 O emissions occurring with transport of N from one site to another where N 2 O emissions occur with N addition.

7 The same method as used in the US National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (USEPA, 2013).

8 The Multi

- Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP) developed consistent weather data in order to “isolate, interpret, and address differences in process parameterizations among [terrestrial biospheric models]” Source: http://nacp.ornl.gov/MsTMIP.shtml

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 5CROPLANDS

Global DAYCENT modeling was carried out for irrigated and non

- irrigated production systems for maize, wheat, barley, soybean and sorghum. Crop yields and GHG fluxes were simulated at the

0.5° resolution for periods 2000

- 2010 and 2011

- 2030 with five

- year inc rements. A baseline scenario is

established for each crop production system assuming business

- as

- usual management practices described above. Seven mitigation scenarios were then analyzed (see Section 3.4 below ).

Emissions estimated by the DAYCENT model for major crop types (maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, soybean and millet) were based on emissions per unit (m2) of physical area in each in each 0.5° x 0.5° grid cell, and so were multiplied by an estimate of cropland area in each grid cell to compute total GH G

emissions. We approximated crop

- specific areas using harvested area data. First, crop

- specific harvested areas for each 0.5° x 0.5° grid cell were estimated from Monfreda et al. (2008). For each grid cell where we

simulated double

- cropping for maize or sorghum, we reduced maize or sorghum harvested area by 50%. Next, harvested areas for analogous crops were added to areas of the major crop types ( i. e., oats with

wheat , rye with barley, green corn with maize, and lentil, green bean, string bean, broad bean , cow pea, chickpea and dry bean with soybean s ) to increase the coverage of cropla nd area

. The sums of harvested areas fractions computed in this manner were less than total cropland areas (Ramankutty et al. 2008) for all but 1.6% of grid cells. In the las t step, total harvested area was scaled to match at the country scale data on harvested areas reported in FAOSTAT. By including analogous crops and matching FAOSTAT

harvested areas , the cropland area simulated by DAYCENT was about 61% of the global non

- ric e cropland areas reported by FAOSTAT.

Projected baseline emissions and crop production we re then est ablished for both irrigated and rainfed production systems using simulated yields and GHG emissions rates from DAYCENT model and adjusting with projected g rowth rates of these production systems by IFPRI’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade ( IMPACT ) model

. In DAYCENT

, crop production areas were held constant at the 2010 level to obtain the biophysical effects of management practice change s on crop yields and GHG fluxes. Projected acreage changes from IMPACT model reflect

socio

- economic drivers such as population growth and technological changes to meet global food

demand (Nelson et al., 2010)

.



## V.1 .3 Abatement Mea sures and Engineering Cost Analysis

V. 1 .3.1 Mitigation Technologies

The mitigation options evaluated in this analysis were based on review of the literature to identify the most promising options, while also taking data availability and potential for modeling within

DAYCENT into consideration. The mitigation options represent alternative management practices that would alter crop yields and the associated GHG emissions, including adoption of no

- till management, split N fertilization applications, application of nitrification inhibitors, increased N fertilization (20%

increase over business

- as

- usual), decreased N fertilization (20% reduction from business

- as

- usual), and 100% crop residue incorporation

. The N management practices ( split N fertilization, nitrification inhibitors, increased and decreased N fertilization) influence N 2 O emissions in addition to soil organic C stocks due to reduced or enhanced C inputs associated with the level of crop production. Smith et al. (2007) estimated that 89% of the overall technical potential for mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions is associated with carbon sequestration in soils. Although soil organic C stock fluxes are negligible in the baseline, there is considerable opportunity to modify stocks in the future. Levels of soil organic matter and in particular soil carbon both influence, and are influenced by cropland productivity

. Other things being equal, higher crop yields may increase soil C wherever more crop residue can be incorporated into the s oil. Similarly,

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-6CROPLANDS

reducing crop residue removal would impact soil organic C stocks by changing the amount of C input to the soil. Practices such as adoption of conservation tillage, restoration of degraded lands, improved water and nutrient management, and cropping intensification can increase soil carbon by enhancing C inputs to soils from greater crop production or decrease the losses of C from soils with lower decomposition rates (Paustian et al. 1997 ; Six et al

. , 2000 ).



### No

**- Till Adoption** 

All cultivation and field preparation events were removed except for seeding, which occurred directly into the residue.

• Applicability: This option is available in all regions and all time periods

• Economic Applicability and Cost: There are reductions in labor costs associa ted with the reduction in field preparation that are based on data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data, which provides labor estimates for conventional and conservation tillage on both irrigated an d rain

- fed land by major crop. Conversion to no

- till would require purchasing equipment for direct planting. However, if this equipment is purchased in place of equipment used for traditional tillage, there may be little incremental capital cost associated with no

- till. Some crop budgets actually indicate lower capital

costs for no

- till because of the need for fewer passes over the field, which lead to reduced equipment depreciation. Thus, no incremental capital costs were assumed for no

- till adoption.

• Add itional Factors: In cases where yields change as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.



### Reduced **F ertilization** 

This option reduced baseline fertilizer application levels by 20 %.

• Applicabil ity : This option is available in all regions and all time periods with nonzero baseline fertilizer application levels.

• Economic Applicability and Cost: This option reduces operation costs by the value of fertilizer

withheld.

• Additional Factors: In cases wh ere yields decrease as a result, the reduction in production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.



### Increased Fertilization

This option increased baseline fertilizer application levels by 20 %.

• Applicability: Th is option is available in all regions and all time periods with nonzero baseline fertilizer application levels.

• Economic Applicability and Cost: This option increases operation costs by the value of additional

fertilizer used.

• Additional Factors: In cases where yields increase as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 7CROPLANDS



### Split N Fertilization

Under this option, the baseline N application amount was applied in three separate and equal

a mounts (planting day, 16 days after planting day, and 47 days after planting day) instead of once on planting day

. 9

• Applicability: This option is available in all regions and all time periods with nonzero baseline fertilizer application levels.

• Economic A pplicability and Cost: This option was assumed to require 14 % more labor to account for additional passes over the fields to apply fertilizer multiple times rather than only once.

• Additional Factors: In cases where yields change as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.



### Nitrification Inhibitors

The baseline N application amount was applied once annually on date of planting. Nitrification inhibitors were applied at time of fertilization, and reduced nitrification by 50% for 8 weeks 10

.

• Applicability: This option is available in all regions and all time periods with nonzero baseline fertilizer application levels.

• Economic Applicability and Cost: The costs of this option include the cost of the n itrification

i nhibitor , assumed to be $20 per hectare for the United States (Scharf et al., 2005) and scaled to other regions.

• Additional Factors: In cases where yields change as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.



### 100% Residue Incorporation

In this option, all crop residue was assumed to remain after harvest. This option serves to evaluate

how reducing removals would impact soil organic C stocks.

• Applicability: This option is available in all regions and all time periods

• Economic Applicability and Cost: No cost is associated with this option.

• Additional Factors: In cases where yields change as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other b enefits are included in this option.

9 F ollowing Del Grosso et al. (2009).

10 Following Del Grosso et al. (2009) and Branson et al. (1992).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-8CROPLANDS



### Table 1-2: DAYCENT Base Mean Yields, and Differences from Mean Yield for Mitigation Strategies, by
Year (Metric tons of Grain per Hectare)

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Maize

Base Yield 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.59 3.6

No

- Till 0

- 0.25

- 0.17

- 0.12

- 0.07
Optimal N fertilization* 0 2.9 3.05 3.1 3.08
Split N Fertilization 0 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.18

100% Residue Inc. 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24

Nitrification Inhibitors 0

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.01

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.05

- 0.36

- 0.39

- 0.4

- 0.4

Increased Fertilization 0.04 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.31

Millet

Base Yield 1.16 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.12

No

- Till 0

- 0.09

- 0.07

- 0.05

- 0.03
Optimal N fertilization* 0 2.38 2.59 2.55 2.61
Split N Fertilization 0 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08

100% Residue Inc. 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.01

- 0.08

- 0.09

- 0.1

- 0.1

Increased Fertilization 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09
Sorghum

Base Yield 2.34 2.34 2.35 2.33 2.32

No

- Till 0

- 0.18

- 0.13

- 0.1

- 0.06
Optimal N fertilization* 0 3.07 3.27 3.19 3.25
Split N Fertilization 0 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14

100% Residue Inc. 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.17

Nitrification Inhibitors 0

- 0.02

- 0.03

- 0.02

- 0.02

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.03

- 0.22

- 0.25

- 0.26

- 0.27

Increased Fertilization 0.03 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.23

Winter Wheat

Base Yield 2.94 2.92 2.89 2.8 2.87

No

- Till 0

- 0.13

- 0.11

- 0.07

- 0.05
Optimal N fertilization* 0 1.55 1.82 1.87 1.78
Split N Fertilization 0 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.11

100% Residue Inc. 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.01

- 0.22

- 0.26

- 0.25

- 0.27

Increased Fertilization 0 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.21
(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 9CROPLANDS



### Table 1- 2: DAYCENT Base Mean Yields, and Differences from Mean Yield for Mitigation Strategies, by
Year (Metric tons of Grain per Hectare) (continued)

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Spring Wheat

Base Yield 2.85 2.94 2.92 2.85 2.83

No

- Till 0

- 0.16

- 0.13

- 0.1

- 0.08
Optimal N fertilization* 0 1.49 1.46 1.4 1.36
Split N Fertilization 0 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08

100% Residue Inc. 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.03

- 0.2

- 0.22

- 0.21

- 0.21

Increased Fertilization 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14
Winter Barley

Base Yield 3.55 3.59 3.58 3.5 3.57

No

- Till 0

- 0.2

- 0.21

- 0.15

- 0.1
Optimal N fertilization 0 2.64 3.11 3.07 3
Split N Fertilization 0 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05

100% Residue Inc. 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.39

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03

Reduced Fertilization 0

- 0.34

- 0.39

- 0.41

- 0.43

Increased Fertilization 0 0.31 0.35 0.36 0.38
Spring Barley

Base Yield 2.76 2.83 2.79 2.77 2.77

No

- Till 0

- 0.29

- 0.24

- 0.2

- 0.17
Optimal N fertilization* 0 1.8 1.8 1.67 1.63
Split N Fertilization 0 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08

100% Residue Inc. 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.21

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

Reduced Fertilization

- 0.04

- 0.28

- 0.31

- 0.31

- 0.32

Increased Fertilization 0.04 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.25
Soybeans

Base Yield 2.9 2.95 2.94 2.92 2.92

No

- Till 0

- 0.02

- 0.02

- 0.01

- 0.01
Optimal N fertilization* 0 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07
Split N Fertilization 0 0 0 0 0

100% Residue Inc. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Nitrification Inhibitors 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01

Reduced Fertilization 0

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.01

Increased Fertilization 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

*Note: Optimal N Fertilization, discussed below, is excluded from the main MAC analysis and presented for information only

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 10CROPLANDS



## V.1 .4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

The MAC analysis assimilates the abatement measures’ technology costs, expected benefits

, and emission reductions presented in Section X .3 to compute the cost of abatement for each measure . Similar to the approach used in other non

- CO 2 sectors of this report, we compute a break

- even price for each abatement option for 195 countries to construct MAC curves illustrating the technical, net GHG mitigation potential at specific break

- even prices for 2010 , 2020, and 2030.

This section describes the general modeling approach applied in this sector

, which serve as additional inputs to the MAC analysis that adjust the abatement project costs

, benefits

, and the technical abatement potential in each country.



### V. 1 .4. 1 Estimate Abatement Measure Costs and Benefits

As a gene ral framework of the MAC analysis, the break

- even price for each mitigation option is calculated by setting total benefits ( i.e., higher yields ) equal to total costs of a given mitigation option

. This framework, also referred to as the International Margi nal Abatement Cost (IMAC) model

, is documented in USEPA (2006) and Beach et al. (2008)

.



### V. 1 .4. 2 MAC Analysis Results

G lobal abatement potential in the Non- Rice Croplands sector equates to approximately 6 to 13 % of its total annual emissions between 2010 and 2030 at a relatively low carbon price of $5 per ton of CO 2 equivalent ($/tCO 2 e). Table 1

- 3 presents mitigation potential at selected break

- even prices for 2030. GHG mitigation and its cost

- effectivenes s vary significantly by country or region. Figure 1- 4 displays the MAC curve of the top

- five emitting countries in 2010 and 2030.



### Table 1- 3: Abatement Potential at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (No “Optimal Fertilization “Scenario)

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)
Country/Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.8

U.S.A 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 8.7 8.7 8.8 10.9

India 2.5 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 5.3

Brazil 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1
Argentina 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0
Rest of Region

Africa 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.9

Asia 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0

Central & South
America 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.8

Eurasia 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.7 2.3 2.7
Europe 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.3 6.0 8.7

Middle East 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7

North America 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.9

World Total 27.4 28.3 30.0 30.4 31.5 31.8 32.4 37.2 39.6 43.0 55.8

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 11-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) China 2010

India 2010

USA 2010

Brazil 2010

Argentina 2010

China 2030

USA 2030

India 2030

Brazil 2030

Argentina 2030 CROPLANDS



### Figure 1- 4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for To p- Five Emitting Countries in 2010 and 2030

T able 1-4 below presents a summary of estimated global total mitigation potential by mitigation option. Overall the MAC analysis results suggest that No- till is the most effective strategy for GHG mitigation in cropland soil management

. 11 This option accounts for ap proximately 70 % of the total global mitigation potential in 2010 and 43.7% in 2030. The second most significant mitigation option is reduced

fertilization , accounting for about 16 % of the global total mitigation potential in 2010 and 40% in 2030

. A doption of nitrification inhibitors and split fertilization may also make significant contributions to net GHG reductions from cropland soil management.

11 As discussed above, mitigation potential from adoption of no

- till practice is likely over

- estimated with 100% conventional tillage assumed in the busines s- as

- usual baseline.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 12CROPLANDS



### Table 1-4: Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO 2 

### e) (“Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy excluded) GHG Mitigation by Option (total all prices)

2010 2020 2030

Reduced Fertilization 14.05 16% 18.09 26% 22.39 40.1%

Increased Fertilization 0.30 0% 0.03 0% 0.00 0.0%

100% Residue Incorporation 0.33 0% 0.18 0% 0.04 0.1%

Nitrification Inhibitors 7.08 8% 6.46 9% 6.66 11. 9%

Split N Fertilization 4.38 5% 3.14 4% 2.36 4.2%

No

- Till Adoption 60.82 70% 42.47 60% 24.40 43. 7%

Optimal N Fertilization 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.0%

TOTAL 86.94 100% 70.37 100% 55.85 100.0%

The relative mitigation potentials of no

- till and reduced fertilization illustrate the difference between dynamics of soil C and N 2 O and are worth a closer look. No- till dominates the mitigation potentials in the early years, owing to its large effect on soil C. However, this dominance disappears over time as soils

become “saturated” with C. By 2030, the mitigation potential (limited to N 2 O) of reduced fertilization nearly equals that of no

- till. Over an even longer time scales, only the N 2 O flux remains as soils reach a new equilibrium level of Soil C.



## V.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis

We tested the sensitivity of the results by adding an additional “ Optimal N Fertilization ” option

, which has substantial effects on global yields and emissions

. 

### Optimal **N fertilization**

This option allows the model to maximize soil carbon through optimization of fertilizer inputs, giving a “best case” result of the application of existing technology and crop patterns. Of course, baseline levels vary widely from this opti mum with some regions over

- applying N and many under

- applying N relative to crop needs. This case shows what could be achieved if nutrient stress is removed at each time
step.

• Applicability: This option is available in all regions and all time periods

• Eco nomic Applicability and Cost: Due to the large number of ways this option might be put in practice, costs are limited to the change in N used.

• Additional factors: In cases where yields increase as a result, production is valued at the market price. No tax or other benefits are included in this option.
This analysis resulted in the global MAC curve shown in Figure 1- 5, and summarized in Table 1-5.

With Optimal N Fertilization included in the analysis, global mitigation increases from a maximum of 86

Mt to 12 9 Mt in 2010. Global mitigation in 2030 increases from a maximum of 56 Mt to about 86 Mt.

Overall the MAC analysis results suggest that optimal fertilization to achieve maximum crop yields is potentially the single most significant source of GHG mitigation in cropland soil management. This option accounts for approximately 44% of the total global mitigation potential in 2010 and 2030. The second most significant mitigation option is no

- till practice, accou nting for about 39% of the global total

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 13-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030 CROPLANDS

mitigation potential. 12 Reduction in N fertilizer application and adoption of nitrification inhibitors would also make substantial contributions to net GHG reductions from cropland soil management.



### Figure 1- 5: Global Abatement Potential in Non -r ice Croplands Management: 2010, 2020, and 2030 (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)

Table 1-5 : Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO 2 

### e) (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy) GHG Mitigation by Option (total all prices)

2010 2020 2030

Reduced Fertilization 11.1 9% 0.0 14 % 17.7 21%

Increased Fertilization 0.2 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%

100% Residue Incorporation 0.3 0% 0.1 0% 0.0 0%

Nitrification Inhibitors 6.0 5% 5.6 6% 6.1 7%

Split N Fertilization 3.6 3% 2.7 3% 2.2 3%

No

- Till Adoption 50.8 39% 35.4 35% 20.9 25%

Optimal N Fertilization 57.3 44% 42.2 42% 37.7 45%

TOTAL 129.4 100% 86.1 100% 84.7 100%

12 As discussed above, mitigation potential from adoption of no

- till practice is likely over

- estimated with 100% conventional tillage assumed in the business

- as

- usual baseline.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 14-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) China 2010

India 2010

USA 2010

Brazil 2010

Argentina 2010

China 2030

USA 2030

India 2030

Brazil 2030

Argentina 2030 CROPLANDS

Figure 1- 6 shows the effect on the top

- 5 countries. With “Optimal N Fertilization” included as a
strategy, China has the largest mitigation potential of any country and is also among the few countries that have mitigation potential that increases over the 2010

- 2030 period. This appears to be related to

fert ilizer use that is much higher than optimal. 13 This suggests that N 2 O emissions may be reduced without a yield, or soil C, penalty.



### Figure 1- 6: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2010, 2030 (Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)



## V.1 .5 Uncertainties and Limitations

Given the complexities of the global crop production sector, the estimated GHG mitigation potential and marginal abatement cost curve s are subject to a number of uncertainties and limitations :

• Optimistic a ssumption s on technology adoption. Mitigation technologies represent technical potentials. The analysis assumes that if mitigation technology is considered feasible in a country

13 In the DAYCENT optimal fertilization scenario, where th e model determined the optimal fertilizer rates, fertilizer use typically decreased in China between 30 and 50% for major crops as compared to baseline levels. N 2 O emissions

also declined.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 15CROPLANDS

or region

, it is fully adopted in 2010 and through the analysis period . Research suggests th at adoption of new technology in the agricultural sector is a gradual process and v arious factors potentially slow the adoption of a new GHG

- mitigating technolo gy (e.g., farm characteristics,

access to information and capital, and cultural and institutiona l conditions ) . The mitigation potential presented in this analysis should be viewed to represent the technical potential of the mitigation options analyzed

.

• Availability and quality of data to represent the highly complex and heterogen e ous crop production systems of the world. Compared to the previous EPA marginal abatement cost curve analysis (USEPA, 2006), there are major improvements in the datasets used to represent the global crop production systems and the business

- as

- usual baseline conditions

. However, data in some areas, such as management practices which have significant influence on the GHG fluxes

, are not always available for all countries or regions . A pproximation s had to be made based on limited literature or expert judgment

. Moreover, c ol lecting and developing regionally specific cost estimates of emerging and/or not widely adopted management practices or mitigation

measures has been a challeng e and in some cases global datasets had to be used

.

• Biophysical modeling uncertainties

. The eval uation of simulated crop yields against observed yields suggests that DAYCENT modeling performance varies by crop 14 , leading to potential

biases in estimated GHG emissions

. M odel structure is found to be the largest contributor to uncertainty in simulation results using DAYCENT , typically more than 75% of overall uncertainty in estimates (Ogle et al. 2010, Del Grosso et al. 2010)

. Further model evaluation will be carried out to understand potential model bias and prediction error using empirical based proced ure discussed in Ogle et al. (2007). In addition, soil carbon, which has a significant impact on the net GHG emissions and mitigation potential from the sector, is particularly challenging to simulate given the lack of monitoring data at the global scale. Sensitivity tests would be useful to assess how alternative modeling approaches and assumptions may influence modeling results.

• Potential interactions of multiple mitigation measures are not fully addressed in this analysis. In this analysis, mitigation o ptions are applied to independent segments of the crop production
systems to avoid double counting. In reality, multiple mitigation options can be applied

, and

their order of adoption and potential interactions may affect the aggregate GHG mitigation.

Alte rnative approach should be investigated to provide more realistic representation of economic applicability of potential mitigation measures.

14 Overall, simulated yields for maize agree reasonably well with ob served yields; simulated average yields for wheat, barley and sorghum are lower than observed yields; simulated average yields for soybean are above observed yields.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 16CROPLANDS



## References

Beach, R.H., DeAngelo, B., Rose, S., Salas, W., Li, C., DelGrosso, S. (2008). Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural Economics 38(2): 109

- 115. Bronson, K.F., Mosier, A.R., Bishnoi, S.R., 1992. Nitrous oxide emissions in irrigated corn as affected by nitrification inhibitors. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 161

– 165. Cramer, W., Field, C.B., 1999. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary production (NPP): overview and key results. Glob. Change Biol. 5 (Suppl. 1), 1– 15. De Klein, C., R.S.A. Novoa, S. Ogle, K.A. Smith, et al. 2006. Chapter 11: N 2 O emissions from managed soil, and CO 2 emissions from lime and urea application. In 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4: Agriculture, forestr y and other land use , edited by S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara and K. Tanabe. Kanagawa, Japan: IGES. Del Grosso, S.J., Parton, W.J., Mosier, A.R., Hartman, M.D., Brenner, J., Ojima, D.S., Schimel, D.S. 2001. Simulated interaction of carbon dyn amics and nitrogen trace gas fluxes using the DAYCENT model. In: Schaffer, M., et al. (Eds.), Modeling Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics for Soil Management, p. 303

­ 332, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Del Grosso, S.J., Ojima, D.S., Parton, W.J., Mosier, A.R., Peterson, G.A., Schimel, D.S., 2002. Simulated effects of dryland cropping intensification on soil organic matter and greenhouse gas exchanges using the DAYCENT ecosystem model. Environmental Pollu tion 116: S75

- S83. Del Grosso, S.J., A.R. Mosier, W.J. Parton and D.S. Ojima. 2005. DAYCENT model analysis of past and contemporary soil N2O and net greenhouse gas flux for major crops in the USA. Soil Tillage and
Research 83:9

- 24. Del Grosso, S.J., D.S. Ojima, W.J. Parton, E. Stehfest, M. Heistemann, B. De A ngelo, S. Rose. 2009. Global Scale DAYCENT Model Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies for Cropped Soils. Global and Planetary Change , 67, 44

- 50. Del Grosso, S., S.M. Ogle, W.J. Parton, and F.J. Breidt. 2010. Estimating uncertainty in N 2 O emissions from US cropland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles , 24, GB1009, doi:10.1029/2009GB003544. FAO, 1996. The Digitized Soil Map of the World Including Derived Soil Properties, CDROM. Food and Agricultu re Organization, Rome. Melillo, J.M., McGuire, A.D., Kicklighter, D.W., Moore III, B., Vörösmarty, C.J., Schloss, A.L. 1993. Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363, 234

– 240. Metherell, A.K., L.A. Harding, C.V. Cole, and W. J. Parton (1993) “CENTURY Soil Organic Matter Model Environment.” Agroecosystem version 4.0. Technical documentation, GPSR Tech. Report No. 4, USDA/ARS, Ft. Collins, CO. Monfreda, C., N. Ramankutty and J.A. Foley. (2008), "Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000", Global Biogeochemical Cycles , Vol.22, GB1022, doi:10.1029/2007GB002947. Mosier, A. R., J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, K. Minami. 1998. Assess ing and mitigating N2O emissions from agricultural soils. Climatic Change 40:7

- 38. Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt, M. Easter, S. Williams and K. Paustian. 2007. Empirically based uncertainty associated with modeling carbon sequestration in soils. Ecological Modelling 205:453

- 463. Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt, M. Easter, S. Williams, K. Killian, and K. Paustian. 2010. Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process

- based model. Global Change Biology 16:810

- 820. Ogle, S.M., A. Swan and K. Paustian. 2012. No

- till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 149:37

- 49. Parton, W.J., D.S. Schimel, C.V. Cole, D.S. Ojima (1987) “Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands.” Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:1173

- 1179.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 17CROPLANDS

Parton, W.J., J.W.B. Stewart, C.V. Cole. (1988) “Dynamics of C, N, P, and S in grassland soils: a model.” Biogeochemistry 5:1 09

- 131. Parton, W.J., D.S. Ojima, C.V. Cole, and D.S. Schimel (1994) “A General Model for Soil Organic Matter Dynamics: Sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management,” in Quantitative Modeling of Soil Forming Processes . Special Publication 39, So il Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 147

- 167. Parton, W.J., M.D. Hartman, D.S. Ojima, and D.S. Schimel (1998) “DAYCENT: Its Land Surface Submodel: Description and Testing”. Glob. Planet. Chang . 19: 35

- 48.
Paustian, K., H. P. Collins, and E. A. Paul. 1997. Management controls on soil carbon. Pages 15

- 49 in E. T.
E. Paul E.A., K. Paustian, and C.V. Cole, editor. Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: long

- term experiments in North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Robertson, G. P., E.A. Paul, and R.R. Harwood. 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289:1922

- 1925. Ramankutty, N. and J.A. Foley. 1998. Characterizing patterns of global land use: an analy sis of global croplands data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12(4), 667

- 685. Ramankutty et al. 2008. "Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000", Global Biogeochemical Cycles , Vol. 22, GB1003, doi:10.1029/20 07GB002952. Sacks, W.J., D. Deryng, J.A. Foley, and N. Ramankutty. 2010. Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 607

- 620. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466

- 8238.2010.00551.x. Six, J., E. T. Elliott, and K. Paustian. 2000. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration under no

- tillage agriculture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:2099

- 2103. Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko,2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Nelson, G.C., M.W. Rosegrant, A. Palazzo, I. Gray, C. Ingersoll, R. Robertson, S. Tokgoz, T. Zhu, T.B. Sulser, C. Ringler, S. Msangi, and L. You. (2010). Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington,

DC. Smith, W.N., R.L. Desjardins, B. Grant, C. Li, R. Lemke, P. Rochette, M.D. Corre, and D. Pennock. (2002). Testing the DNDC model using N2O emissions at two experimental sites in Canada. Canada Journal of
Soil Science 82:365

- 374.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Global Mitigation of Non

- CO 2 Greenhouse Gases . EPA

430 -R- 06

- 005. Washington DC.

U.S. Env ironm ental Protection Agency (USEPA)

. 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 G reenhouse Gas
Emissions: 1990

– 2030

. EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington DC.

U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA)

. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990

- 2011

. Washington, D.C.

World Resources Ins titute (WRI). 2012. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database. Available at http://www.wri.org/project/cait/

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 18RICE



# V.2. Rice Cultivation

V.2 .1 Sector Summary 

# R ice cultivation is an important global source of methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O)

emissions. There are also changes in soil organic carbon (C) stocks and associated CO 2 fluxes. When paddy fields are flooded, decomposition of organic material gradually depletes the oxygen present in the soil and floodwater, causing anaerobic conditions in the soil. Anaerobic decomposition of soil organic matter by methanogenic bacteria generates CH 4

. Some of this CH 4 is dissolved in the floodwater, but the remainder is released to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice plants themselves. Minor amounts of CH 4 also escape from the soil via diffusion and bubbling through

the floodwaters. In additi on, as with other crops, human activities influence soil N 2 O emissions through addition of synthetic and organic nitrogen fertilizers and other practices and soil C stocks through residue management as well as any practices that effect crop yields.

In 2010, the net global GHG emi ssions from rice cultivation were approximately 561 MT CO 2 e

. The top 5 emitting countries
– India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and China

– accounted for 77 % of the global total net emissions. Figure 2- 1 display s the baseline n et global GHG emissions for the rice sector.

Net GHG emissions from rice cultivation are projected to grow by 33 % to 750 MTCO 2 e between 2010 and

2030

. There is a small amount of growth in emissions occurring in developing regions to meet the

demand for rice products from growing populations and higher incomes , but the biggest con tributor to
the increase in net GHG emissions s imulated between 2010 and 2030 is a reduction in the soil C sink over

time

. In the Denitrification

- Decomposition (DNDC) model, ther e are fairly large increases in soil C in the initial periods in many countries as they have recently changed practices to incorporate more residues into the soil. However, as soil C moves to a new equilibrium, the incremental changes in future years

becom e much smaller and offset a smaller portion of the non

- CO 2 emissions

.



### Figure 2-1: Net GHG Emissions Projections for Rice Cultivation : 2000

– 2030

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800MtCO2e 565 722 756

2010 2020 2030
Year China

Vietnam

Bangladesh

Indonesia

India

ROW

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 19RICE

Table 2- 1 shows the baseline CH 4 , N 2 O and s oil c arbon estimates for rice cropland by region. Rice

cultivation results in emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O , and these are offset by storage of c arbon in the soil. In
2010, GHG emissions from rice cultivation include 484.1 MTCO 2 e CH 4 and 260.0 MTCO 2 e N 2 O, offset by

179.2 MTCO 2 e of c stored in the soil, for net non

- CO 2 emissions of 564.9 .1 MTCO 2 e, or about 5.8 percent

of global non

- CO 2 emissions (EPA, 2012)

. 

### Table 2-1: Baseline CH 4 

### , N 2 

### O, and Soil Carbon Estimates for Rice Cropland for 2010, 2020 and 2030 by Region

2010 2020 2030

Country/Region CH 4 

### N 2 

### O Soil C CH 4 

### N 2 

### O Soil C CH 4 

### N 2 

### O Soil C

Top 5 Emitting Countries

India 91.2 76.7

- 50 94 93.2

- 27.5 89 94.1

- 18.6

Indonesia 81.7 25.5 2.2 75.4 23.4

- 0.5 70.7 22.1

- 1.3

China 72.9 34.6

- 69.4 72.8 36.7

- 31.3 66.5 35.9

- 16.9

Vietnam 47 25.7

- 4.8 45.4 33.1

- 2.8 44 34.5

- 1.8

Bangladesh 54.4 63

- 16 54.3 98.6

- 8.5 54.5 112.4

- 5

Rest of Region

Africa 11.6 4.5

- 3.8 12.6 6.2

- 2.7 13.4 7

- 2.1

Asia 79.8 22.8

- 26.6 85.9 25.3

- 13.2 85.9 25.9

- 8.5

Central & South
America 32.3 4.5

- 5.1 33.5 5.3

- 3.2 33.4 5.6

- 2.2

Eurasia 1 0.1

- 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.1 0

Europe 1.8 0.1

- 1.4 2.2 0.1

- 0.6 2.3 0.1

- 0.4

Middle East 2.8 0.1

- 1.4 3.6 0.1

- 0.6 3.9 0.1

- 0.4

North America 7.5 2.3

- 2.8 8.3 2.4

- 0.6 8.1 2.6

- 0.4

World Total 484.1 260

- 179.2 489.2 324.5

- 91.6 472.9 340.5

- 57.4

G lobal abatement potential in paddy rice cultivation systems equates to approximately 27 % - 35% of

total annual net emissions

. Marginal abatement cost ( MAC ) curve results are presented in Figure 2-2 for
2010, 2020, and 2030 , assuming that production remains equal to baseline levels under the mitigation

scenarios. Maximum abatement potential in the rice sector is 199 MtCO 2 e in 2010, 203 MtCO 2 e in 2020 and

200 MtCO 2 e in 2030.

Figure 2- 2 also shows the finding that significant reductions are feasible even at a low values per ton

of carbon. For exam ple, there are approximately 76 MtCO 2 e of net GHG emission reductions that are cost

effective in 2010 at a price of $5/ton

, ( 13.5 % of the baseline estimate)

. In 2030, a pproximately 87 MtCO 2 of

reduc tions are feasible at a price of $5 per ton (11.5 % of the baseline estimate)

. These results suggest that there are significant opportunities for net GHG reductions in the rice cultivation sector.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 20RICE



### Figure 2-2: Global Abatement Potential in Rice Cultivation with Production Equal to Baseline Levels: 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030

The following section offers a brief description of CH 4 and N 2 O emissions as well as changes in soil

carbon stock from rice cultivation , and a discussion of projected trends in global baseline emissions. The subsequent section presents possible abatement technologies, their technical specifications, costs and potential benefits. The final section discusses the estimated abatement potential and MAC analysis at a regional le vel

.



## V.2.2 CH 4 

## and N 2 

## O Emissions and Changes in Soil Carbon from
Rice Cultivation

R ice production is a major source of GHG emissions. Global, Tier

- I datasets such as EPA’s Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO 2 GHG Emissions Report (EPA, 2012) show that agriculture is the biggest source

of CH 4 emissions, and within agriculture, rice cultivation is the second largest source, behind enteric

fermentation. 1 Rice cultivation account ed for 7 % of global CH 4 emissions i n 2005 (USEPA, 201 2)

. Rice cultivation is also a significant source of N 2 O emissions but these are not included in most global datasets.

1 Global CH 4 emissions from agriculture were estimated at 3,035.4 MtCO 2 e (2005), about 45% of the global total of

6815.8 MtCO 2 e . Rice produced 500.9 MtCO 2 e and enteric fermentation produced 1,894.3 MtCO 2 e (USEPA, 2012,

Table 6).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 21RICE

In this section, we describe baseline emissions of CH 4

,, N 2 O , and soil carbon from rice cultivation as well

as crop pro duction data and assumptions that support the analysis of mitigation potential.

Rice production systems can be classified as wetland rice (irrigated, rain

- fed and deepwater) or upland rice (Neue, 1993). Wetland rice is the largest category, and is responsible for large net CH 4 emissions

. 2 Aerobic decomposition of organic matter gradually depletes the oxygen present in the soil and water, resulting in anaerobic conditions in the rice paddies. M ethanogenic bacteria decompose soil organic matter under anaerobic conditions in rice paddies, generating CH 4 . Significant amounts of CH 4 are oxidized by aerobic methanotrophic bacteria into CO 2 in the soil. The remaining unoxidized CH 4 is released to the atmosphere through diffusion and ebullition and through roots and stems of rice plants.
Thus, unlike the non

- paddy rice agricultural soils which are typically CH 4 sinks, paddy rice cultivation is a major source of CH 4 emissions.

N 2 O is another significant component of net GHG emissions from rice cultivation . N 2 O is produced through nitrification and denitrification from microbial activities under the anoxic condition. N 2 O emissions occur directly from soils, and indirectly through volatilization of compounds such as NH 3 and

NO
x and subsequent deposition as well as through leaching and runoff. Table 2- 1 shows that in 2010,

while CH 4 accounted for the largest share of emissions with 484.1 MtCO 2 e (65% of non

- CO 2 emissions from rice cultivation), N 2 O contributed substanti ally, with 260.0 MtCO 2 e (35%). Both dry and irrigated

rice are a source of N 2 O emissions.

Soil carbon stocks are not a non

- CO 2 GHG but also have important implications for net GHG

emissions and are affected by non

- CO 2 mitigation options so we estimate total emissions net of their

effect on soil C stocks i n this report

.



### V.2 .2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends and Related Assumptions

**DNDC Modeling of GHG Fluxes and Crop Yields**

The Denitrification

- Decomposition (DNDC) model was used to simulate production, crop yields and greenhouse gas fluxes of global paddy rice under “business

- as

- usual” (BAU) condition and various mitigation strategies. DNDC is a soil biogeochemical model that simulates the proc esses determining the interactions among ecological drivers, soil environmental factors, and relevant biochemical or geochemical reactions, which collectively determine the rates of trace gas production and consumption in agricultural ecosystems (Li, 2001) . Details of management (e.g., crop rotation, tillage, fertilization, manure amendment, irrigation, weeding, and grazing) have been parameterized and linked to the various biogeochemical processes (e.g., crop growth, litter production, soil water infiltrat ion, decomposition, nitrification, denitrification, fermentation) embedded in DNDC (e.g., Li et al., 2004; Li et al., 2006; Li, 2011; Abdalla et al., 2011; Giltrap et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2012). 3

DNDC predicts daily CH 4 , N 2 O and soil carbon fluxes from r ice paddies through the growing and fallow seasons as fields remain flooded or move between flooded and drained conditions during the

season.

2 Globally, about 2 percent of rice is grown in dry conditions and this production system is a net sink for CH 4 (source: DNDC estimates discussed below).

3 The paddy

- rice version of DNDC has been validated for a number of countries and world regions and is used for national trace gas inventory studies in North America, Europe, and Asia (e.g., Smith et al., 2002; Follador et al., 2011; Leip et al., 2011; Li et al., 2002; Cai et al., 2003; Li et al., 2005).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 220 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000

Deepwater

Upland

Irrigated - Dry Seeding

Irrigated - Midseason Drainage

Irrigated - Continuous Flooding

Rainfed RICE

For this study, a modified version of the DNDC 9.5 Globe database was used to simulate crop yields

and GHG fluxes from global paddy rice cultivation systems. The DNDC 9.5 global database contains information on soil characteristics, crop planted area, and management conditions (fertilization, irrigation, season, and tillage) on a 0.5 by 0.5 degree grid cell of the wo rld. The database is used to establish the initial conditions in the model in 2000. The model considers all paddy rice production systems, including irrigated and rainfed rice, and single, double and mixed rice as well as deepwater and upland cropping syst ems

. For this study, baseline and mitigation scenario modeling is carried out for all

rice

- producing countries in the world that produce a substantial quantity of rice

. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) countr y- level statistics (FAOSTAT 2010 ) we re used to

est ablish harvested area for rice. The total area was calculated for each country in the Globe database for each type , and evenly distributed across all grid cells within a country in the absence of sub

- national

information. Figure 2- 3 shows the distribution of rice across major systems for the five largest producers and an aggregate of the rest of the world

.



### Figure 2- 3: DNDC Rice Cropland Area Sown, T op 5 countries, by Type and Water Management

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 23

### Table 2-2: Baseline yields for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for selected countries (kg/ha)RICEGLOBAL MITIGATION OFNON-CO2GREENHOUSE GASES 2010 2020 2030

Country/Region Irrigated Rainfed Deepwater Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deepwater Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deepwater Upland

Top 5 Countries by Production

China 6,158.2 4,002.9 622.5 2,280.5 6,522.0 4,193.0 702.5 2,560.9 7,161.0 4,583.2 814.9 2,920.1

India 4,832.6 1,681.5 685.3 1,114.1 5,271.8 1,745.2 846.7 1,266.8 5,722.5 1,849.3 993.5 1,409.6

Indonesia 5,546.1 4,758.1 1,233.3 2,142.8 5,625.0 4,756.5 1,167.0 2,010.9 5,833.2 4,859.4 1,171.8 1,961.6

Bangladesh 7,322.9 4,823.1 1,257.6 2,501.9 7,447.9 4,732.3 1,592.3 2,927.3 7,642.4 4,766.4 1,857.9 3,196.2

Vietnam 7,388.0 5, 208.4 963. 2 2,240.9 7,503.2 5,156.1 940.4 2,386.4 7,647.7 5,222.3 960.5 2,513.0



### Table 2-3: Baseline production for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for selected countries (metric tonnes)

2010 2020 2030

Country/ Region Irrigated Rainfed Deep water Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deep water Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deep water Upland

Top 5 Countries by Production

China 185,106,646 136,866 532 72,470 187,171,179 136,879 573 77,697 187,849,985 136,761 607 80, 982

India 128,759,438 18,667,823 701,074 4,544,661 137,564,781 18,975,458 848,345 5,061,283 141,353,559 19,034,013 942,360 5,330,762

Indonesia 44,515,927 17,723,001 3,144 3,230,419 45,020,613 17,666,403 2,966 3,022,817 45,509,275 17,593,406 2,903 2, 874,405

Bangladesh 22,123,824 29,082,198 1,870,274 2,471,779 22,891,662 29,029,646 2,409,109 2,942,311 23,309,923 29,015,593 2,789,425 3,187,968

Vietnam 27,265,526 15,725,436 260,980 1,121,298 27,967,786 15,723,459 257,362 1,206,084 28,142,533 15,722,150 259,495 1,253,843V-24RICE

The global meteorological data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction climate reanalysis product were used to establish climate data for 2010 in the model. The 2010 climate data were used for all model years. Planting and harvest

dates wer e matched approximately to local growing season

. Tillage and flooding and drainage dates for irrigated rice were established based on the planting dates.

Nitrogen fertilizer application rates were based on DNDC fertilizer use data, which is derived from

g lobal data sources

. Table 2

- 4 summarizes the assumed fertilizer use per hectare for rice by country. Assumptions on the distribution of irrigated rice across water management regimes for each country were developed based on Yan et al. (2009) (see Table 2 -5).



### Table 2

- 4: DNDC Average N Fertilizer Application Rate by Country and Rice Production Type

Planted Area

- Weighted Mean Fertilizer N Rate (kgN/ha)

Country Planted Area Irrigated Rainfed Upland Dee p w a ter

Afghanistan 208,030 40 40 — — Angola 2,465 1 1 — — Argentina 211,148 90 90 9 —

Aust ralia 175,085 180 180 15 — Azerbaijan 5,720 20 20 1 — Bangladesh 11, 526,108 107 107 30 —

Belize 5,303 50 50 11 —
Benin 24,138 50 50 2 —
Bhutan 30,472 40 40 — —
Bolivia 232,626 30 30 1 —

Brazil 2,696,270 50 50 15 —
Brunei 613 5 5 — — Bulgaria 24,732 60 60 24 —

Burkina -Faso 133,240 25 25 1 —
Burundi 18,582 40 40 — —
Cambodia 2,730,963 30 30 — —
Cameroon 32,568 35 35 1 —
Central

- African

- Republic 13,560 30 30 — —
Chad 118,190 10 10 2 —
Chile 49,282 50 50 30 —
China 30,125,402 164 164 23 —
Colombia 435,924 108 108 18 — Congo 520,829 2 2 — —
Costa

- Rica 87,372 50 50 18 —
Cote

- dIvoire 493,322 7 7 2 —
Cuba 196,891 28 28 6 — ( continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 25RICE



### Table 2

- 4: DNDC Average N Fertilizer Application Rate by Country and Rice Production Type (continued)

Country Planted Area Planted Area

- Weighted Mean Fertilizer N Rate (kgN/ha)

Irrigated Rainfed Upland Deep w ater

Dominican

- Republic 208,865 35 35 10 —

Ecuador 454,982 55 55 6 — Egypt 402,249 203 203 34 —

El

- Salvador 8,674 88 88 19 — Ethiopia 40 25 25 3 —
France 18,919 127 127 28 —
French

- Guiana 10,920 20 20 8 —
Gabon 202 35 35 — —
Ghana 105,678 30 30 — —
Greece 42,021 94 94 20 —
Guatemala 25,578 40 40 15 —
Guinea 818,010 1 1 — —
Guinea

- Bissau 162,054 30 30 1 — Guyana 187,731 5 5 11 —
Haiti 82,387 10 10 2 —

Honduras 10,531 40 40 26 — Hungary 53,797 35 35 15 —
India 42,848,326 69 69 20 —

Indonesia 13,261,499 82 82 16 —
Iran 563,918 79 79 17 — Iraq 47,978 40 40 56 — Italy 220,850 99 99 22 — Japan 1,627,707 80 80 24 —
Kazakhstan 97,643 30 30 — — Kenya 7,358 50 50 8 —

Korea

- North 582,246 70 70 15 —
Korea

- South 902,339 189 189 34 — Kyrgyzstan 14,724 39 39 5 —
Laos 848,955 45 45 2 —

Liberia 79,879 10 10 — — Madagascar 1,703,119 — — 1 —
Malawi 28,106 20 20 9 — Malaysia 677,984 65 65 16 —
Mali 646,334 40 40 2 — (continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 26RICE



### Table 2

- 4: DNDC Average N Fertilizer Application Rate by Country and Rice Production Type (continued)

Country Planted Area Planted Area

- Weighted Mean Fertilizer N Rate (kgN/ha)

Irrigated Rainfed Upland Deep w ater

Mauritania 28,607 85 85 — —

Mexico 162,208 85 85 18 —
Morocco 12,110 120 120 13 — Mozambique 64,834 5 5 1 — Myanmar 8,013,037 50 50 8 — Nepal 1,455,906 22 22 5 — Nicaragua 136,469 85 85 5 — Niger 41,083 10 10 — — Nigeria 2,415,653 20 20 3 —
Pakistan 2,366,291 40 40 20 —
Panama 110,696 10 10 9 — Paraguay 44,291 85 85 2 —
Peru 383,322 170 170 17 — Philippines 4,355,767 60 60 19 — Portugal 88,342 90 90 10 —

Romania 13,191 85 85 6 —
Russia 200,099 85 85 3 —
Rwanda 3,790 85 85 — — Senegal 75,558 85 85 4 —
Sierra

- Leone 500,905 25 25 — — Spain 122,793 76 76 17 —
Sri

- Lanka 1,062,007 60 60 16 —
Sudan 303 45 45 1 —
Suriname 39,758 50 50 27 —
Switzerland 2,320 40 40 27 — Tajikistan 31,808 85 85 2 —
Tanzania 1,058,671 30 30 1 —
Thailand 12,116,749 30 30 20 —
The

- Gambia 12,677 10 10 — — Togo 39,899 8 8 3 —
Trinidad

- Tobago 2,838 35 35 21 — Turkey 99,015 127 127 20 —

Turkmenistan 60,042 30 30 11 — Uganda 54,966 30 30 — — (continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 27RICE



### Table 2

- 4: DNDC Average N Fertilizer Application Rate by Country and Rice Production Type (continued)

Country Planted Area Planted Area

- Weighted Mean Fertilizer N Rate (kgN/ha)

Irrigated Rainfed Upland Deep w ater

Ukraine 29,078 85 85 3 —

United

- States 1,444,924 139 139 19 — Uruguay 174,987 151 151 11 —
Uzbekistan 36,221 90 90 30 —

Venezuela 295,441 85 85 16 —
Vietnam 7,481,119 120 120 29 —
Zambia 13,872 12 12 4 —
Zimbabwe 176 15 15 8 —



### Table 2

- 5: Distribution of Baseline Water Management for Irrigated Rice by Country (%)
Region Continuous Flooding Midseason Drainage Dry Seeding

Afghanistan 100% 0% 0%

Algeria 100% 0% 0%

Angola 100% 0% 0%

Argentina 100% 0% 0%

Australia 100% 0% 0%

Azerbaijan 100% 0% 0%

Bangladesh 20% 80% 0%

Belize 100% 0% 0%

Benin 100% 0% 0%

Bhutan 100% 0% 0%

Bolivia 100% 0% 0%

Brazil 100% 0% 0%

Brunei 100% 0% 0%

Bulgaria 100% 0% 0%

Burkina -Faso 100% 0% 0%

Burundi 100% 0% 0%

Cameroon 100% 0% 0%

Central

- African

- Republic 100% 0% 0%

Chad 100% 0% 0%

Chile 100% 0% 0%

China 20% 80% 0%

Colombia 100% 0% 0%

Comoros 100% 0% 0%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 28RICE



### Table 2

- 5: Distribution of Baseline Water Management for Irrigated Rice by Country (%) (continued)
Region Continuous Flooding Midseason Drainage Dry Seeding

Congo 100% 0% 0%

Costa

- Rica 100% 0% 0%

Cote

- dIvoire 100% 0% 0%

Cuba 100% 0% 0%

Dominican

- Republic 100% 0% 0%

Ecuador 100% 0% 0%

Egypt 100% 0% 0%

El

- Salvador 100% 0% 0%

Ethiopia 100% 0% 0%

Fiji 100% 0% 0%

France 100% 0% 0%

French

- Guiana 100% 0% 0%

Gabon 100% 0% 0%

Ghana 100% 0% 0%

Greece 100% 0% 0%

Guatemala 100% 0% 0%

Guinea 100% 0% 0%

Guinea -Bissau 100% 0% 0%

Guyana 100% 0% 0%

Haiti 100% 0% 0%

Honduras 100% 0% 0%

Hungary 100% 0% 0%

India 30% 70% 0%

Indonesia 43% 57% 0%

Iran 100% 0% 0%

Iraq 100% 0% 0%

Italy 100% 0% 0%

Jamaica 100% 0% 0%

Japan 20% 80% 0%

Kazakhstan 100% 0% 0%

Kenya 100% 0% 0%

Korea

- North 100% 0% 0%

Korea

- South 100% 0% 0%

Kyrgyzstan 100% 0% 0%

Liberia 100% 0% 0%

Macedonia 100% 0% 0%

( continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 29RICE



### Table 2

- 5: Distribution of Baseline Water Management for Irrigated Rice by Country (%) (continued)
Region Continuous Flooding Midseason Drainage Dry Seeding

Madagascar 100% 0% 0%

Malawi 100% 0% 0%

Malaysia 100% 0% 0%

Mali 100% 0% 0%

Mauritania 100% 0% 0%

Mexico 100% 0% 0%

Micronesia 100% 0% 0%

monsoon Asia 43% 57% 0%

Morocco 100% 0% 0%

Mozambique 100% 0% 0%

Nepal 100% 0% 0%

Nicaragua 100% 0% 0%

Niger 100% 0% 0%

Nigeria 100% 0% 0%

Pakistan 100% 0% 0%

Panama 100% 0% 0%

Papua

- New

- Guinea 100% 0% 0%

Paraguay 100% 0% 0%

Peru 100% 0% 0%

Philippines 100% 0% 0%

Portugal 100% 0% 0%

Reunion 100% 0% 0%

Romania 100% 0% 0%

Russia 100% 0% 0%

Rwanda 100% 0% 0%

Senegal 100% 0% 0%

Sierra

- Leone 100% 0% 0%

Solomon

- Is 100% 0% 0%

Somalia 100% 0% 0%

South

- Africa 100% 0% 0%

Spain 100% 0% 0%

Sri

- Lanka 100% 0% 0%

Sudan 100% 0% 0%

Suriname 100% 0% 0%

Swaziland 100% 0% 0%

Tajikistan 100% 0% 0%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 30RICE



### Table 2

- 5: Distribution of Baseline Water Management for Irrigated Rice by Country (%) (continued)
Region Continuous Flooding Midseason Drainage Dry Seeding

Tanzania 100% 0% 0%

The

- Gambia 100% 0% 0%

Timor

- Leste 100% 0% 0%

Togo 100% 0% 0%

Trinidad

- Tobago 100% 0% 0%

Turkey 100% 0% 0%

Turkmenistan 100% 0% 0%

Uganda 100% 0% 0%

Ukraine 100% 0% 0%

United

- States

- California 100% 0% 0%

United

- States

- Mid_South 0% 0% 100%

Uruguay 100% 0% 0%

Uzbekistan 100% 0% 0%

Venezuela 100% 0% 0%

Vietnam 100% 0% 0%

Zambia 100% 0% 0%

Zimbabwe 100% 0% 0%

Source: Yan et al. (2009).

A baseline scenario is established for each country using DNDC 9.5, reflecting assumptions on water management, fertilizer application, residue management and tillage practices described above. Rice yields and GHG fluxes (CH 4 , direct and indirect N 2 O and changes in soil organic carbon) were simulated

in DNDC model for each grid cell and results were aggregated at the country level for irrigated , rainfed, deep water, and upland production systems for each scenario, in both mean annual rates per hectare and

mean annual national totals. 4 Results were reported for 2010 and by 5

- year increments through 2030.

Finally, results from DNDC were adjust ed with projected acreage of these production systems by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) model. In DNDC, rice production areas were held constant at the 2010 level to obtain the biophysical effects of management practice changes on crop yields and GHG fluxes. Projected acreage changes from IMPACT model reflect socio

- economic drivers ( such as population growth ) and technological changes to meet the global food demand (Nelson et al., 2010). The IMPACT modeling projects that while global rice production would increase by 11 percent between 20 10 and 2030, the total area dedicated to rice cultivation would decrease by 5 percent during the same period due to productivity improvements.

4 The mean values were calculated using weighted averages; rice yields represent total annual yields of rice from all production systems.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 31RICE



### V.2 .2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions

This section briefly discusses the historical and projected e mission trends from global paddy rice cultivation and presents simulated baseline emissions projections



### .

**Historical Emissions Estimates**

According to the EPA Global Emissions Report ( GER ) (USEPA, 2012 ), total methane e missions from global rice cultivation increased by 4 .4 % between 1990 and 20 05 , from 480 MtCO 2 e to 501 MtCO 2 e

. Asia, the predominant rice

- producing region, accounted for over 80% of the total CH 4 emissions in 2005. Africa

contributed another 10%, and the remaining methane emissions in this sect or came from Central and South America and other regions. The GER did not report historic N 2 O emissions and soil carbon stock changes from the rice cultivation sector.



### Projected Emissions Estimates

W orldwide CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from rice cultivation are projected to have only modest increases

between 2010 and 2030. This is mainly because demand for rice products will remain relatively constant while global food demand s hifts towards more livestock and other more expensive food products with higher incomes

. The estimated t otal CH 4 emissions from rice cultivation are 484.1 MtCO 2 e in 2010, 482.2

MtCO 2 e in 2020 and 472.9 MtCO 2 e in 2030. The total estimated N 2 O emissions are 2 60.0 MtCO 2 e in 2010,

324.5 MtCO 2 e in 2020 and 340.5 MtCO 2 e in 2030

.



## V.2.3 Abat ement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

The mitigation options included in the analysis were based on review of the literature to identify the most promising options, while also taking data availability and potential for modeling within DNDC into consideration. For the purposes of developing MAC curves for this study, mitigation options that

increase net emissions of non

- CO 2 GHG were excluded from the analysis.

Twenty

- six mitigation scenarios were then analyzed using DNDC 9.5 5

. The scenarios addre ssed management techniques in various combinations hypothesized to reduce GHG emissions from rice systems: water management regime (continuous flooding, mid

- season drainage, dry seeding, alternate wetting and drying

, and switching to dryland rice productio n system ), residue management (partial or

total residue incorporation), tillage , and various fertilizer management alternatives (ammonium sulfate in place of urea, urea with nitrification inhibitor, slow release urea, 10% reduced fertilizer, 20% reduced

fe rtilizer, and 30% reduced fertilizer).

The w ater management system under which rice is produced is one of the most important factors influencing CH 4 emissions. Specifically, switching from continuous flooding of rice paddy fields to draining flooded fields periodically during the growing season
– a water conservation practice that is increasingly adopted in the baseline to reduce water use
– would significantly reduce CH 4 emissions.

O the r practices (e.g., fertilizer applications , till age practices and residue management) also alter the soil conditions and hence affect crop yields and the soil carbon

- and nitrogen

- driving processes such as

5 Note that 38 different scenario names are reported in the outputs. Because water management practices are

assumed not to affect non

- irrigated rice emissions, the simulation results for options combine d with continuous flooding or midseason drainage are the same for non

- irrigated rice. The analogous options that alter fer tilizer and other management practices but do not affect water management were identified as beginning with “base” rather

than “cf” or “md”.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 32RICE

decomposition, nitrification and denitrification ( Neue and Sass, 1994; Li et al., 2006). Due to th e complex interactions, changes in management practices would trigger changes in multiple GHG fluxes. For
instance, w hile drainage of rice fields during the growing season would significantly reduce CH 4
emissions , emissions of N 2 O actually increase (Zheng et al., 1997, 2000; Cai et al., 1999; Zou et al. 2007).



### Rice mitigation options

The mitigation options included for rice w ater management system under which rice is produced is one of the most important factors influencing CH 4 emissions. Specifically, sw itching from continuous flooding of rice paddy fields to draining flooded fields periodically during the growing season
– a water conservation practice that is increasingly adopted in the baseline to reduce water use
– would significantly reduce CH 4 emissi ons. O the r practices (e.g., fertilizer applications , tillage practices and residue management) also alter the soil conditions and hence affect crop yields and soil carbon

- and nitrogen

- driving processes

.

There were 2 6 scenarios that were run using DNDC 9. 5 (see Table 2

- 6). The scenarios addressed management techniques in various combinations hypothesized to reduce GHG emissions from rice systems: floo d regime (continuous flooding [ CF ] , mid

- season drainage [ MD ] , dry seeding [ DS ] , alternate wetting and dryi ng [ AWD ] , and switching to dryland (upland) rice ), residue management (partial

removal or 100% incorporation), conventional tillage or no till, and various fertilizer alternatives (conventional / urea, ammonium sulfate in place of urea, urea with nitrification inhibitor, slow release urea, 10% reduced fertilizer, 20% reduced fertilizer, 30% reduced fertilizer, and DNDC optimization of fertilizer application to maximize yields). Further definition of these assumptions is provided in Table 2

- 7

. 

### Table 2- 6: Alternative Rice Management Scenarios Simulated using DNDC

Residue Alternative
Abbreviation Scenario Flooding Fertilization Incorporation Management

cf_r50 Continuous Flooding CF 50 % — conventional
cf_r100 Continuous Flooding, 100% Residue Incorporation CF 100% — conventional

cf_r50_amsu Continuous Flooding, Ammonium Sulphate
Fertilizer CF 50% — ammonium sulfate

cf_r50_ninhib Continuous Flooding,
Nitrification Inhibitor
Fertilizer CF 50% — nitrification inhibitor

cf_r50_slowrel Continuous Flooding, Slow
Release Fertilizer CF 50% — slow release

cf_r50_notill Continuous Flooding, No
Till CF 50% no till conventional

cf_r50_f70 Continuous Flooding, 30%
Reduced Fertilizer CF 50 % — 30% reduced

cf_r50_f90 Continuous Flooding, 10%
Reduced Fertilizer CF 50% — 10% reduced

cf_r50_auto Continuous Flooding, Auto

fertilization to maximize yields CF 50% — Automatically adjusted by DNDC to maximize yields
md_r50 Mid

- season Drainage MD 50 % — conventional
(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 33RICE



### Table 2- 6: Alternative Rice Management Scenarios Simulated using DNDC (continued)

Residue Alternative
Abbreviation Scenario Flooding Fertilization Incorporation Management

md_r100 Mid

- season Drainage w/100% Residue Incorporation MD 100% — conventional

md_r50_amsu Mid

- season Drainage, Ammonium Sulphate
Fertilizer MD 50% — ammonium sulfate

md_r50_ninhib Mid

- season Drainage,
Nitrification Inhibitor
Fertilizer MD 50% — nitrification inhibitor

md_r50_slowrel Mid

- season Drainage, Slow
Release Fertilizer MD 50% — slow release

md_r50_notill Mid

- season Drainage, No
Till MD 50% no till conventional

md_r50_f70 Mid

- season Drainage, 30%
Reduced Fertilizer MD 50% — 30% reduced

md_r50_f90 Mid

- season Drainage, 10%
Reduced Fertilizer MD 50% — 10% reduced

md_r50_ds Mid

- season Drainage, Dry Seeding MD w/DS 50% — conventional

md_r50_auto Mid

- season Drainage,
Auto

- fert ilization to maximize yields MD 50% — Automatically adjusted by DNDC to maximize yields
awd_r50 Alternate Wetting & Drying (AWD) AWD 50% — conventional

awd_r50_ninhib AWD w/Nitrification
Inhibitor AWD 50% — nitrification inhibitor

awd_r50_slowrel AWD w/Slow Release AWD 50% — slow release
base_r50_ds Dry Seeding DS 50% — conventional
base_r50_f80_ds Dry Seeding, 20%
Reduced Fertilizer DS 50% — 20% reduced

dry_r50 Dryland Rice dryland rice 50% — conventional dry_r50_f80 Dryland Rice, 20%
Reduced Fertilizer dryland rice 50% — 20% reduced

For non

- irrigated rice, there is no difference between scenarios with alternative water management.
Thus, we refer to those scenarios for the non

- irrigated rice with “base_” in front rather than “cf” or “md”.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 34RICE



### Table 2- 7: Rice Management Techniques
Management

Technique Description

Rice flooding

Continuous Flooding ( CF ) rice paddy is flooded on planting date and drained 10 days prior to harvest date

- applies to both irrigated and rainfed rice

Mid

- season drainage ( MD ) rice paddy is drained twice during growing season for 8 days

- final drainage is 10 days prior to
harvest date

- applies only to irrigated rice

Alternate wetting and drying ( AWD ) rice paddy is initially flooded to 10 cm – water level is reduced at rate of

- 0.5 cm/day till to

- 5cm and then reflooded at rate of 0.5 cm/day till to 10 cm

- applies only to irrigated rice

D ryland rice all irrigated and rainfed rice are swapped for dryland rice

- no flooding occurs

Rice seeding

Direct seeding ( DS ) rice paddy is flooded 40 days after planting date and drained 10 days prior to harvest date

- applies to both irrigated and rainfed rice

Residue incorporation

50% 50% of above

- ground crop residue is removed

- remaining residue is incorporated at next tillage

100% all residue remains in place and is incorporated at next tillage

Tillage

C onvent ional prior to first crop in rotation tillage to 20cm depth; subsequent tillages (following each crop in rotation) to 10cm depth

No- till tillage only mulches res idue

Fertilizer

C onvent ional fertilizer N applied as urea on plant date using a crop

- specific rate

A mmonium sulfate fertilizer N applied as ammonium sulfate on plant date using a crop

- specific rate

Ni trification inhibitor nitrification inhibitor is used with urea; reduced conversion of NH4 to NO3 is simulated with 60% efficiency over 120 days

S low

- release slow

- release urea applied on planting date – N is released over 90 days at a linear rate

10% reduced Crop

- specified baseline fertilizer N rate is reduced by 10% (applied as urea)

2 0% reduced Crop

- specified baseline fertilizer N rate is reduced by 2 0% (applied as urea)

30% reduced Crop

- specified baseline fertilizer N rate is reduced by 30% (applied as urea)

auto fertilization Fertilizer N is applied at the rate that maximizes crop yield

Most of the major rice producing countries have some mix of flood regimes in DNDC (see Table 2 -5 ). To determine baseline emissions for each country, simulation results were combined based on the

fract ion of rice area in each rice category (deepwater, upland, rainfed, and irrigated) and flood regime for irrigated rice. For instance, baseline emissions for Bangladesh were determined by averaging the results

of the CF and MD scenarios with 50% residue removal (c f_r50 * 0.2 + md_r50 * 0.8).

However, for the purposes of calculating emissions reductions, mitigation options were compared to the portions of the baseline to which they could potentially be applied rather than to the national weighted average. For insta nce, application of the mitigation option of switching to ammonium sulphate fertilizer (cf_r50_amsu) was compared to baseline emissions from continuously flooded rice with conventional fertilizer (cf_r50) and to baseline emissions from rice managed using m id

- season drainage

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 35RICE

with conventional fertilizer (md_r50) rather than being compared to the baseline weighted average emissions per ha. This is done to better represent the mitigation potential from adopting each mitigation option on each baseline subcatego ry. As an example, an option such as cf_r50_amsu may result in emissions reductions relative to cf_r50 but increases in emissions relative to md_r50 (and possibly the weighted baseline emissions as well) in many countries. This is resulting from the change in water management regime in moving from mid

- season drainage to continuous flooding, whereas we are trying to isolate the effects of changing fertilizer for a given baseline water management strategy in that example.

• Capital Cost: None of the options wer e assumed to have any capital cost

.

• Annual Op eration and Maintenance ( O&M) Cost: Changes in labor, fertilizer, and other inputs associated with each option.

• Annual Benefits: Calculated based on changes in production associated with cha nges in yield, valued at market prices.

• Applicability: All options applicable for a given cropping pattern were assumed available to all acres in all countries. However, water management options (e.g., shifting from continuous flooding to midseason draina ge, etc.) are only applicable to irrigated systems. No water management options are available for rainfed, deepwater, or upland rice

• Technical Efficiency: Determined by the DNDC Model for each country, production type, and water management combination for each mitigation option.

• Technical Lifetime : Indefinite ; there are no capital costs being included for which a lifetime must

be defined.



## V.2 .4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T he MAC analysis assimilates the abatement measures’ technology costs, expected benefits

, and emission reductions presented in Section X .3 to compute the cost of abatement for each measure . Similar to the approach used in other non

- CO 2 sectors of this report

, we compute a break

- even price for each abatement option for 195 countries to construct MAC curves illustrating the technical, net GHG mitigation potential at specific break

- even prices for 2010 , 2020, and 2030.



### V.2 .4. 1 MAC Analysis Results

The MAC analysis of the mitigation options described above suggests th at net GHG abatement potential for global paddy rice cultivation equates to approximately 6 percent of its total annual

emissions between 2010 and 2030 at a carbon price of $5 per ton of CO 2 equivalent ($/tCO 2 e). In 2030, total abatement potential in the s ector is 21 MtCO 2 e at no carbon price, 57 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of
$5/tCO 2 e, and 124 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of $20/tCO 2 e, representing 2%, 6% and 12% of the net GHG emissions in the year, respectively

. Figure 2-4 presents the MAC curves for the global rice cultivation, in 2010, 2020 and 2030. The estimated net GHG mitigation potential at various break

- even prices for the top

emitting countries and aggregate regions comprising the rest of the globe are presented in Table 2-8.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 36RICE



### Table 2-8: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country/ Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

India 2.4 2.4 5.5 14.5 15.1 16.8 16.8 16.8 20.4 28.8 34.5

Indonesia 6.0 9.1 12.8 14.4 16.3 19.1 19.1 19.1 21.8 24.8 25.6

Bangladesh 2.8 3.4 19.5 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.5 31.9 33.1 35.6 35.9

Vietnam 0.0 0.0 6.9 9.0 9.8 13.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.6 21.6

China 0.6 1.6 3.2 3.5 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.6 12.6 19.1 23.7

Rest of Region

Africa 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.7 3.6 4.1 5.1 5.4 5.7

Asia 2.1 2.7 6.9 9.2 14.7 16.6 21.1 25.5 28.2 31.3 34.9

Central &
South
America 0.4 0.6 1.4 3.5 4.5 6.3 7.3 8.1 9.5 10.9 12.1

Eurasia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Europe 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0

Middle East 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.2

North
America 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.8 3.4 3.7

World Total 15.2 20.9 57.8 87.0 103.9 117.5 127.8 135.4 150.9 178.9 200.3

M itigation potential and its cost

- effectiveness var y significantly by country or region. At the regional level, Asia (in particular South and Southeast Asia), Africa, Central and South America and the European Union show the most significant potential for reducing GHG emi ssions from rice cultivation . For

in stance, in 2030 mitigation potential in Asia is estimated to be 27 MtCO 2 e with no carbon price and 34

MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of $20/tCO 2 e. Central and South America can achieve mitigation potential of 12

MtCO 2 e in 2030 at no carbon price, and mitigation potential can increase to 22 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price
of $20/tCO 2 e. Figure 2-4 shows the MAC curves for the top

- five emitting countries in 2030.

There are a large number of mitigation options included for rice cultivation and almost all provide

net GHG re ductions. The overall distribution of GHG mitigation across mitigation options included in this analysis is presented in Table 2

- 9. The options providing the largest quantify of GHG reductions are the two that involve switching to dryland production, which significantly reduces or eliminates CH 4
emissions . Those options do result in major reductions in yields, however. Other options that account for large reductions include nitrification inhibitors in combination with midseason drainage or alternate wetting and drying, along with switching to no

- till, fertilizer reductions, and optimal fertilization options

on non

- irrigated lands. The relative share of mitigation provided by different options varies across years due to the dynamics of GHG emissions, especially for changes in soil C.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 37RICE



### Table 2

- 9: Distribution of Net GHG Reductions across Mitigation Options, Baseline Production Case

2010 2020 2030

base_r100 1.74 0.35 0.36

base_r50_amsu 2.23 1.86 1.57

base_r50_ninhib 4.86 4.38 4.64

base_r50_slowrel 1.37 0.36 0.27

base_r50_notill 4.42 15.39 17.84

base_r50_f70 6.59 12.77 13.12

base_r50_f80 4.49 8.81 8.96

base_r50_f90 2.30

5.89 4.52 4.57

base_r50_auto 10.55 11.46

base_r50_ds 0.95 0.61 0.57

base_r50_f80_ds 1.01 0. 66 0.62

cf_r100 0.11 0. 00 0.00

cf_r50_amsu 1.26 1. 50 1.51

cf_r50_ninhib 2.22 2. 57 2.61

cf_r50_slowrel 2.24 1. 96 1.87

cf_r50_notill 0.04 0. 01 0.01

cf_r50_f70 0.46 0. 47 0.46

cf_r50_f80 0.34 0. 35 0.35

cf_r50_f90 0.19 0. 19 0.19

cf_r50_auto 0.40 0. 23 0.18

md_r50 5.08 5.52 5.59

md_r100 6.36 3.76 3.75

md_r50_amsu 6.47 6.97 6.92

md_r50_ninhib 18.32 20.02 20.40

md_r50_slowrel 7.93 7.43 7.48

md_r50_notill 3.12 3.10 2.93

md_r50_f70 6.14 6.66 7.07

md_r50_f80 5.98 6.49 6.80

md_r50_f90 5.61 6.10 6.30

md_r50_auto 4.80 5.13 5.33

md_r50_ds 1.34 1.01 1.01

awd_r50 5.27 4.85 4. 31

awd_r50_ninhib 19.70 19.11 17.95

awd_r50_slowrel 8.41 7.53 7. 08

dry_r50 25.35 15.00 13.23

dry_r50_f80 25.74 17.00 13. 00

TOTAL 198.73 203.23 200.33

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 38RICE



### Figure 2-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030 , Baseline Production Case

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) India

China

Indonesia

Vietnam

Bangladesh



## V.2.5 Sensitivity Analyses

In this section, we explore sensitivity analyses to examine the potential effects of alternative assumptions on estimated mitigation potential. Because many of the mitigation options simulated impact rice yields, the assumption of constant production implies a change in the area devoted to rice production. There are options that increase productivity, but also many that decrease productivity. Thus, land requirements may increase or decrease to maintain production at baseline levels, but overall the package of mitigation options being considered tends to reduce yields. In this sensitivity analysis, we

hold the area of cultivated rice at the baseline area and recalculate the MACs.



### Baseline Acreage

This section explores this relationship further by presenting an alternative scenario built around a

constraint on the number of acres , keeping the harvested area the same as estimated in the baseline.

As before, the MAC model only includes options that result in lower emissions

. The result for area held fixed at projected baseline area is shown in Figure 2-5. Generally speaking, emission s and emission reduction potential are slightly higher although the effects vary by country. Overall, global maximum potential mitigation is 320 MtCO2e, 60% higher than the global maximum potential mitigation of 200MtCO2e in the constant production case. Figure 2-6 shows the MAC for the top 5 rice producing

countries under the constant area case

. China’s MAC shows relatively little change under the assumption of constant area, but the other countries show increased emissions mitigation potential to varying degrees.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 39RICE



### Figure 2-5: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve, Baseline Area Case

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 50 100 150

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 200 250 2010

2020

2030



### Figure 2- 6: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030

, Baseline Area Case

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0$/tCO2e

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) India

China

Indonesia

Vietnam

Bangladesh

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 40RICE



### V.2 .5. Uncertainties and Limitations

Given the complexities of the global rice sector, the estimated GHG mitigation potential and marginal abatement cost curves are subject to a number of uncertainties and limitations:

• Availability and quality of data to represent the highly complex and heterogeneous rice production systems of the world. Although there are major improvements in representing the global rice production systems and t he business

- as

- usual baseline conditions compared to the previous EPA report (USEPA, 2006), data in some areas, such as management practices, are not always available for all countries or regions and approximations must be made based on limited

literature or expert judgment . Moreover, collecting and developing consistent cost estimates of emerging and/or not widely adopted mitigation measures is challenging.

• Biophysical modeling uncertainties, in particular with respect to soil organic carbon

simulations. The DNDC modeling of the business

- as

- usual baseline conditions and mitigation scenarios was performed using a set of inputs and assumptions developed based on various sources. The quality of input data ultimately affects the simulated results. Soil organi c carbon, which has a significant impact on the net GHG emissions from the sector, is particularly challenging to simulate given the lack of monitoring data at the global scale. Sensitivity tests would be useful to assess how alternative modeling approache s and assumptions may influence modeling results.

• Optimistic assumptions on technology adoption. The analysis assumes that if mitigation technology is considered feasible in a country or region, it is fully adopted in 2010 and through the analysis period. Research suggests that adoption of new technology in the agricultural sector is a gradual process and various factors potentially slow the adoption of a new GHG

- mitigating technology (e.g., farm characteristics, access to information and capital, and cult ural and institutional conditions). The mitigation potential presented in this analysis should be viewed to represent the technical potential of the mitigation options analyzed.

• Potential interactions of multiple mitigation measures are not fully addressed in this analysis. In this analysis, mitigation options are applied to independent segments of the rice production systems to avoid double counting. In reality, multiple mitigation options can be applied, and their order of adoption and potential interact ions may affect the aggregate GHG mitigation

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 41RICE



## References

Bates, J., N. Brophy, M. Harfoot and J. Webb . ( 2009 ) . Agriculture: methane and nitrous oxide. Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for Climate Change (SERPEC

- CC). pp. 62.

Nels on, G.C., M. W. Rosegrant, A

. Palazzo, I

. Gray, C

. Ingersoll, R

. Robertson, S

. Tokgoz, T

. Zhu, T

. B. Sulser, C

. Ringler, S

. Msangi, and L

. You . (2010). Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to

2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options . International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington,

DC. Neue, H. 1993. Methane emission from rice fields: Wetland rice fields may make a major contribution to global warming. BioScience 43 (7): 466

- 73.

U.S

. E nvironmental P rotection A gency (USEPA) (2006). Global Mitigation of Non

- CO2 Greenhouse
Gases. EPA 430 -R- 06

- 005. Washington DC.
USEPA (2012 ). Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990
– 2030. EPA 430 -D- 11

- 003. Washington DC.
World Resources Insititute (WRI). (2012). Climate A nalysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database. Available at http://www.wri.org/project/cait/

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 42LIVESTOCK



# V. 3. Livestock

V.3 .1 Sector Summary 

# L ivestock operations generate methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly come from two sources, enteric fermentation and
manure management. M ethane is produced as a by

- product of the digestive process in animals through a microbial fermentation process

. The quantity of enteric fermentation CH 4 emissions is determined by the animal’s digestive system , diet and management practices. Livestock manure
management can produce both CH 4 and N 2 O emissions. Methane is produced when manure decomposes

under anaerobic conditions. T he quantity of manure CH 4 emissions is determined by the type of treatment or storage facility, the ambient climate, and the composition of the manu re . Manure N 2 O

emissions result from nitrification and denitrification of the nitrogen that is excreted in manure and urine

.
In 2010, the global non

- CO 2 GHG emissions from livestock operations were approximately 2,286

MtCO 2 e

. Figure 3

- 1 presents projected total emissions for the top 5 emitting countries and the total for the

rest of the world.

Methane emissions predominate with 2,152 MtCO 2 e emitted in 2010. Globally, livestock is the largest

source of CH 4 emissions, contributing approximately 29 % of total global CH 4 emissions in 2010. As shown in Figure 3

- 2, t he top 5 emitting countries
– India, China, Brazil, the United States, and Pakistan
– accounted for 44% of the sector’s total CH 4 emissions. Growth in CH 4 emissions is expected to be about

20% between 2010 and 2030

.



### Figure 3-1: Total Net GHG Emissions and Projections for the Livestock Sector: 2000

- 2030

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000MtCO2e 2,202 2,286 2,512 2,729

2000 2010 2020 2030
Year Pakistan

United States

Brazil

China

India

ROW

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 43LIVESTOCK



### Figure 3-2: CH 4 

### Emissions Projections for the Livestock Sector: 2010

– 2030

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600MtCO2eIndiaBrazilChinaUnited StatesPakistanROWIndiaBrazilChinaUnited StatesPakistanROWIndiaBrazilChinaUnited StatesPakistanROW

2010 2020 2030 Manure CH4

Enteric CH4

Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management are a second significant source of GHG emissions within the livestock sector, contributing an additional 135 MtCO 2 e. Livestock contributed approximately

4% of total global N 2 O emissions in 2010. As presented i n Figure 3

- 3, China, India, the United States,

Brazil

, and Pakistan together account for 63% of global N 2 O emissions from livestock operations in 2010.

N 2 0 emissions are expected to grow about 16 % between 2010 and 2030 to about 156 MtCO 2 e, slightly

lower t han the projected growth in CH 4 emissions over the same time period.



### Figure 3-3: N 2 

### 0 Emissions Projections f rom the Livestock Sector : 20 10– 2030

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180MTCO2e

2010 2020 2030 India

China

Brazil

United States

Pakistan

ROW

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 44LIVESTOCK

Marginal abatement cost ( MAC ) curve results assuming the production of livestock products remains constant at projected baseline levels are presented in Figure 3-4. Maximum abatement potential

in the livestock sector is 268 MtCO 2 e in 2030 , or about 9.8 % of total GHG emissions in that year

. 1 These results suggest that there ar e significant opportunities for GHG reductions in the livestock sector.
A pproximately 86 MtCO 2 e can be reduced in 2030 at no or low carbon prices below $5 per ton of CO 2 equivalent

.



### Figure 3-4: Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management : 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 50 100 150 200 250

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030

The following section offers a brief description of CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from livestock operations, and a discussion of projected trends in global baseline emissions. The subsequent section presents possible abatement technologies, their technical specifications, costs and potential benefits. The final

section discusses the MAC analysis and estimated abatement potential at global and regional levels

.

1 This analysis only assesses abatement measures that are designed to reduce CH 4 emissions. Mitigation options that focus on potential reductions in N 2 O emissions are not included due to relatively small potential abatement potential
and limited information on abatement measures and costs. However, N 2 O emissions are affected by change s in livestock productivity under our primary scenario with production held constant because the number of animals required to produce a given quantity of livestock products, and their associated emissions, changes with productivity.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 45LIVESTOCK



## V.3 .2 CH 4 

## and N 2 

## O Emissions from Livestock Management

This section discusses how CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are produced in livestock operations and the

current projections of baseline emissions between 2010 and 2030.



### V. 3. 2.1 CH4 Emis sions from Enteric Fermentation

Enteric fermentation produced about 1945 MtCO 2 e of CH 4 in 2010 and a ccount s for about 90 % of the

total CH 4 emissions from livestock

. M ethane is produced as a by

- product of the digestive process in

animals. This microbial fermentation process p roduces C H 4 that can be exhaled or excre ted by the animal. The quantity of CH 4 produced through enteric fermentation depends largely on the animal’s digestive
system , diet and management practices. Ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) are the major sources of enteric CH 4 emissions ; nonruminant animals (e.g., swine, horses, mules) also produce enteric CH 4 emissions but at much lower rates compared to ruminant animals

.

The quantity, quality and digestibility of feed significantly affect enteric CH 4 emissions. The main

constituents of the diet

- sugars, starch, fiber, protein and lipid

- appear to have varying impacts on

methane emission s

. In general, increased intake of sta rch and soluble sugars decreases rumen pH, which suppresses methanogens

, thus resulting in lower CH 4 emissions. L ower feed quality such as higher

content of insoluble fiber lead s to higher CH 4 emissions. P rovision of feed supplements , such as dietary
oils, is found to have an inhibitory effect on CH 4 production in the rumen ( Hristov et al., 2013 ). Management practices that improve animal productivity, such as the usage of antibiotics and bovine somatotropin (bS T)

, often reduce CH 4 emissions per unit of meat or milk even though these activities can

increase CH 4 emissions per animal.



### V. 3 .2. 2 CH 4 

### and N 2 

### O Emissions from Manure Management

**Manure Management CH**  **4** 

### Emissions

Manure management produced about 206 MtCO 2 e of CH 4 in 2010, smaller than enteric fermentation

but still a significant global source of CH 4 at about 3 % of global total methane production. 2 In livestock waste management systems, CH 4 is produced when manure decomposes under anaerobic conditions, for example i n lagoons, ponds or pits

. The quantity of CH 4 emitted from manure management operations is determined by the type of treatment or storage facility, the ambient climate, and the composition of the manure (USEPA , 2012 ). H igher ambient temperature and moisture conditions favor CH 4 production.



### Manure Management **N 2**  

### O **Emissions**

In addition to CH 4 , livestock waste management produced about 135 MtCO 2 e of N 2 O in 2010. Nitrous oxide is produced from livestock waste through nitrification and denitrification. N itrous oxide emissions

from livestock waste depend on the composition of the waste , the type of bacteria involved in the decomposition process, and the oxygen and liquid content of waste (USEPA 201 2) . Nitrous oxide generation is most likely to occur in dry manure handling systems.

2 Global CH4 emission s in 2010 totaled 7,549.2 MTCO2e (USEPA, 2012, Table A2)

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 46LIVESTOCK



### V. 3 .2. 3 Baseline CH 4 

### and N 2 

### O Emissions Estimates

This section discusses the historical and projected baseline emissions for the livestock sector.

Historical emissions are characterized as those released between 1990 and 2005. Projected emissions cover

the 20

- year period 2010
– 2030. 3



### Historical Emissions Estimates

Over the 1990
– 2005 period, t otal non

- CO 2 GHG e missions from l ivestock operations increased by 4 %

between 1990 and 20 05 , from 2,201 to 2,292 MtCO 2 e (USEPA, 2012)

. Th is modest growth is caused by two opposing trends: growth in Africa and Central and South America has been partially offset by the effects of market restructuring in non

- OECD Europe. Enteric fermentation CH 4 emissions increased 7% between

1990 and 2005 whi le emissions of CH 4 and N 2 0 from livestock waste management decreased 9 % between

1990 and 2005.



### Projected Emissions Estimates

T his analysis uses the 2005 country

- level livestock population data from the Global Anthropogenic

Non- CO 2 Emissions Report (“GER”) as a starting point (USEPA, 201 2 ). However, for the period 2010
— 2030 a n alternate business

- as

- usual forecast was constructed using livestock production and market price projections generated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPR I)’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) (Nelson et al., 2010) to derive

pr ojected livestock populations. A key rationale for relying directly on these model outputs is that t he IFPRI IMPACT model projecti ons provide a set of prices and global production patterns consistent with

their livestock population and productivity assumptions . Using these data improves the internal consistency of the MAC analysis. 4

Table 3

- 1 shows projected baseline emissions from livestock management for the top 5 emitting countries and the rest of the world, divided into major regions. 5 Global emissions from livestock management are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.9%. In general, emissions are growing

much more ra pidly in developing countries than in the developed world.

3 The year 2010, although historical, is the first year of the modeling forecast period.

4 T he IMPACT outputs separated the world into 116 regions, with larger countries defined individually and smal ler countries combined into regions

. A m apping was created between IMPACT regions and the 195 countries in this analysis, using shares of country

- level livestock population in 2010 based on USEPA (2012 ) to disaggregate regional projections from the IMPACT model to individual countries within each region

.

5 Regional totals exclude the top 5 emitting countries that are presented separately in the table.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 47LIVESTOCK



### Table 3-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Livestock Management: 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR

(2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

India 300 311 322 333 344 0.7%

China 242 253 262 271 278 0.7%

Brazil 235 247 248 247 246 0.2%

United States 174 179 181 184 186 0.3%

Pakistan 80 89 99 110 122 2.1%

Rest of Regions

Asia 259 283 307 335 367 1.8%

Africa 293 320 343 369 395 1.5%

Europe 257 257 257 257 257 0.0%

Middle East 28 30 32 35 38 1.6%

Central & South America 227 245 258 271 284 1.1%

Eurasia 118 120 121 124 126 0.3%

North America 74 77 80 83 85 0.8%

World Totals 2,286 2,411 2,512 2,619 2,729 0.9%

Table 3

- 2 summarizes projected baseline emissions from enteric fermentation. W orldwide CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation are projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.9 % between

2010 and 2030. The top five countries, India, Brazil, China, the United States, and Pakistan, combine for about 44% of global totals in 2010, but the baseline projection has emissions from all of these countries except Pakistan growing at a slower rate than the global average. Annualized growth rates in the top five countries average 0.7%, lower than the average 0.9% growth projected in the rest of regions. By 2030, the top five countries are the source of 42 % of global enteric fermentation emissions.



### Table 3-2: Projected Baseline Emissions f rom Enteric Fermentation : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR

(2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

India 265 274 283 293 301 0.7%

Brazil 225 236 237 236 234 0.2%

China 162 172 179 186 191 0.8%

United States 132 136 138 141 143 0.4%

Pakistan 73 81 90 100 111 2.1%

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 48LIVESTOCK



### Table 3-2: Projected Baseline Emissions f rom Enteric Fermentation : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e) (continued)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR

(2010

– 2030)

Rest of Regions

Asia 211 231 251 275 303 1.8%

Africa 277 302 325 349 374 1.5%

Europe 195 196 197 198 198 0.1%

Middle East 26 28 30 33 36 1.6%

Central & South America 218 235 248 261 272 1.1%

Eurasia 97 99 101 103 105 0.4%

North America 64 68 71 73 76 0.8%

World Totals 1,945 2,059 2,150 2,246 2,345 0.9%

Similarly, w orldwide emissions from manure management are projected to increase at an average
annual rate of 0. 6 % between 2010 and 2030, but that world average combines slower growth in the top

emitting countries with faster growth in the rest of regions. In 2010, the top five countries combine to

account for 51 % of global emissions from manure management. By 2030, these same five are projected to account for just under 50 % of global emissions , equivalent to annual growth of 0.4%. In the rest o f regions, global emissions grow at an average annual growth rate of 0 .8 %.



### Table 3-3: Projected Baseline Emissions f rom Manure Management : 2010

– 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e)

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CAGR

(2010

– 2030)

Top 5 Emitting Countries

China 79 81 83 85 87 0.5%

United States 43 43 43 43 43 0.0%

India 35 37 39 40 42 0.9%

Brazil 10 10 11 11 12 0.8%

France 8 8 8 8 8

- 0.4%

Rest of Regions

Asia 56 60 65 70 76 1.5%

Africa 16 17 19 20 21 1.4%

Europe 53 53 52 52 52

- 0.1%

Middle East 2 2 2 2 2 1.3%

Central & South America 9 10 10 11 11 1.2%

Eurasia 21 21 21 21 21 0.1%

North America 9 9 10 10 10 0.3%

World Totals 341 352 362 373 384 0.6%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 49LIVESTOCK



## V.3 .3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

A significant number of livestock GHG mitigation measures can be identified in the literature (e.g.,
Hristov et al., 2013 ; Archibeque et al. 2012; UNFCCC 2008 , Whittle et al, 2013). However, developing

consistent and regional

- specific cost estimates for emerging mitigation measures or options that are not widely adopted has proven a challenging task. The measure cost data are scarce and often reflect anecdotal experience reported in a spe cific country, region or livestock production system . A ssumptions have to be made to extrapolate the estimates in othe r countries, regions and production systems. T his review uncovered only a few studies where cost information was presented in addition to associated emission reductions for a number of mitigation measures. Moreover, for some mitigation me asures, such

as those that potentially reduce livestock enteric fermentation CH 4 emissions, the literature varies on the

estimated magnitude of emissions reductions as well as the long

- term mitigation effects and animal and

human health impacts

.

Based on the availability and quality of mitigation measure cost and emission reduction efficiency
information, t his analysis evaluates six mitigation options for enteric fermentation CH 4 emissions and ten options for manure management CH 4 emissions

. Each technolog y is briefly characterized followed by a discussion of abatement measures’ implementation costs, potential benefits, and system design assumptions used in the MAC analysis.



### V. 3 .3.1 Enteric Fermentation CH 4 

### Mitigation Technologies

This section characterizes the mitigation technologies that can be applied to reduce enteric CH 4 emissions . M any of the currently available e nteric fermentation mitigation options, summarized in Table

3-4

, work indirectly by increasing animal growth rates and reducing time

- to

- finish (or increasing milk production for dairy cows)

. The potential GHG mitigation estimated here depends on the assumption that total production of meat or milk remains the same as in the baseline. Simply put, these strategies

work b ecause increased productivity means fewer animals are required to produce the same amount of
meat or milk, and fewer animals mean reduced GHGs.

Unfortunately, ma ny of the productivity enhancing options in this group are not without controversy (Hristov et al., 2013 ; Grainger et al., 2010 ). Some, such as bST and antibiotics, have raised concerns

o utside than their potential role in reducing GHGs. Most have greater than usual uncertainty about costs and effectiveness, especially under long term use. For exam ple, Whittier et al. (2013) , in developing MAC curves for Australia, assume that feed supplements ( analogous to Improved Feed Conversion here) and antimethanogen vaccines will become available by 2020 for some types of livestock operations. However

, ICF international , writing in a report prepared for the USDA, provides only a qualitative description of

enteric ferm entation GHG mitigation options

, excluding them from cost or break

- even analysis because

“m o re research is needed to evaluate the potential GHG impacts of changes in diets, use of feed additives, and breeding ( ICF International, 2013, p 3.62).”

In what follows we present descriptions and economic information used to derive the MAC curves.

We examine t he sensitivity of these results to productivity assumption s in Section V.3.5 which replaces the assumption of constant production with a n assumptio n of constant animal population and also examines a no antimethanogen case.

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 50LIVESTOCK



### T able 3-4: Abatement Measures for Enteric Fermentation CH 4



### Abatement

Option Total Installed Capital Cost Annual O&M
Cost Capital
Lifetime (Years) Reduction Efficiency (change in emissions per head) Benefits (Changes in
Livestock or Energy Revenue) (2010 USD) (2010 USD)

Improved Feed
Conversion 0 25

– 295 per head NA CH 4 :

– 39.4% to
+39.6% 0– 79% increase in animal yield

Antibiotics 0 4

– 9 per head NA CH 4 :

– 0.4% to – 6% 5% increase in animal yield

bST 0 123

– 300 per
head NA CH 4 :

– 0.2% to
+10.3% 12.5% increase in animal yield

Propionate
Precursors 0 40

– 120 per head NA CH 4 :

– 10% beef cattle and sheep;

– 25% dairy
animals 5% increase in animal yield

Antimethanogen 0 9

– 33 per head NA CH 4 :

– 10% 5% increase in animal yield

Intensive Grazing 0

– 180 to +1 per
head NA CH 4 :

– 13.3% beef cattle;

– 15.5% dairy cattle – 11.2% reduction in dairy cattle yield



### Improved Feed Conversion

This mitigation measure encompasses a number of management practices that would improve the proportion of feed energy converted to final products. The practices include increased amount of grain fed to livestock, and inclusion of dietary additives. This op tion is more effective in reducing emissions in regions where baseline feed is of relatively low quality.

• Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for improving feed are between $ 2 an d $ 295 per head for beef and dairy cattle

. No data were identified for other species

. One of the primary costs for this option, as well as most of the others below, is for additional labor costs necessary for implementation. Differences in labor input share and labor costs per hour are also major reasons

for the wide var iation in costs between regions and livestock production systems.

• Annual Benefits: Ration improvements result in an increase in yield (kg of meat or milk per animal) between 0 and 79%. There is considerable variation in the productivity impacts, primarily related to differences in baseline feed quality and productivity. Livestock raised in countries with low quality feeds in the baseline tend to have much greater productivity benefits from improved feed conversion than those in developed countries where fe ed conversion is already highly efficient.

• Applicability: This option applies to beef and dairy cattle in areas where baseline livestock growth rates and milk production are low, primarily developing regions including Africa

. This option is assumed to be available only for urban livestock production or intensively managed livestock production and only applied in regions where the yield gains associated with the option are greater than baseline yield increases (typically limited to regions that do not alrea dy feed

mixed rations ).

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 51LIVESTOCK

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a change in emissions per head between

- 39% and

+40%. Cases with increased emissions are excluded from the MAC analysis. 6



### Antibiotics

Feed antibiotics (e.g., monensin) to promote increased weight gain and reduce feed intake per metric ton of meat produced

.

• Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for providing antibiotics are between $ 4 an d $ 9 per head for

beef cattle including the costs of antibiotics and increased labor costs for imple mentation

. No data exist for other species.

• Annual Benefits: Ration improvements result in an increase in yield of 5 % kg/animal

• Applicability: This option applies to beef cattle in all regions , but is restricted to urban livestock production and intensively managed livestock production

.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head between 0 % and

6 %.



### Bovine Somatrotropin (b **ST )** 

This measure a dminister s bST to dairy cattle to increase milk production. Because of opposition to

the use of growth hormones like bST in many countries, this option was only applied in a subset of

countries.

• Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for purchasing and administering bST were estimated to be
between $ 123 an d $300 per head for dairy cows

. This cost is based on the cost of purchasing bST

and the additional labor c osts required for administering.

• Annual Benefits: Using bST result s in an average annual increase in yield (kg milk per head) of

12.5%

• Applicability: This option applies to dairy cows in all countries that currently approve the use of bST or are likely to do so in the near future. This option is assumed to be available only for urban or intensively managed live stock production.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head between 0% and

6%.



### Propionate Precursors

This option i nvolves administering propionate precursors (malate, fumarate) to animals on a daily basis. Hydrogen pro duced in the rumen through fermentation can react to produce either CH 4 or propionate. By adding propionate precursors to animal feed, more hydrogen is used to produce propionate and less CH 4 is produced.

• Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for purchasing and administering propionate precursors are between $ 40 an d $ 120 per head for beef cattle , sheep, and dairy animals.

• Annual Benefits: Administering propionate precursors result s in an increase in yield (kg of meat or milk per animal) of 5%

.

6 For the primary scenario where production is held constant, options that increase emissions per unit of output are excluded from the MAC calculations. Thus, mitigation options that increase emissions per head are still included in the MAC calculations if they increase productivity more than then they increase emissions, resulting in a reduction in

emissions intensity per unit of output.

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 52LIVESTOCK

• Applicability: This option applies to beef cattle, sheep, and dairy animals in all regions

. However, as with other options, it is only applied in urban and intensive livestock production
systems.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in CH 4 emissions per head of 10% for beef cattle and sheep and a reduction of 25% for dairy animals

. 

### Antimethanogen

Antimethanogen is a v accine that can be administered to animals to suppress CH 4 production in the

rumen. The vaccine is currently in infancy of de velopment with limited information on emission reduction efficiency and long

- term mitigation effects and animal health impacts.

• Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for providing antimethanogens are between $ 9 an d $33 per

head for purchasing and administering antimethanogens.

• Annual Benefits: Increases yields by 5% as more of the energy contained is feed is used by the animals to produce for meat or milk rather than producing methane

• Applicability: This option applies to all r uminants in all regions , though again it is assumed that only urban and intensively managed systems can adopt this option.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of 10 %.



### Intensive Grazing

Improving nutrition through more intensive pasture management and cattle rotations to allow for regrowth while decreasing reliance upon prepared rations.

• Annual Cost: Estimated reduction in yield of 11 .2 % for dairy cattle. Beef yields are assumed to remain unchanged under this option

.

• Annual Benefits: Estimated annual cost savings of between $ 0 an d $180 per head for reduced expenditures on feed

.

• Applicability: This option applies only to beef and dairy cattle in developed regions and Latin

America . It was assumed to be available only in intensively managed systems within livestock production system categories that receive relatively large amounts of annual rainfall such that intensive grazing is feasible.

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 13

- 15%

.



### V. 3 .3.2 M anure Management CH 4 

### Mitigation Technologies

Mitigation options for reducing CH 4 from livestock manure focus on changes in manure management practices that capture the CH 4 to flare or use for energy production (see Table 3-5) . There are fewer options for reducing N 2 O emissions from manure because these emissions tend to result from decomposition under aerobic conditions, such as from pasture, range, and paddock where manure is much less concentrated and more difficult to manage.

This analysis includes both large capital

- intensive digesters applied in developed regions and small

scale digesters for developing regions. Revenues are generated from the use of captured CH 4 for either heat or electricity on the farm; these revenues are scaled to other regions based on an electricity price

index. Capital costs and O&M costs for digester systems are mainly based on the USEPA AgSTAR program data and experience in the U.S. and the developing countries ( USEPA , 2010; Roos, personal

communication 2 012; Costa, personal communication 2012), supplemented by information from USDA (2007, 2011). For the EU, technology cost and performance parameters are based on Bates et al. (2009). For developing countries, the U.S. technology cost data a re assumed for l arge digester systems with

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 53LIVESTOCK

adjustments made to represent O&M costs in the developing countries. Capital costs for small

- scale systems are based on USEPA (2006), which estimates the capital cost per 1,000 pounds liveweight. Because liveweight tends to be mu ch smaller in developing countries, the capital cost per animal generally ends up being lower than in developed regions.



### T able 3-5: Abatement Measures for Manure Management

Abatement

Option Total
Installed Capital Cost Annual O&M
Cost Capital
Lifetime (Ye ars) Reduction Efficiency (change in
emissions per head) Benefits (Changes in
Livestock or Energy Revenue) Technical Applicability Adjustments
Across Regions (2010 USD) (2010 USD)

Complete

- mix Digester, Hogs

With Engine 100 per head (US) 0.11 per head (US) 20 CH 4: - 85% $8 energy
revenue/ savings per head (US) Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 61 per head (US) 0.07 per head (US) 20 CH 4 :

- 85% none Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

Complete

- mix Digester, Dairy Cattle

With Engine 958 per head (US) 3.35 per head (US) 20 CH 4: - 85% $65 energy
revenue/ savings per head (US) Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 588 per head (US) 2.06 per head (US) 20 CH 4 :

- 85% none Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

Plug

- flow Digester, Dairy Cattle

With Engine 1288 per head (US) 2.3 20 CH4:

- 85% $65 energy
revenue/ savings per head (US) Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 790 per head (US) 8.9 20 CH4:

- 85% none Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 54LIVESTOCK



### Table 3

- 5: Abatement Measures for Manure Management (continued)

Abatement

Option Total
Installed Capital Cost Annual O&M
Cost Capital
Lifetime (Years) Reduction Efficiency (change in
emissions per head) Benefits (Changes in
Livestock or Energy Revenue) Technical Applicability Adjustments
Across Regions (2010 USD) (2010 USD)

Fixed

- film Digester, Hogs

With Engine 128 per head (US) 0.15 per head (US) 20 CH 4: - 85% $8 energy
revenue/ savings per
head (US) Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 102 per head (US) 0.12 per head (US) 20 CH 4 :

- 85% none Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

Covered Lagoon, Large

- Scale, Hogs

With Engine 43 per head (US) 0.13 per head (US) 20 CH 4: - 85% $8 energy
revenue/ savings per head (US) Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 25 per head (US) 0.06 per head (US) 20 CH 4 :

- 85% none Hogs in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

Covered Lagoon, Large

- Scale, Dairy Cattle

With Engine 1182 per head (US) 3.43 per head (US) 20 CH 4: - 85% $65 energy
revenue/ savings per head (US) Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Without Engine 773 per head (US) 2.01 per head (US) 20 CH 4 :

- 85% none Dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities Labor costs,
labor share

Dome Digester, Cooking Fuel and Light 50 per 1000 lbs liveweight 1.25 per 1000 lbs liveweight 10 CH 4 :

- 50% $7 energy
revenue/ savings per head hogs, $48 energy
revenue/ savings per head dairy
cattle Hogs and dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensiti es in developing
countries Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 55LIVESTOCK



### Table 3

- 5: Abatement Measures for Manure Management (continued)

Abatement

Option Total
Installed Capital Cost Annual O&M
Cost Capital
Lifetime (Years) Reduction Efficiency (change in
emissions per head) Benefits (Changes in
Livestock or Energy Revenue) Technical Applicability Adjustments
Across Regions (2010 USD) (2010 USD)

Polyethylene Bag Digester, Cooking Fuel and Light 20 per 1000 lbs liveweight 0.5 per 1000 lbs liveweight 10 CH 4 :

- 50% $7 energy
revenue/ savings per head hogs, $48 energy
revenue/ savings per head dairy
cattle Hogs and dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities in developing
countries Labor costs, labor share, energy prices

Centralized Digester 163 per head average for hogs across the EU, 1007 per head average for dairy cattle
across the EU 0.07 per head for hogs, 2.06 dairy cattle 20 CH 4 :

- 85% $7 energy
revenue/ savings per head hogs, $48 energy
revenue/ savings per
head dai ry cattle Hogs and dairy cattle in
selected LPS
and management
intensities in
the EU

- 27 region Labor costs, labor share, energy prices



### C **omplete**

**- mix D**  **igester**

These digesters are more common in warmer climates, where manure is flushed out of barns or pens with water, lowering the solids’ concentration to a level generally between 3 and 10 % . Often there is a mixing tank where the manure accumulates before entering the digester. These digesters make use of gravity and pumps to move the manure through the system. They are often in the shape of a vertical cylinder and made of steel or concrete with a gas

- tight cover. These digesters are typically heated to maintain a constant temperature and gas flow.

• Capital Cost: $61/$100 per head (swine), $588/$958 per head ( cattle) depending on optional engine

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $0.07

-- $0.11 per head (swine), $2.06/3.35 (cattle)

• Annual Benefits: $8 per head (swine), $65 per head (cattle) if equipped with an engine and used to displace purchased power

• Applicability: Th is option applies only to swine and cattle managed in intensive production
systems in developed regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 85 %.

• Capital Lifetime: 20 years



### Plug

**- flow Digester** 

These digesters consist of long and relatively narrow heated tanks, often built below ground level, with gas

- tight covers. Plug

- flow digesters are only used for dairy manure because they require higher
manure solids’ content, around 11 to 13 % . As with complete -m ix digesters, they are maintained at constant temperatures throughout the year to maintain constant gas production.

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 56LIVESTOCK

• Capital Cost: $790 /$1 288 per head

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $2.30

-- $8.90 per head

• Annual Benefits: $65 per head if equipped with an engine and used to displace purchased power

• Applicability: This option applies only to dairy cattle in developed regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 85 %.

• Capital Lif etime: 20 years



### Fixed

**- film Digester** 

This digester option may be appropriate where concentrations of solids are very low, such as in

swine manure management situations where manure is very diluted with water. Fixed

- film digesters consist of a tank packed with inert media on which bacteria grow as a biofilm.

• Capital Cost: $102/$128 per head

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $0.06

-- $0.13 per head

• Annual Benefits: $8 per head if equipped with an engine and used to displace purchased power

• Applicability: This opti on applies only to swine managed in intensive production systems in developed regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 85 %.

• Capital Lifetime: 20 years



### Large

**- scale Covered Lagoon** 

Covered earthen lagoons are the simplest of the systems used in developed countries and generally the least expensive, though there is quite a bit of variation in the systems that have been built. This system is used with low manure solids’ concentration (less than 3 % ) and can be used for swine or dairy

cattle. CH 4 is captured by covering the lagoon where manure is stored with a floating cover and piping the gas out to a flare or used on

- farm. Because these digesters are not generally heated, the available gas flow varies signif icantly over the course of the year.

• Capital Cost : $25/$43 per head (swine), $773/$1,182 (cattle)

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $0.06/$0.13 per head (swine), $2.01/$3.43 (cattle)

• Annual Benefits: $8 per head (swine), $65 per head (cattle) if equipped with an engine and used to displace purchased power

• Applicability: This option applies only to swine and dairy cattle managed in intensive production systems in developed regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of ab out 85 %.

• Capital Lifetime: 20 years



### Small

**- scale Dome Digester** 

These are small, unheated digesters used in some developing countries, including China and India. A typical dome digester is a brick

- lined cylinder sunk in the ground with a wall dividing the cylinder in two with inlet and outlet ports connected to the bottom of the tank. Biogas generated is typically used by the household for cooking and other household energy needs.

• Capital Cost: $50 per 1

, 000 lbs liveweight

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $1.25 pe r 1,000 lbs liveweight

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 57LIVESTOCK

• Annual Benefits: $7 per head (swine), $48 per head (cattle)

• Applicability: This option applies to swine and dairy cattle in developing regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 50 %.

• Capital Lifetime: 1 0 years



### Ce **ntralized Digester**

Large centralized digesters where individual farmers transport their waste to in order for large scale digestion and dispersion of capital costs.

• Capital Cost: $163 per head (swine) , $ 1, 00 7 per head (cattle )

• Annual O&M Cost: Estimated $0.07 per head (swine), $2.06 per head (cattle)

• Annual Benefits: Assumed to provide the same annual benefits per head of li vestock as the large individual systems described above.

• Applicability: This option applies only to swine and dairy cattle in intensively managed production systems in EU

- 27 regions

• Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head of about 85 %.

• Capital Lifetime: 20 years



## V.3 .4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

T he MAC analysis assimilates the abatement measures’ technology costs, expected benefits

, and emission reductions presented in Section X .3 to compute the cost of abatement for each measure . Similar to the approach used in other non

- CO 2 sectors of this report, we compute a break

- even price for each abatement option for 195 countries to construct MAC curves illustrating the technical, net GHG mitigation potential at specific break

- even prices for 2010 , 2020, and 2030.

This section descri bes the general modeling approach applied in this sector

, which serve as additional inputs to the MAC analysis that adjust the abatement project costs

, benefits

, and the technical abatement potential in each country.



### V. 3 .4.1 Development of Disaggregated B aseline Livestock Populations

Livestock population projections at a disaggregated level are a key component of estimating potential

emissions reductions from l ivestock production. Tables 3

- 6 and 3

- 7 present baseline projected livestock populations by spec ies at the global and regional levels, respectively. As noted earlier in this chapter, these projections are based on country

- level livestock population data from USEPA ( 201 2) , adjusted using livestock production and market price projections from Nelson et al. ( 2010) to derive pr ojected livestock populations.



### Table 3 -6: Projected Global Livestock Populations by Species Species 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Asses 43,694,545 44,710,040 46,511,983 49,232,861 53,072,574

Mules 10,687,809 9,719,699 9,087,894 8,688,065 8,454,990

Buffalo 181,068,216 190,207,386 200,872,941 213,277,930 227,690,865

Camels 25,230,544 27,116,465 29,660,950 33,095,191 37,758,103

Cattle 1,141,799,067 1,233,755,944 1,293,778,238 1,348,359,726 1,392,273,902

(continued)

GLOBAL MITIG ATION OF NON

- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 58LIVESTOCK



### Table 3 -6: Projected Global Livestock Populations by Species (continued)
Species 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Dairy cattle 247,195,753 248,770,901 250,894,992 253,588,443 256,874,692

Goats 882,119,170 947,475,133 1,035,241,803 1,151,801,402 1,306,127,535

Horses 58,864,443 59,669,740 61,198,242 63,481,024 66,580,631

Other camelids 6,926,082 7,090,544 7,260,388 7,435,790 7,616,931

Pigs 947,222,554 963,684,813 981,443,858 1,000,597,025 1,021,251,228

Sheep 1,126,923,912 1,264,771,843 1,421,729,708 1,600,736,874 1,805,223,246

Turkeys 488,712,578 506,073,755 524,421,101 543,822,679 564,352,297

Chickens 18,934,787,428 20,500,590,776 22,251,209,335 24,210,358,750 26,405,046,832

Ducks 1,156,375,916 1,288,661,778 1,437,928,802 1,606,439,449 1,796,773,159

Geese 365,742,348 404,547,438 447,801,893 496,016,058 549,759,182

The livestock populations were disaggregated into 14 categories of livestock production systems (LPSs) based on the Gridded Livestock of the World (Robinson et al., 2011 ), along with an “UNKNOWN” category that was added to account for cases where there were no data available to assign a livestock species to an LPS:

• LGA
– livestock only grassland arid and semiarid

• LGH
– livestock only grassland humid and subhumid

• LGT
– livestock only grass land highland temperate

• LGY
– livestock only grassland hyper arid

• MIA – irrigated mixed crop

- livestock systems arid and semiarid

• MIH
– irrigated mixed crop

- livestock systems humid and subhumid

• MIT – irrigated mixed crop

- livestock systems highland temperate

• MIY
– irrigated mixed crop

- livestock systems hyper arid

• MRA
– rainfed mixed crop

- livestock systems arid and semiarid

• MRH
– rainfed mixed crop

- livestock systems humid and subhumid

• MRT
– rainfed mixed crop

- livestock systems highland temperate

• MRY
– rainfed mixed crop

- livestock systems hyper arid

• URBAN
– built

- up areas

• OTHER
– other systems

• UNKNOWN – no data available to assign to LPS

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 59GLOBAL MITIGATION OFNON-CO2GREENHOUSE GASES 

### Table 3- 7: Regional Livestock Populations by Species, 2010 and 2030

Asses Mules Buffalo Camels Cattle D airy Cattle Goats Horses Pigs Sheep Turkeys Chickens Ducks Geese

2010

AFRC 19,060,943 1,077,045 5,339,864 21,477,486 220,327,356 58,488,802 299,505,213 4,709,306 27,178,558 304,049,685 17,230,236 1,452,628,008 16,880,560 12,657,925

MIEA 2,749,155 198,708 753,069 1,247,756 8,021,314 5,567,448 45,065,821 225,902 214,307 109,243,396 6,102,128 845,345,519 1,886,081 2,092,632

CSAM 3,798,475 2,955,700 1,111,814 309,916,289 37,138,939 25,161,984 17,250,838 6,926,082 69,414,647 79,203,085 57,089,883 2,434,716,295 8,424,513 425,747

EURO 846,866 281,198 425,943 1,208 76,446,634 30,849,246 20,260,700 4,593,009 163,465,255 141,794,134 101,594,263 1,660,083,208 44,889,390 14,050,300

EURA 677,880 1,068 343,107 221,501 29,855,690 23,418,817 12,030,080 4,071,274 28,727,659 78,557,745 18,007,749 664,246,895 11,508,213 8,305,203

ASIA 13,249,225 2,862,090 173,094,419 2,282,593 362,788,699 79,456,157 468,038,089 11,512,981 563,373,447 398,701,823 2,955,455 9,099,019,576 1,056,093,702 327,903,127

NAAM 3,312,000 3,312,000 — — 134,443,085 12,276,345 12,057,283 16,501,133 94,848,681 15,374,043 285,732,864 2,778,747,928 16,693,456 307,414

2030

AFRC 28,605,408 1,410,927 9,840,993 33,269,240 266,035,319 73,540,139 432,866,460 7,753,070 37,167,402 537,137,245 19,285,366 1,916,766,477 21,622,904 15,777,661

MIEA 2,742,926 197,774 1,165,203 1,503,917 10,420,595 6,127,068 53,996,856 238,226 212,496 181,275,748 7,462,777 993,216,019 2,251,984 2,547,450

CSAM 3,525,580 2,565,528 876,235 363,165,169 34,416,861 24,447,270 17,058,230 7,616,931 87,526,659 123,946,758 79,940,136 3,293,431,862 11,572,205 620,925

EURO 609,117 234,846 1,008,184 4,597 78,327,604 27,596,465 20,202,782 5,548,271 153,126,179 192,995,324 102,791,593 1,706,164,516 44,614,600 13,888,742

EURA 849,921 844 282,435 442,251 33,053,022 21,338,795 24,550,502 5,634,282 27,922,758 130,930,762 18,608,201 700,410,055 12,039,543 8,669,961

ASIA 13,427,623 733,070 214,517,815 2,538,098 487,150,416 82,381,796 735,097,827 10,892,381 624,250,619 614,909,005 3,991,403 14,449,006,323 1,683,405,389 507,862,027

NAAM 3,312,000 3,312,000 — — 154,121,776 11,473,568 14,965,839 19,456,171 91,045,115 24,028,403 332,272,820 3,346,051,579 21,266,535 392,416

Note: AFRC = Africa; MIEA = Middle East; CSAM = Central and South America; EURO = Europe; EURA = Eurasia; ASIA = Asia; NAAM = North AmericaLIVESTOCKV-60LIVESTOCK

The LPSs capture major combinations of livestock production systems of the world with respect to land use type and climate. Livestock populations across livestock production systems were assigned for pigs, goats, sheep, dairy cattle, and beef cattle based on the country

- level data from Robinson et al. (2011). Approximation was made for the distribution of selected species where LPS data were not available.

In addition to disaggregation by LPS, certain livestock species were further disaggregated into produ ction intensity categories. For pigs, data were provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) that separated country

- level pig populations into three intensity categories for each LPS: intensive,

semi

- intensive, and extensive. Those data were use d to assign intensity levels to pig populations and this distribution was used as a proxy for poultry production intensity in countries with both pig and poultry production. For beef and dairy cattle, regional allocation of cattle across intensity categori es in Robinson et al. (2011) was used to assign intensity levels to each country located within that region. For other species, all intensity levels were defined as unknown. As an example, Table 3

- 8 presents the assumed distribution of livestock across livestock production systems and intensity classifications for India, the largest emitter for the livestock production sector.

The detailed disaggregation of baseline populations allows for better definition of the technical applicability of mitigation option s. For instance, this study only applies large

- scale digesters to intensive dairy and hog production systems in each country. Intensive grazing is assumed to be applicable only to relatively high productivity mixed crop

- livestock systems that rely on irrig ation or are in humid and subhumid or temperate highland LPS designations. T he use of a highly disaggregated baseline in this study serves to define the share of emissions where mitigation options can potentially be applied.

Enteric fermentation and manur e management emissions for each subset of livestock populations were calculated using the IPCC default values consistent with those used in USEPA (201 2 ). The one exception is for enteric fermentation emissions in Africa, where relative emissions reported i n Robinson et al. (2011) were used to scale default IPCC emissions per head for different LPS categories.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 61LIVESTOCK 

### Table 3- 8: Livestock Distribution by Intensity and Livestock Production System for India, 2010 (% of animals by species)
Species Intensity LGA LGH LGT LGY MIA MIH MIT MIY MRA MRH MRT MRY URBAN O ther

Asses unknown 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.3% 1.2%

Mules unknown 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.3% 1.2%

Buffalo unknown 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.3% 1.2%

Camels unknown 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.3% 1.2%

Cattle intensive 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 17.7% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 22.4% 6.2% 0.7% 0.0% 4.1% 0.7%

Cattle extensive 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 4.4% 0.5% 0.0% 2.9% 0.5%

Cattle unknown 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Dairy Cattle intensive 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 18.6% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0% 6.5% 0.8% 0.0% 4.1% 0.7%

Dairy Cattle extensive 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 4.6% 0.5% 0.0% 3.0% 0.5%

Dairy Cattle unknown 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Goats unknown 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.6% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39.0% 7.9% 1.3% 0.0% 7.2% 1.3%

Horses unknown 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.3% 1.2%

Pigs intensive 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 13.8% 3.0% 0.3% 0.0% 7.1% 16.9% 5.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.5%

Pigs extensive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 4.3% 0.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5%

Pigs semi- intensive 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Sheep unknown 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 5.0% 0.1% 0.0% 45.5% 5.1% 2.6% 0.0% 6.8% 0.7%

Chickens intensive 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 13.8% 3.0% 0.3% 0.0% 7.1% 16.9% 5.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.5%

Chickens extensive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 4.3% 0.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5%

Chickens semi- intensive 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Ducks intensive 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 13.8% 3.0% 0.3% 0.0% 7.1% 16.9% 5.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.5%

Ducks extensive 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 4.3% 0.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5%

Ducks semi

- intensive 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%GLOBAL MITIGATION OFNON-CO2GREENHOUSE GASESV-62LI VESTOCK



### V. 3 .4. 4 MAC Analysis Results

As highlighted at the beginning of this chapter, global abatement potential in the livestock sector equates to approximately 3% of its total annual emissions between 2010 and 2030 at no or a relatively low carbon price of $5 per ton of CO 2 equivalent ($/tCO 2 e). In 2030, total abatement potential in the livestock

sector is 70 MtCO 2 e at no carbon price, 86 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of $5/tCO 2 e, and 128 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of $20/tCO 2 e, representing 2. 6 %, 3.2 % and 4.7 % of the total sector emissions, respectively.

Table 3-9 presents the estimated mitigation potential at various break

- even prices for the top

- five emitting countries and rest of regional groups in 2030 under an assumption that livestock populations adjust to maintain production at baseline levels when mitigation options result in changing productivity

. 

### Table 3-9: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break

- Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO 2 

### e), Baseline
Production Case

Break

- Even Price ($/tCO 2 

### e)

Country/Region

– 10

– 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 50 100 100+

Top 5 Emitting Countries

India 7.6 7.6 11.7 14.0 14.5 14.5 16.4 22.4 24.7 25.0 27.4

China 5.6 5.6 6.2 6.2 10.4 10.4 14.6 24.1 32.6 35.5 38.3

Brazil 4.6 4.6 4.8 6.7 7.1 9.9 10.2 10.6 12.5 13.2 13.6

United States 0.3 0.3 4.1 8.7 8.7 13.2 13.2 15.5 24. 0 37.5 43.2

Pakistan 0.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.1 4.4 5.6

Rest of Region

Africa 8.7 9.3 11.8 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.1 13.3 13.6 14.0 14.6

Asia 12.3 13.6 18.1 21.2 24.8 26.3 30.2 35.0 38. 1 40.4 45.5

Central & South
America 5.8 6.4 7.8 8.9 10.4 11.1 12.6 13.1 14.2 14.8 15.2

Eurasia 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.7

Europe 6.2 6.4 10.7 11.0 11.3 12.4 15.5 16.4 20. 9 29.7 50.6

Middle East 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9

North America 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.8 4.4 5.0 6 .2 9.2 10. 0

World Total 55.7 60.0 83.3 97.2 108.1 120.5 136.3 161.6 193.3 227.5 268.6

M itigation potential and its cost

- effectiveness var y significantly by country or region. At the regional level, Asia (in particular South and Southeast Asia), Africa, Central and South America and the European Union show the most significant potential for reducing GHG emissions from livestock operations. Fo r instance, in 2030 mitigation potential in Asia is estimated to be 27 MtCO 2 e with no carbon price and 34

MtCO 2 e at a carbon price of $20/tCO 2 e. Central and South America can achieve mitigation potential of 12

MtCO 2 e in 2030 at no carbon price, and mitigat ion potential can increase to 22 MtCO 2 e at a carbon price
of $20/tCO 2 e. Figure 3-5 shows the MAC curves for the top

- five emitting countries in 2030.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 63LIVESTOCK



### Figure 3-5: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for Top 5 Emitters in 2030 (Baseline Production Case)

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) India

Brazil

China

United States

Pakistan

The MAC analysis also suggests that mitigation of enteric fermentation methane emissions presents

the most cost

- effective mitigation opportunit y f or options evaluat ed in this report. Manure management mitigation measures mostly require additional investmen ts or financ ial incentives to achieve emissions

reductions. T he most cost

- effective mitigation options for the livestock sector (i.e., measures that

dominate the MAC curves at break

- even carbon prices at or below $0/MtCO 2 e) include :

• intensive grazing in East Asia (e.g., Japan, Korea and China) and Central and South America;

• BST administered to dairy cattle in developing regions;

• antimethanogens administered to sheep and goats as well as beef and dairy cattle;

• improved feed conversion efficiency of the cat tle populations; and

• propionate precursors administered to beef and dairy cattle in developing regions

Figure 3-6 shows the distribution of mitigation potential across individual types of options at a global

scale based on total technical potential (regard less of price) calculated in the MAC analysis

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 64LI VESTOCK



### Figure 3-6. Global Net GHG Livestock Emissions Reduction Potential by Mitigation Option (Baseline Production Case)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300MtCO2e

2010 2020 2030

Year Large digester

Small digester

Antibiotics

Propionate precursors

Improved feed conversion

Intensive grazing

Antimethanogen

bST



## V.3.5 Sensitivity Analyses

In this section, we explore sensitivity analyses to examine the potential effects on estimated mitigation potential. Although many of the mitigation options examined are expected to increase productivity and would therefore require fewer animals to produce the same amount of output, livestock populations may not decrease accordingly. Due to increasing demand for livestock products and potential reductions in the price of these products with higher productivity, the quantity of livestock products demanded ma y increase. Thus, we examine an alternative scenario that holds the number of livestock constant at the projected baseline populations. To the extent that productivity is increased by adoption of the GHG mitigation options considered, this scenario will re sult in higher global production. In addition, given mixed conclusions on the near

- term prospects of antimethanogens, we also present mitigation estimates developed excluding antimethanogens as an option.



### Baseline Number of Animals

As noted above, many of the mitigation options in the baseline production case reduce the emissions per unit of meat or milk but may increase the emissions per animal. This section explores this relationship

further by presenting an alternative scenario built around a constrai nt on the number of animals, keeping

the herd sizes the same as estimated in the baseline.

As before, the MAC model only includes options that result in lower emissions. But with the number of animals held constant, those mitigation strategies that increa se emissions per animal in a given region

are excluded in that region. The result is 15 to 39 % lower mitigation potential as shown in Figure 3-7 and

Table 3- 10

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 65LIVESTOCK



### Figure 3-7: Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management

, Baseline Number of Animals : 20 10, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 50 100 150 200 250

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030



### Table 3- 10 : MAC Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for Baseline Number of Animals
Scenario

2010 2020 2030

Total Difference from Total Difference from Total Difference
Reduction Constant Reduction Constant Reduction from Constant $/tCO 2 

### e MTCO 2 

### e Production (%) MTCO 2 

### e Production(%) MTCO 2 

### e Production (%)

0 49

- 21% 54

- 19 % 60

- 15 %

5 58

- 20% 61

- 22% 65

- 25%

10 65

- 27 % 68

- 27 % 73

- 25 %

15 79

- 25% 78

- 29% 81

- 26%

20 84

- 29 % 88

- 31 % 87

- 31 %

25 86

- 33% 91

- 33% 97

- 33%

30 90

- 35 % 97

- 34 % 101

- 35 %

35 93

- 37% 98

- 34% 106

- 33%

40 96

- 39% 101

- 39% 109

- 35%

45 98

- 39% 103

- 39% 113

- 37%

50 102

- 39% 108

- 39% 118

- 38%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 66LI VESTOCK



### No Antimethanogen

The science and policy literature varies in its treatment of antimethanogens. The Australian government included them in their recent study (Whittle et al., 2013). However ICF International, in a recent analysis for USDA, concludes that “more research is needed to evaluate the potential GHG impacts of changes in diets, use of feed addit ives, and breeding.” (ICF International , 2013) For comparison purposes we estimated MAC curves as above except by assuming antimethanogens are unavailable in all regions and time periods. Results are shown in Figure 3-8 and Table 3- 11

. Globally, the mitiga tion potential in the livestock sector is reduced 16 to 31 % in the scenario with no antimethanogens and baseline production.



### Figure 3-8: Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management, Baseline Production with No Antimethanogen: 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 67LIVESTOCK



### Table 3- 11 : MAC Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for No Antimethanogen Scenario

2010 2020 2030

Total Difference Total Difference from Total Difference
Reduction from Constant Reduction Constant Reduction from Constant $/tCO 2 

### e MTCO 2 

### e Production (%) MTCO 2 

### e Production(%) MTCO 2 

### e Production (%)

0 48

- 28% 53

- 20% 49

- 31%

5 54

- 31% 61

- 22% 62

- 28%

10 70

- 25% 73

- 21% 73

- 25%

15 87

- 21% 85

- 23% 82

- 26%

20 99

- 22% 103

- 19% 98

- 23%

25 110

- 19% 113

- 18% 115

- 20%

30 120

- 18% 122

- 16% 126

- 19 %

35 126

- 15% 125

- 16% 130

- 18%

40 133

- 19% 136

- 17% 139

- 17 %

45 136

- 20% 140

- 17% 149

- 17%

50 145

- 18% 147

- 17% 152

- 20 %



### Combined **Baseline Number of Animals and**  **No Antimethanogen**

Results for a combined scenario including both an assumption that the number of livestock under the mitigation scenario remains equal to the baseline and no applicability of antimethanogens are presented in Figure 3

- 9 and Table 3

- 12. Under this scenario, there is a reduction in mitigation potential of between

16 and 43 % relative to the primary case where production of livestock products is assumed to remain equal to baseline levels.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 68LI VESTOCK



### Figure 3-9: Global Abatement Potential in Livestock Management, Baseline Number of Animals with No Antimethanogen: 2010, 2020, and 2030

-$30 -$20 -$10

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60$/tCO2e

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Non

- CO 2 Reduction (MtCO 2 e) 2010

2020

2030



### Table 3- 12 : MAC Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for Combined Baseline Number of Animals and No Antimethanogen Case

2010 2020 2030

Total Difference from Total Difference from Total Difference
Reduction Constant Reduction Constant Reduction from Constant $/tCO 2 

### e MTCO 2 

### e Production (%) MTCO 2 

### e Production (%) MTCO 2 

### e Production (%)

0 50

- 20% 56

- 16% 57

- 18%

5 57

- 21% 64

- 18% 67

- 22%

10 63

- 30% 69

- 26% 73

- 26%

15 70

- 34% 77

- 31% 78

- 30%

20 74

- 38% 82

- 36% 82

- 35%

25 78

- 39% 86

- 37% 86

- 41%

30 82

- 41% 90

- 39% 94

- 40%

35 87

- 41% 96

- 35% 97

- 39%

40 90

- 42% 100

- 39% 102

- 39%

45 93

- 42% 102

- 40% 105

- 41%

50 98

- 42% 104

- 41% 108

- 43%

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 69LIVESTOCK



### Change in Production of Livestock Products with Number of Animals Held at Baseline
**Levels**

For the scenario where livestock populations are kept at projected baseline levels, there will be changes in production of livestock products due to changes in output per head for many optio ns. Figures 3

- 10 and

3- 11 show the change in global beef production and global milk production from dairy cattle estimated if all production were to switch from baseline management into that option.



### Figure 3- 10 : Global Beef Production under Baseline and Mitigation Options, Assuming Full Adoption of Individual Options and Holding the Number of Animals Constant

- 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000

2010 2020 2030Metric Tons

Year Base

Small Digesters

Large Digesters

Improved Feed Conversion

Antibiotics

bST

Propionate Precursors

Antimethanogen

Intensive Grazing

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 70LI VESTOCK



### Figure 3- 11 : Global Production of Milk from Dairy Cattle Under Baseline and Mitigation Options, Assuming Full Adoption of Individual Options and Holding the Number of Animals Constant

- 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000

2010 2020 2030Metric Tons

Year Base

Small Digesters

Large Digesters

Improved Feed Conversion

Antibiotics

bST

Propionate Precursors

Antimethanogen

Intensive Grazing



### V. 3 .4.5. Uncertainties and Limitations

Given the complexities of the global livestock sector, the estimated GHG mitigation potential and marginal abatement cost curves are subject to a number of uncertainties and limitations:

• Availability and quality of data to represent the highly complex and heterogeneous livestock production systems of the world. Although there are major improvements in the characterization

of the business

- as

- usual baseline con ditions since the previous EPA report (USEPA, 2006), data in some areas, such as management practices, are not always available for all countries or regions and approximations must be made based on limited literature or expert judgment

.

• A vailability of mitigation measure cost data and in some cases scientific understanding of mitigation impacts. Collecting and developing consistent cost estimates of emerging mitigation

measures or options that are not widely adopted has proven to be challenging. Moreover

, scientific understanding of the mitigation effects and animal and human health impacts of some mitigation measures is still limited. In addition, some mitigation measures, such as pasture management options that lead to reductions in enteric CH 4 emission s and enhancement in soil carbon storage, would require a different analytical framework that is beyond the scope of this study.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 71LIVESTOCK

• Optimistic assumptions on technology adoption. The analysis assumes that if mitigation technology is considered feasible in a country or region, it is fully adopted in 2010 and through the analysis period. Research suggests that adoption of new technology in the agricultural sector is a gradual process and v arious factors potentially inhibit the adoption of a new GHG

- mitigating

t echnology (e.g., farm characteristics, access to information and capital, and cultural and institutional conditions). Adoption of the various technologies and management practices (such as supplementation) faces even greater challenges. The mitigation pote ntial presented in this analysis should be viewed to represent the technical potential of the mitigation options analyzed.

• Potential market feedback from livestock productivity improvement. The analysis assumes constant production level when evaluating mi tigation potential of abatement measures. This analysis does not, however, address the possibility of an emissions increase as a result of lower costs per unit through such efficiency gains, which could in turn increase the quantity demanded.

• Potential interactions of multiple mitigation measure. In this analysis, mitigation options are applied to independent segments of the livestock populations to avoid double counting. In reality, multiple mitigation options can be applied and their potential interaction s may affect the

ag gregate GHG mitigation. For example, various measures can improve feed conversion efficiency (e.g., concentrate inclusion, dietary additives such as oils) and their effectiveness would depend on the other measures implemented; measures t hat reduce CH 4 emissions from manure management (e.g., aeration) would likely increase N 2 O emissions; measures that improve feed conversion efficiency would likely change N 2 O emissions in livestock manure; measures that improve diet quality for grazing liv estock would likely change GHG emissions from agricultural

soils. The interactive effects are not fully addressed in this analysis.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 72LI VESTOCK



## References

Archibeque, S., Haugen

- Kozyra, K., Johnson, K., Kebreab, E., & Powers

- Schilling, W. (2012). Near

- Term Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Systems in the United States: Beef, Dairy, and Swine Production Systems. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Report
NI R12

- 04, July 2012. Bates, J., N. Brophy, M. Harfoot and J. Webb . ( 2009 ) . Agriculture: methane and nitrous oxide. Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for Climate Change (SERPEC

- CC). pp. 62.
Costa, A. (2012). Personal communication. Grainger, C., R. Williams, R. J. Eckard, and M. C. Hannah. 2010. A high dose of monensin does not reduce methane emissions of dairy cows offered pasture supplemented with grain. J. Dairy Sci. 93:5300

- 5308. Hristov, A.N., J. Oh, C. Lee, R. Meinen, F. Montes, T. Ott, J. Firkins, A. Rotz, C. Dell, A. Adesogan, W. Yang, J. Tricarico, E. Kebreab, G. Waghorn, J. Dijksta, and S. Oosting. 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions in livestock production
– A review of technical options for non

- CO2 emissions. Edit ed by Pierre J. Gerber, Benjamin Henderson and Harinder P.S. Makkar. FAO Animal Productio n and Health Paper No. 177. FAO: Rome, Italy. ICF International, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal
Production in the United States. February 2013.
Nelson, G.C., M. W. Rosegrant, A

. Palazzo, I

. Gray, C

. Ingersoll, R

. Robertson, S

. Tokgoz, T

. Zhu, T

. B. Sulser, C

. Ringler, S

. Msangi, and L

. You . (2010). Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to

2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options . International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington,

DC.
Robinson, T.P., Thornton P.K., Franceschini, G., Kruska, R.L., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A., Cecchi, G., Herrero, M., Epprecht, M., Fritz, S., You, L., Conchedda, G. & See, L. ( 2011 )

. Global livestock production systems. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 152 pp.
Roos, K. (2012). Personal communication.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). February 2011. Climate Change Policy and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Livestock Operations. ERR

- 111. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). October 2007. Analysis of Energy Production Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Systems of U.S. Livestock Production Facilities.
Available at: http://www.agmrc. org/media/cms/manuredigesters_FC5C31F0F7B78.pdf

. U.S

. E nvironmental P rotection A gency (USEPA) (2006). Global Mitigation of Non

- CO2 Greenhouse
Gases. EPA 430 -R- 06

- 005. Washington DC.

US EPA ( 2010 )

. Anaerobic Digestion Capital Costs for Dairy Farms . Washingt on, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ AgSTAR /pdf/digester_cost_fs.pdf

. USEPA. (2012). Global Anthropogenic Non

- CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990

- 2030 . EPA 430 -R- 12

- 006. Washington, DC: USEPA.

Whittle, L ., Hug, B., White, S., Heyhoe, E., Harle, K., Mamun, E., & Ahammad, H. (2013). Costs and Potential of Agricultural Emissions Abatement in Australia. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Eco nomics and Sciences. Technical Report 13.2, March 2013. Williams, Y. J., S. Popovski, S. M. Rea, L. C. Skillman, A. F. Toovey, K. S. Northwood, and A. D. G. Wright. 2009. A vaccine against rumen methanogens can alter the composition of archaeal populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:1860

– 1866.

World Resources Institute (WRI). (2012). Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database. Available at http://www.wri.org/project/cait/

.

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON- CO 2 GREENHOUSE GASES V- 73

### U nited States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460