United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) EPA-430-R-13-011 

Washington, DC 20005 September 2013 

Global Mitigation of Non-CO2
 

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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................................. I-1
 

I.2.1 Methane (CH4)...................................................................................................................... I-2
 

I.2.2 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)............................................................................................................ 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-CO2 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 Reductions .................................................................. 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III 
 

 

CONTENTS 

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 Sectoral 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 Natural 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 Analysis ........................................................................................ 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 Landfills............................................................................................ 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
 

IV GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

CONTENTS 

III.1.3.1	 Landfill CH4 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	 CH4 Emissions from Domestic and Industrial Wastewater ................................III-29
 

III.2.2.2	 N2O 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	 CH4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Decentralized Treatment ...................III-35
 

III.2.3.3	 CH4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Collection System without
 

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

III.2.3.4	 CH4 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 N2O 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—N2O 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V 
 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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	 NH3 or HCs Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large 

Retail Food ................................................................................................................ IV-27
 

IV.2.3.7	 CO2 Transcritical Systems in New Large 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	 NH3 or CO2 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	 CO2 in Transport Refrigeration ............................................................................. IV-33
 

IV.2.3.21	 Low-GWP Refrigerants and Blends ...................................................................... IV-33
 

VI GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

CONTENTS 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES VII 
 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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 Boardstock ........................................................................... 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 HFC-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
 

VIII GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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 Fire 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 Analysis ........................................................................................ 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 Approach .................................................................................... 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IX 
 

CONTENTS 

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 NF3 Remote Chamber Clean................................................................................. IV-137
 

IV.9.3.5 Gas Replacement.................................................................................................... IV-138
 

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
 

X GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

IV.10. SF6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems........................................................................ IV-147
 

IV.10.1 Sector Summary ....................................................................................................................... IV-147
 

IV.10.2 SF6 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 SF6 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 SF6 Handling ....................................................................................... IV-156
 

IV.10.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis .................................................................................... IV-157
 

IV.10.4.1 Methodological Approach .................................................................................... IV-157
 

IV.10.4.2 Definition 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 SF6 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 (SO2) .................. IV-169
 

IV.11.3.2 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas—HFC 134a ..................................... IV-170
 

IV.11.3.3 Replacement 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XI 
 

CONTENTS 

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	 NF3 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-Even 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 from 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	 NF3 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
 

XII GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

CONTENTS 

IV.13.4.4	 Estimating 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 CH4 and N2O 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 CH4 and N2O Emissions from Livestock Management ..........................................................V-46
 

V.3.2.1	 CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation............................................................V-46
 

V.3.2.2	 CH4 and N2O Emissions from Manure Management ...........................................V-46
 

V.3.2.3	 Baseline CH4 and N2O Emissions Estimates ..........................................................V-47
 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XIII 
 

 

CONTENTS 

V.3.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis ...........................................................V-50
 

V.3.3.1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Mitigation Technologies .............................................V-50
 

V.3.3.2 Manure Management CH4 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
 

Appendixes 

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: Description of the Input Data Used in DAYCENT Simulations ............................................ O-1
 

XIV GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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/meter2) ......................I-2
 

I-2 Illustrative Non-CO2 Marginal Abatement Curve ................................................................... I-13
 

I-3 Percentage Share of Global Non-CO2 Emissionsa by Type of Gas in 2010............................ I-16
 

I-4 Non-CO2 Global Emissions Forecast to 2030 by Greenhouse Gas ......................................... I-17
 

I-5 Global Emissions by Major Sector for all Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases ................................ I-18
 

I-6 Projected World Emissions Baseline for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, Including
 

Top Emitting Regions................................................................................................................... I-18
 

I-7 Global 2030 MACs by Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas.................................................................... I-19
 

I-8 Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions ............... I-20
 

I-9 Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions ............... I-20
 

Section II 

1-1 CH4 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 and 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 CH4 Emissions from Wastewater: 2000–2030......................................................................... III-27
 

2-2 N2O 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XV 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

2-10 Share of Wastewater CH4 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 N2O 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 (MtCO2e) ..................................... 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 (MtCO2e)...................................... IV-49
 

3-2 Global Abatement Potential in Solvent Use: 2010, 2020, and 2030 ..................................... IV-50
 

3-3 Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Degreaser 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 (MtCO2e).................................... 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 (MtCO2e) ...................................... 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 from Fire Protection: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e)................................. 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 Emitters in 2030 ..................................... IV-100
 

7-1 PFC Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) .................. 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 Emissions) ....... 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 (MtCO2e) .............................. 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 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... 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
 

XVI GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

9-4 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030 ..................................... IV-143
 

10-1 SF6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e)................................... IV-147
 

10-2 Global Abatement Potential in Electric Power Systems: 2010, 2020, and 2030................ IV-148
 

10-3 Percentage of Global SF6 Emissions in 2020 by Emission Stream (% of GWPWeighted Emissions) ............................................................................................................... IV-149
 

10-4 Global SF6 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-158
 

10-6 Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Top Five and Rest of World Emitters in 2030 .... IV-161
 

11-1 SF6 Emissions from Magnesium Production: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) .................................. IV-165
 

11-2 Global Abatement Potential in Magnesium Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030 ........ IV-166
 

11-3 Global SF6 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 (MtCO2e)............................ 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 (MtCO2e) ................................. 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 Reductions 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 Marginal 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 N20 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 (Baseline Production 

Case) ............................................................................................................................................. V-64
 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XVII 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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 Global 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
 

XVIII GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

List of Tables 

Number Page 

Section I 

I-1 Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions for 2010 (MtCO2e) 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 

m3/tonne Coal Produced ...............................................................................................................II-5
 

1-2 Projected Emissions from Coal Mine CH4 by Country and Region: 2010 to 2030 

(MtCO2e) .........................................................................................................................................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 ($/tCO2e) in 2030 ..............II-16
 

2-1 Emissions Source from Oil and Natural Gas Systems ............................................................II-23
 

2-2 Projected Baseline CH4 Emissions for Oil and Natural Gas Systems by 

Country/Region: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ......................................................................................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 (MtCO2e) ......... 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 CH4 Generation Factors by Country ....................................................................................... III-20
 

1-7 Example Break-Even Prices for MSW Landfill Technology Options ................................. III-21
 

1-8 Break-Even Prices of Waste Diversion Options..................................................................... III-21
 

1-9 Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e)............ III-22
 

2-1 Projected CH4 Baseline Emissions from Wastewater: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ...................... III-31
 

2-2 Projected N2O Baseline Emissions from Human: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ............................. III-31
 

2-3 Abatement Measures for the Wastewater Sector .................................................................. III-34
 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XIX 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

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 N2O 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-Producing Countries’ Share of Baseline Emissions ........................................ IV-12
 

1-5 Model Nitric Acid Facilities Assumptions ............................................................................. IV-13
 

1-6 Example Break-Even Prices for N2O 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 (MtCO2e).......... 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 

(MtCO2e) ..................................................................................................................................... IV-41
 

3-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Solvent Use: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) .............................. 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 

(MtCO2e) ..................................................................................................................................... IV-57
 

4-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ............ 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 

(MtCO2e) ..................................................................................................................................... IV-75
 

5-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2010-2030 (MtCO2e)................ IV-82
 

5-2 Aerosol Product 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 

(MtCO2e) ..................................................................................................................................... IV-87
 

6-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Fire Protection: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO2e)...................... 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
 

XX GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

6-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-100
 

7-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2010–2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... 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 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-113
 

8-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from HCFC-22 Production: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ............ IV-120
 

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 Prices for Abatement Measures in HCFC-22 Production ............. IV-125
 

8-7 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

(MtCO2e) .................................................................................................................................. IV-126
 

9-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2010-2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... 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 NF3 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 Semiconductor
 

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

9-10 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-143
 

10-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e)........ 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 Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-161
 

11-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from Magnesium Production: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e)........ 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XXI 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

11-6 Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-173
 

12-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e)......... 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 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-186
 

13-1 Projected Baseline Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) .............. 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 

(MtCO2e) ................................................................................................................................... IV-199
 

Section V 

1-1 Projected Net GHG Baseline Emissions from Non-Rice Croplands by Country: 

2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ..................................................................................................................... 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 (MtCO2e)
 

(“Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy excluded)....................................................................... V-13
 

1-5 Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO2e)
 

(Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy)........................................................................ V-14
 

2-1 Baseline CH4, N2O, 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 (MtCO2e)............. 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 (MtCO2e) ........... V-48
 

3-2 Projected Baseline Emissions from Enteric Fermentation: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) ............... V-48
 

3-3 Projected Baseline Emissions from Manure Management: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) .............. V-49
 

3-4 Abatement Measures for Enteric Fermentation CH4 ............................................................. 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
 

XXII GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

CONTENTS 

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 (MtCO2e), 

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 Results and Differences from Constant Production Case for Combined 

Baseline Number of Animals and No Antimethanogen Case .............................................. V-69
 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES XXIII 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 of 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-CO2 emissions can have a more rapid effect on the climate and be more cost-effective 

than reducing CO2 emissions. Given the important role that mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases can 

play in climate strategies, there is a clear need for an improved understanding of the mitigation potential 

for non-CO2 sources, as well as for the incorporation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation in climate 

economic analyses. This report is a follow-on to the 2006 EPA report Global Mitigation of Non-CO2

Greenhouse Gases and illustrates the abatement potential of non-CO2 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 that illustrate 

the abatement potential of non-CO2 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 non-CO2

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-CO2 sources, as well 

as inclusion of non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation 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-CO2 emissions projections from the USEPA’s 

Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2030 (2012), this analysis applies mitigation 

options to the emissions baseline in each sector. The technical abatement potential and cost are calculated

for each mitigation option across 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 potential. 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 assumption about policies that would be required to facilitate and generate 

adoption of mitigation options. Therefore, this report provides estimates of technical mitigation potential. 

Greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (CO2) play an important role in the effort to 

understand and address global climate change. Non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) greenhouse 

gases include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a number of high global warming 

potential or fluorinated gases. The non-CO2 greenhouse gases are more potent than CO2 (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 CO2. Approximately 30% of the anthropogenic greenhouse 

effect since preindustrial times can be attributed to these non-CO2 greenhouse gases (Intergovernmental 

Panel for Climate Change [IPCC], 2001b); approximately 25% of GWP-weighted greenhouse gas 

emissions in the year 2005 comprise the non-CO2 greenhouse gases (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency [USEPA], 2012).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 sources and allows for inclusion of non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation 

approaches in economic modeling 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/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2mitigation.html. 

Mitigation of Non-CO2 Gases Can Play an Important Role in Climate Strategies. Worldwide, the 

potential for cost-effective non-CO2 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/tCO2e), the global mitigation 

potential is greater than 1,800 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e), 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/tCO2e is greater than 3,000 MtCO2e, or 20% of the baseline emissions, and 

greater than 2,400 MtCO2e or 24% of the baseline emissions at $20/tCO2e. In the higher range of breakeven prices, the MAC becomes steeper, and less mitigation potential exists for each additional increase in 

price.

Figure ES-1: Global Total Aggregate MAC for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases in 2030 

-$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-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e)

Globally, the Sectors with the Greatest Potential for Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases are 

the Energy and Agriculture Sectors. Figure ES-2 shows the global MACs by economic sector in 2030. At a 

break-even price of $5/tCO2e, the potential to reduce of non-CO2 greenhouse gases is greater than 1,190 

MtCO2e in the energy sector and approximately 1,080 MtCO2e in the industrial process sector. At a 

break-even price of $30/tCO2e, the potential increases to approximately 1,475 MtCO2e in the industrial

sector, nearly 1,400 MtCO2e in the energy sector, and 500 and 332 MtCO2e in the agriculture and waste 

sectors, respectively. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES ES-3

Methane Mitigation has the Largest Potential across All the Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases.

Figure ES-3 shows the global MACs by greenhouse gas type for 2030. At or below $0/tCO2e, the potential 

for CH4 mitigation is greater than 1,000 MtCO2e. The potential for reducing CH4 emissions grows to over 

2,000 MtCO2e as the break-even price rises from $0 to $30/tCO2e, while less than that of CH4, N2O, and Fgases exhibit significant mitigation potential at or below $0/tCO2e. 

Figure ES-2: Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Sector

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e)

Waste

Agriculture

Energy

Industrial

Figure ES-3: Global 2030 MACs by Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Type

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e)

Nitrous Oxide

F-Gases

Methane
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Major Emitting Regions of the World Offer Large Potential Mitigation Opportunities. Figure ES-4 

shows the global MACs by region for 2030. The United States and China are the top two contributors to 

global mitigation potential with cost-effective mitigation of 260 and 200 MtCO2e, respectively. The largest 

sources of mitigation potential in these regions are oil/gas, refrigeration/ac, livestock, and coal. The EU, 

India, and Brazil represent significant mitigation potential as well. At a break-even price of $30/tCO2e the 

five largest emitting countries represent 46% of the global abatement potential. 

Figure ES-4: Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions 

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e)

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-CO2 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. The mitigation potential in each economic sector is examined in greater detail in this report. 

References 

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-CO2 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-1

I. Technical Summary

I.1 Overview

This report is an update to the 2006 EPA report, Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 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 approach—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-CO2 sources, as well as inclusion of non-CO2 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases other than CO2 play an important role in the effort to understand and address 

global climate change. The non-CO2 gases include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a number of 

high global warming potential or fluorinated gases. The non-CO2 greenhouse gases are more potent than 

CO2 (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 CO2. Figure I-1 shows that these non-CO2

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-CO2 gases constitute 28 percent of the global total greenhouse gas 

emissions.

The objective of this peer reviewed technical report is to provide a comprehensive and 

consistent data set on global mitigation of noncarbon dioxide (non-CO2) greenhouse gases by 

sector and by region. Mitigating emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases can be relatively 

inexpensive compared with mitigating CO2 emissions. Thus, attention continues to focus on 

incorporating international non-CO2 greenhouse 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Figure I-1: Contribution of Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases to the Enhanced 

Greenhouse Effect from Preindustrial to Present (measured in watts/meter2) 

CH4 20.7%

CO2 71.6% Non-CO2 28.4%

N2O 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions for 2010 (MtCO2e) by Source and Gas Type

Sectors CH4 N2O F-Gases

Global Total 

Non-CO2

Emissions

Percentage of 

Global Total 

Non-CO2 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-CO2 GHGs

66% 28% 6%

Source: USEPA. 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 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 (CH4) 

CH4 is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year period

(IPCC, 1996). In addition, CH4’s chemical lifetime in the atmosphere is approximately 12 years, compared 

with approximately 100 years for CO2. These two factors make CH4 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 concentrations of CH4 could respond to mitigation actions. 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-3

CH4 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 certain 

industrial processes. CH4 is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As 

a result, efforts to prevent or capture and use CH4 emissions can provide significant energy, economic, 

and environmental benefits. 

I.2.2 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

N2O 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 CO2 on a permolecule basis—N2O is an important greenhouse gas.

N2O 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 N2O are agricultural soil management, livestock waste management, mobile and stationary 

fossil fuel combustion, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O 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 (SF6). These compounds are the most potent 

greenhouse gases because of their large heat-trapping capacity and, in the cases of SF6 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 industrial 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 ozonedepleting 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-134a, which is used in automobile air-conditioning and 

refrigeration, has an atmospheric lifetime of 14 years).

PFCs

Primary aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing and flat panel display manufacturing

are the largest known manmade sources of tetrafluoromethane (CF4), and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). PFCs 

are also relatively minor substitutes for ODSs. Over a 100-year period, CF4 and C2F6 are, respectively, 

6,500 and 9,200 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. 

Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF6) 

The GWP of SF6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas evaluated by IPCC. SF6 is a 

colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas with excellent dielectric properties. It is used (1) for 

insulation and current interruption 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Like the PFCs, SF6 is very long lived, so all manmade sources contribute directly to its accumulation 

in the atmosphere. Measurements of SF6 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, CO2 is the reference gas and thus has a GWP of 1. Based 

on a time frame of 100 years, the GWP of CH4 is 21 and the GWP of N2O is 310. Table I-2 lists all GWPs 

used in this report to convert the non-CO2 emissions into CO2-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 GWPa

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 21

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 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

CF4 6,500

C2F6 9,200

C4F10 7,000

C6F14 7,400

SF6 23,900

Source: IPCC, 1996.

a100 year time horizon. 

I.3 Methodology

This section describes the basic methodology used in this report to analyze potential emissions and 

abatement of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. The analysis builds on the approach presented in the 2006 

Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases report (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-CO2 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, materials and energy components

• Developing international adjustments factors used to construct country specific abatement costs 

and benefits 

• Updating 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 (MtCO2e).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 circumstances, which are 

briefly mentioned here and described in more detail in the sector-specific 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-CO2 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases

For consistency across regions and sectors the MAC Report analysis primarily uses the EPA report, 

Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 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 missing 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-CO2 emissions in USEPA (2012) are briefly summarized 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 process model simulations and livestock population data combined with projected crop 

areas and livestock populations, respectively, from the International Food Policy Research Institute 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (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 to estimate emissions across all 

sectors, and deviations to this methodology are discussed in each of the source-specific methodology 

sections of USEPA (2012). The following summary of the general methodology used to estimate global 

non-CO2 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 for 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 for 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 

using 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 countries from the 

UNFCCC flexible query system do not generally have a complete 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 between 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 the 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 CH4 emissions from agriculture to 2030 but does specify what portion is from manure 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-7

management, EPA took the proportion of emissions that manure contributes to agriculture CH4 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 adjust values for agricultural activities and associated emissions over time. In 

addition, detailed process-based models—Daily Century (DAYCENT) for croplands and DeNitrification–

DeComposition (DNDC) for rice cultivation—were used for both the baseline emissions 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 using 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 (2012), 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 provided 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 (2012) 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 IV.1.3.1. The 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-CO2 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), and Ottinger et 

al. (2006). These studies provided estimates of potential CH4 and N2O 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 sector 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

The analysis generally begins 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 extrapolate to “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 or 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 

determines 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 studies supported by 

the USEPA (USEPA, 2006; DeAngelo et al., 2006; Beach et al., 2008) that generated MACs by major world 

region for cropland N2O, 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 

number of mitigation options are now assessed, particularly for rice cultivation (e.g., increased emphasis 

on options that reduce N2O as well as CH4). 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 alternative 

irrigated water management strategies and for livestock management based on livestock production 

system and management intensity. 

Technical Characteristics of Abatement Options

The non-CO2 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 individual 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 vary 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. However, 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 availability 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-9

Table I-3 summarizes how the potential emission reduction is calculated for each of the available 

abatement options. First the technical 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 (MtCO2e) to which the option is applied to yield the emissions 

reductions for the mitigation option. 

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

Technical 

Applicability 

(%) X 

Market 

Sharea (%) X 

Reduction 

Efficiency

(%) = 

Technical 

Effectiveness 

(%)

Technical 

Effectiveness

(%)

X 

Baseline Unit

Emissions

(MtCO2e) = 

Unit 

Emission

Reduction

(MtCO2e)

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 permutations in the sequencing of adoption. For example, if n 

competing (overlapping) mitigation options are available for a single emissions stream, the 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 market share assumptions are available, customized shares that sum to one are used 

instead of 1/n. 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 natural 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 mitigation 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 emissions 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, this 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 CO2 equivalent (MtCO2eq).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 

(tCO2eq or tons of emitted gas [e.g., tCH4]). The benefits include a carbon value/price expressed as 

$/tCO-2e. 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 option 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 for 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

where 

 P = the breakeven price of the option ($/tCO2e); 

ER = the emissions reduction achieved by the technology (MtCO2e);

R = the 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 MtCO2eq equals 1 teragram of CO2 equivalent (TgCO2eq); 1 metric ton = 1,000 kg = 1.102 short tons = 2,205 lbs.
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

labor and materials costs) ($/year);

TR = the tax rate (%); and

TB = annual 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 − RER − CCER ∙ 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 practices, do not have applicable 

capital costs, with the exception of anaerobic digesters for manure management. 

Benefits or revenues from employing an abatement option can include (1) the intrinsic value of the 

recovered gas (e.g., the value of CH4 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 tCO2 eq ($/tCO2eq) or dollars per metric ton of gas (e.g., $/tCH4, 

$/tHFC-134a). In most cases, there are two price signals for the abatement of CH4: one price based on 

CH4’s value as energy (because natural gas is 95 percent CH4) and one price based on CH4’s value as a 

greenhouse gas. All cost and benefit values are expressed in constant year 2010 U.S. dollars. This 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: Financial 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 benefits of abatement options are adjusted to reflect regional prices. Wages and prices will 

vary by country. Hence recurring O&M costs are segmented into labor, energy and materials costs.

Material costs components range from materials and supplies in the in the industrial and energy sectors, 

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 relative 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, the shares are generally assigned 

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 social 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 CH4 is abated and sold as natural gas) or of electricity 

(when CH4 is used to generate electricity or heat) in a given region and in the United States. Similarly, 

revenues from non-CH4 benefits of abatement options are scaled based on the ratio between the GDPs per 

capita in a given region 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 livestock 

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. Using publically 

available data 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, electricity, coal and material costs. 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 Countries

Country Labora Natural Gasb Electricityb Coalb Materialsc 

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

aWage 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). bEnergy Prices were obtained from EIA’s International Energy Statistics (EIA, 2010b). cMaterial factors were based on GDP/Capita statistics obtained from UNCTAD Statistical Database (UNCTAD, 2012). 

Note that breakeven 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-CO2 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 shows the amount of emissions abatement in MtCO2eq, and the y-axis shows 

the breakeven price in $/tCO2eq required to achieve the level of abatement. Therefore, moving along the 

curve from left to right, the lowest cost abatement options are adopted first.

Figure I-2: Illustrative Non-CO2 Marginal Abatement Curve

Value of CO2

Equivalent

($/tCO2eq)

Abated GHG Emissions (MtCO2eq)

Market Price 

$O/tCO2eq

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/tCO2eq) illustrate potentially 

profitable 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 “noregret” options) yet have not been implemented. However, there 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 mitigation 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 estimate the marginal costs of incremental changes within 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 achieved 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 calculating 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 for each other, then market shares 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, the market share is evenly 

distributed (1/n) across all viable options. In this way, the implied adoption rate for each technology is 

estimated. 

In the industrial processes sector, mitigation options are applied to representative facilities, in order 

of lowest 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, is 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 that 

reduce emissions2 (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 influence 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 portion 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 mitigation 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 

implementation 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 emissions 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-CO2 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 Sectoral 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 

USEPA (2006) report. The EMF-21 focused specifically on multigas strategies and the incorporation of 

non-CO2 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 several 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 EMF21 analysis. In addition, the MACs for aluminum manufacturing and electrical 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 baseline 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 mitigation 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-CO2 greenhouse gas baseline emissions in 2010 are estimated at 11,389 MtCO2e, and 

projected to increase 33% by 2030, totaling 15,157 MtCO2e. Non-CO2 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-CO2 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 CH4, N20, and F-Gases4, 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, SF6). 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 emissions. 

The data are aggregated in this chapter and provide a summary of all emitting sources and non-CO2

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.

Baseline projections presented in this section come from the Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: 1990-2030 (USEPA, 2012). Since its publication there have been some minor revisions 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gas

Figure I-3 illustrates the relative share of each non-CO2 greenhouse gas that comprises the global 

baseline emissions total. CH4 represents the largest share of emissions worldwide, accounting for 

approximately 66% of the total non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, while N2O and F-Gases 

account for the 28 percent and 6 percent, respectively. 

Figure I-3: Percentage Share of Global Non-CO2 Emissionsa by Type of Gas in 2010

World Total = 11,389 MtCO2e F-Gases

6%

N2O 

28%

CH4

66%

Source: USEPA, 2012.

a CO2 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. CH4 and N2O observe a more modest increase 

at an average decadal rate of roughly 10 percent. As a result, F-Gases are projected to gain 15 percent of 

the total share of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission by 2030, up from 4 percent in 2010
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-17

Figure I-4: Non-CO2 Global Emissions Forecast to 2030 by Greenhouse Gas

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

e2 COt

8,000

M

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-CO2 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 region, 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 activities, 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-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 45 percent of 

the total 2010 baseline. Energy holds the second largest share of non-CO2 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-CO2 emissions 

that waste by 2030.
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Figure I-5: Global Emissions by Major Sector for all Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases

 16,000

 14,000

 12,000

 10,000

e2 COt

 8,000

M

 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, Including Top Emitting 

Regions 

 16,000

 14,000

 12,000

 10,000

e2 COt

 8,000

M

 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-CO2 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES I-19

CO2 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 analysis methodology described in Section I.3 of this report develop bottom-up projections 

of potential reduction in non-CO2 emissions in terms of the break-even price ($/tCO2e). 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 

MACs indicate the potential reduction in non-CO2 gas emissions for a given breakeven price. Figure I-7 

presented the results from the MAC analysis for 2030 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-CO2 greenhouse gas emitting regions.

Figure I-7: Global 2030 MACs by Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e) 

Waste

Agriculture

Energy

Industrial
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

I-20 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Figure I-8: Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e) 

Nitrous Oxide

F-Gases

Methane

Figure I-9: Global 2030 MACs for Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases by Major Emitting Regions

$100

$80

$60

 e2

$40

OCt$/

$20

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

-$20

-$40

Non-CO2 Reductions (MtCO2e) 

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 analysis briefly below. 
TECHNICAL SUMMARY

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 Laboratory (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 applicable 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 likely 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 progress 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 reliance 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. Applicability 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 CH4 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 CH4, or from the 

substitution of natural gas in pipelines with recovered CH4. 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-CO2 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. 

Miller (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. Electric 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 Kinds 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 Accounts: 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 Compensation 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://www.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 Administration (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 Energy 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 Sector
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-1

II.1. Coal Mining 

II.1.1 Sector Summary

Worldwide, the coal mining industry liberated more than 589 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (MtCO2e), which accounted for 8% of total anthropogenic CH 14 emissions in 2010. The top 5 

emitting countries of China, the United States, Russia, Australia, and Ukraine account for more than 80% 

of coal mining CH4 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. More measured 

growth is projected beyond 2010. Between 2010 and 2030, emissions are projected to grow by 33%. 

Currently, China represents over 50% of global emissions. China’s share of global emissions is projected 

to increase to 55% by 2030. 

Figure 1-1: CH4 Emissions from Coal Mining: 2000–2030

900

784

800

671

700

589

600

 e2500 CO

401

tM400

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 CH4 in 2010 = 7,549.2 MtCO2e (see Table A-2 in USEPA, 2012)

Coal mining is a significant source of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Coal is an important

energy resource in many of the world’s economies, used for energy generation or as a 

feedstock in industrial production processes. Extracting this energy resource through 

underground and surface mining releases methane (CH4) stored in the coal bed and surrounding geologic 

strata. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (USEIA’s) (2011) most recent international energy 

outlook projects a 39% increase in coal production between 2010 and 2035, reflecting continued economic 

and industrial development of the world’s emerging economies. In the absence of widespread adoption 

of abatement measures by the coal mining sector, expanding coal production to meet growing energy 

demands will subsequently lead to increases in anthropogenic emissions. 
COAL MINING

II-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Capture for use or destruction are two alternative abatement measures that can mitigate CH4

emissions associated with underground mining. For mines that are able to utilize the recovered gas, the 

captured methane represents 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 CH4 present in ventilation air exhaust flows are oxidized.

Global 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 468 MtCO2e in 2020 and 2030 respectively. 

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

2010

2020

2030

$60

$50

$40

$30

 e2

$20

OCt$/$10

$0

0 100 200 300 400 500

-$10

-$20

-$30

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e)

While maximum abatement could only be achieved at higher carbon prices, the MAC results suggest 

that significant opportunities for CH4 reductions in the coal mining sector at carbon prices at or below 

$10. Furthermore there are approximately 78 MtCO2e of reductions that are cost-effective at currently 

projected energy prices. These reductions are sometimes referred to as no-regret options.

The following section offers a brief explanation of how CH4 is emitted from coal mines, followed by a 

discussion of projected trends in international baseline emissions. Section II.1.3 characterizes possible 

abatement technologies, outlining their technical specifications, costs and possible benefits, and potential 

in selected 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-3

II.1.2 Methane Emissions from Coal Mining

Methane 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 affect the 

quantity of CH4 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 depends on several factors but generally increases with

depth. There are four major sources of CH4 emissions in the coal sector including underground mines, 

surface mines, post-mining processing, and abandoned mines. Underground mining is the largest single 

source of emissions in the sector.

Underground Mines. High concentrations of CH4 in underground coal mines is a safety hazard. Mines 

are ventilated by use of large fans which are capable of moving 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 pre-mine drainage systems that reduce the 

methane pressure in the coal seam, thereby reducing both the total volume of methane emitted at the 

mining face and the rate at which it is emitted and post-mining boreholes 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 face. 

Degasification systems consist of a network of boreholes drilled from the surface, or within the mine 

for the purpose of removing CH4 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, CH4 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 CH4

concentration makes it more challenging both technically and economically to mitigate it or recover 

energy from it.

Surface Mines. Surface mining is a technique used 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 CH4 content is not

as high at surface mines as at underground mines. CH4 emissions from surface mines (expressed as 

volume of CH4 per mass of coal mined) are typically less than from underground mines. As the overlying 

soil and rock is removed and the coal exposed, CH4 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 only 
COAL MINING

II-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

accounting for 18% of CH4 emissions from coal mining (USEPA, 2011b). In China, there is very little 

surface mining whereas in India almost all coal production is from surface mines. The only technically

feasible abatement measures available to surface mining are pre-mine methane drainage in advance of 

mining, similar to coal bed methane (CBM) recovery operations (USEPA, 2008a), or horizontal boreholes 

into a high wall where the operation 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 emissions, 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 CH4 emissions. Not all CH4 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 CH4 emissions. Emissions are released 

through old wells, ventilation shafts, and cracks and fissures in overlying strata. In some cases, the CH4

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 methodology for 

reporting emissions 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 CH4 emitted from coal mining operations comes from gassy 

underground mines via ventilation systems and degasification systems. Smaller, but still significant, 

amounts of CH4 are emitted from surface mining and post-mining operations and from abandoned mines. 

Future levels of CH4 emissions from coal mining, however, will be primarily determined by the 

management of CH4 gas at active underground mines. 

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 average 

annual rate of 1.8%. Future baseline CH4 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 countries: the United States 

(27%), Russia (18%), China (13%), 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 majority 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 contributed to substantial 

increases in CH4 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 also 
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-5

vary across countries and time. Emissions 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 developing 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 CH4 intensity and coal seam depth unadjusted for any CH4 utilization or flaring. 

Table 1-1: IPCC Suggested Underground Emissions Factors for Selected Countries in m3/tonne Coal 

Produced

Tier 1—CH4 Emissions Factor Emissions Factor (m3/tonne) Emissions Factora (tCO2e/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 m3 = 0.0143 tCO2e 

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 

technology has allowed countries such as China and Russia to reach deeper into their existing coal 

reserves. As noted earlier, the volume of CH4 in the coal seam may increase at greater depths because of 

increasing hydrostatic pressure. Thus, it is expected that the CH4 emission factors will increase as 

technology allows large coal-producing countries to mine deeper, gassier coal seams. 

II.1.2.2 Emissions 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

Global CH4 emissions from coal mining increased by 14% between 1990 and 2010. Key factors that 

contributed to the emissions growth over this time period include overall increases 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 CH4 emissions from 

coal mining will continue to increase at an accelerated rate. Over the next 20 years, emissions are 

expected to grow at an average annual 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 and

increasing demand for coal for electricity production over the same period. Large, increasingly developed 

countries, such as China and India, are expected to experience high levels of economic growth. Economic 

2 Emissions factors for underground mines, the largest source of CH4 emissions from coal mining, are the same as

those described in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

growth in these countries will be the biggest driver of future CH4 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 CH4 emissions. Table 1-2 presents

baseline emissions projections by country and region from 2010 to 2030.

Table 1-2: Projected Emissions from Coal Mine CH4 by Country and Region: 2010 to 2030 (MtCO2e)

Country/Region

CAGRa

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010–2030)

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 Regionb

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%

aCAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

bROW by Region excludes emissions from top 5 countries.

Source: USEPA, 2012 

II.1.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

This 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 coal 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 USEPA’s Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) project Cash Flow 

Model (USEPA, 2011b) and applied to a representative population of underground mines. Table 1-3 

summarizes the average total installed capital costs and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs 

for each abatement measure.
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-7

Table 1-3: Summary of Abatement Measures for Coal Mines

Abatement Measure

Total Installed 

Capital Costa

(million USD) 

Total Annual 

O&M Cost 

(million USD)

Technical 

Lifetime (Years)

Technical 

Effectivenessb

(%)

Energy End Uses

Pipeline injection 8.4 2.4 15 21%

On-site electricity generation 23.0 2.6 15 28%

On-site 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 assumptions used to estimate the 

abatement potential.

Technical effectiveness factors are calculated by considering a number of technological efficiency and 

applicability factors. Table 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 facility applicability, recovery efficiency, technical feasibility, 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% 28%

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%

Technical Effectiveness [A] × [B] × [C] × [D] = [E]
COAL MINING

II-8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-third4 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 systems. Only a fraction of the total 

drained CH4 may be effectively used 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 CH4 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 

concentrations 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 CH4 is recovered from coal seams by drilling vertical wells from the surface up to 10 

years in advance of a mining operation or drilling 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 annual costs for the drainage wells are outlined as given in 

USEPA’s CMOP Cash Flow Model documentation (USEPA, 2011b). The recovery system includes the 

equipment required for drainage 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 drainage system are a function of the recovered gas flow rate.

Equipment requirements include construction of the drainage well(s), a wellhead blower, a 

satellite compressor station, and gathering pipelines that connect the compressors to the methane 

end-use technology. The total installed capital costs will vary by location and gas flow rate. For 

example, assuming a 600 Mcf/day volume of CMM gas (with a CH4 concentration of 90%), we 

estimate the capital costs would be $850,000. See Appendix B for additional detail on equipment 

cost assumptions.

4 The proportion of mine CH4 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 meets 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 before mining operations commence.
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 Injection

Natural gas companies may purchase CH4 recovered from coal mines. CH4 suitable for sale into 

natural gas pipelines must have a concentration of at least 96% and contain no more than 4% 

concentration of noncombustible gases with a maximum of 4% carbon dioxide or nitrogen and 1 ppm 

oxygen. Although CH4 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 the requirements for pipeline injection. In some cases, high-quality CH4 also can be 

obtained from gob wells.

Premining degas wells are the preferred recovery method for producing pipeline quality CH4 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 CH4 concentrations can range from 30% 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. However, it is possible 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, 2008b).

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

increasing the difficulty and cost of constructing both gathering lines and pipeline to connect to the 

commercial natural gas pipeline (USEPA, 2008b). Finally, 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 (2011b), 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 

natural gas transmission pipeline. While there may be a range of pressures at which pipelines 

operate, this analysis assumes an operating pressure of 900 psig. This option also includes the

installation of a catalytic oxygen removal system and a pipeline to connect the mine’s gas 
COAL MINING

II-10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

processing system to a natural gas pipeline. Pipeline costs estimated for this analysis are adjusted 

based 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 pipelines. 

• 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 21%. 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, 2011b). The quality of methane required for use in 

power generation can be less than that required for pipeline injection. Internal combustion (IC) engine 

generators can generate electricity using gas that has heat content as low as 300 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-site needs to utilities

(USEPA, 2008b). 

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, conveyor 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 cost for this option includes the cost of gas processing to remove gas 

contaminants (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% contingencies.

• Annual O&M Costs: The 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.

• Annual Benefits: Revenues in the form of power sales at market electricity prices. A 2 MW 

capacity generation facility with a 90% capacity factor would be expected to generate 
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-11

approximately 16,000 MWh of electricity. Assuming an energy price of $0.075/kWh7, this project 

would generate $1.2 million in revenue from electricity sales.

• Technical Effectiveness: 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 Degasification for On-site Utilization—Process Heat

This category of abatement measures includes (1) recovery for use in the boiler for supporting inmine 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 analysis assumes a 8.1 MMBTU/hr8 average boiler heat load 

and a retrofit cost of $7,500/MMBTU/hr. Assuming the mine boiler fuel demand was 10 Mcf/hr, 

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 additional 20% in owner’s 

costs and 5% for contingencies.

• Annual O&M Costs: 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 gas 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 assumed the CMM will not 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 heating 

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, purchasers 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 hour
COAL MINING

II-12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 additional 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 Mcf/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 with 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 than 30% concentration (USEPA, 2011a). Flare systems considered include an open flare and 

enclosed combustion system, which consists of a mounted burner where the flame is exposed (open) or 

the flame is enclosed in a stack. The costs of the flaring system consist of firing equipment and

monitoring and metering equipment to validate methane destruction levels. 

• Capital Cost: The cost of installing a flare system to burn CMM was assumed to be $280/Mcf/day. 

Assuming an 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 additional 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 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 CH4 emitted from coal 

mine ventilation air. Extremely low CH4 concentration levels (typically below 1%) make it economically 

infeasible to sell this gas to a pipeline. However, thermal oxidizers can combust the VAM converting it to 

H2O and CO2. VAM oxidation is technically feasible at CH4 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 hour
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 design and installation of a thermal 

oxidizer unit, and any supporting auxiliary equipment. The total installed 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 100 Mcfm and a CH4

concentration of 0.2%, capital costs would be $2.3 million USD (=100,000 cfm X $23/cfm). The total 

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 costs 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/cfm). 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 there are no energy-related benefits for this abatement 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 costs 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 commercial scale and as such economies of scale in production have not been realized. 

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 European Trading System 

(ETS) would provide a source of revenue from the sale of carbon reduction credits. In addition, 

improvements in design and catalysts 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 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis

This 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 characterize 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 active 

underground coal mines in a reference location, which is the United States. Abatement measures are 

applied to the technically applicable stream of emissions (degasification, or ventilation air streams). The 
COAL MINING

II-14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

MAC model calculates break-even prices for each representative coal mine based on the facility 

characteristics that include annual methane liberation, 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 Chart 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-specific 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. The 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 above) 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 emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-15

II.1.4.3 Definition of Model Facilities for the Analysis

A population 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-specific characterizations. 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. Applying 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 quantity 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 refer to the CMOP model documentation for additional 

details on how costs are calculated. 

Table 1-5 provides an example of how the break-even prices are calculated for each abatement 

measure. Project costs and benefits calculated for each coal mine are used in the calculation that solve for 

the break-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 prices 

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

(tCO2e)

Annualized 

Capital 

Costsb

($/tCO2e)

Net Annual 

Costa

($/tCO2e)

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation

($/tCO2e)

Break-Even 

Priceb

($/tCO2e)

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

II.1.4.5 MAC Analysis Results

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 400 and 468 MtCO2e, respectively. Nearly 16% of the 

reduction can be achieved by implementing currently available technologies that are cost-effective at 

projected energy prices. If an additional 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 breakeven prices in 2030.

Table 1-6: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break-Even Prices ($/tCO2e) in 2030

Country/Region

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e)

–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 77.7 348.7 376.2 435.3 442.2 461.1 463.0 466.4 467.6
COAL MINING

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 would 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 currently 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. Improving 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 estimates of costs associated with 

transporting CH4 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e)

Australia

Russia

China

Ukraine

United States

Rest of World
COAL MINING

II-18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 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-resources/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.

Somers, J. M and L. Schultz. 2009.“Coal Mine Methane Ventilation Air 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 Overview. 

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-08-001. 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 (USEPA). September 2008b. (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-CO2 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), 2012a 

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 CH4 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 

practices, including direct inspection and maintenance (DI&M); and installation of new equipment. The 

abatement measures may be applied to components and equipment used in ONG 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) curves 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 2030

MtCO2e 

Year

Uzbekistan

Kuwait

Iraq

United States

Russia

ROW

O il and natural gas (ONG) systems are a leading source of anthropogenic CH4 emissions, 

emitting 1,677 MtCO2e or 23% of total global CH4 emissions in 2010 (USEPA, 2012a). Russia, 

the United States, Iraq, Kuwait, and Uzbekistan accounted for more than half of the world’s 

CH4 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-CO2 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/tCO2e.

Global abatement potential in the ONG sector is 60% of the sector emissions in 2010, or 997 MtCO2e. 

The abatement potential increases over time, growing to 1,103 and 1,218 MtCO2e 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 61% of abatement (747 MtCO2e in 2030) is costeffective at current energy prices (i.e. a carbon price ≤ $0/tCO2e). 

The following section briefly explains CH4 emissions from ONG systems. This is followed by 

international CH4 emissions projections. Subsequent sections characterize the abatement technologies and 

present the costs and potential benefits. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the MAC 

analysis and the regional results.

II.2.2 Methane Emissions: Oil and Natural Gas Systems

CH4 is the principal component of natural gas.

1 Fugitive CH4 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 CH4 in significant quantities through 

 

1 CH4 concentrations typically increase as the natural gas moves from production to distribution. Typically CH4

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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e)

2020

$20 2010

2030
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

identifies the facilities and equipment associated with the ONG system segments.

Figure 2-3: Segments of Oil and Natural Gas Systems 

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 CH4 emissions result from equipment leaks, system upsets, process venting, and deliberate 

flaring at oil and gas production fields, natural gas processing facilities, 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, compressors, pipelines, 

meters/pressure regulators, pneumatic 

devices, dehydrators, heaters

Distribution Main and service pipeline networks, meter and pressureregulating stationsPipelines, 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 Customer
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-24 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

consumed. Globally, production and consumption of natural gas are expected to increase 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 non-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% per year, respectively. Figure 2-4 presents projected 

global gas production by major region from 2008 to 2035. Growth in natural gas production from nonOECD countries between 2015 and 2035 is projected to be twice the growth in production from OECD 

countries. Expanded production in non-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 international 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 experts 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, respectively, 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 suggests 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 2035

Natural Gas Production 

(Trillion cubic feet)
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 annual 

growth rate of 1.4%. Key factors that contributed to the growth in emissions include expansions in ONG

production and increases in natural gas consumption.

Projected Emissions Estimates

Worldwide CH4 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, the 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 slightly as the ONG industry in Africa and the Middle East expands in future 

years. Table 2-2 presents the projected baseline CH4 emissions for the top 5 emitting countries and 

remaining country groups by world region.

Table 2-2: Projected Baseline CH4 Emissions for Oil and Natural Gas Systems by Country/Region: 2010–

2030 (MtCO2e)

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CAGRa

(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%

aCAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source: USEPA, 2012a. 

 

2 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. 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 MtCO2e. 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-26 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

II.2.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis

Within the four segments of ONG systems, a number of abatement measures can be applied to 

mitigate CH4 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 CH4 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 industry-related 

voluntary programs such as the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) and USEPA’s Natural Gas STAR

Program, which are aimed at identifying cost-effective CH4 emission reduction opportunities, have 

developed a well-documented catalog of potential CH4 abatement measures that are applicable across the 

segments of the ONG system. Abatement measures documented by the USEPA’s Natural Gas STAR

Program 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, the abatement measure’s costeffectiveness is determined by the component’s emissions 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 the MAC analysis. 

This section discusses the abatement measures considered for this analysis and presents the costs, 

benefits, technical applicability, 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 of the abatement measures 

included in the Oil and Gas Sector MAC model is provided as Appendix D to this chapter.

II.2.3.1 Oil and Natural Gas Production

The production segment of the ONG system consists 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: reduced emissions from hydraulically fractured gas well 

completions and installation 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 90% of the gas that would 

otherwise be flared or vented during new well construction and workovers on existing wells that are 

hydraulically fractured. Equipment includes a sand trap, separator, and a gathering line to route gas to 

sales pipelines 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, 

2011a). The use of RECs will result in increased sales of recovered gas. Furthermore, condensate may also 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

Effectivenessa

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-CO2 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 

Effectivenessa

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 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.

b Lower 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: This analysis assumes that 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 would be approximately $500,000 or more 

depending on the complexity of the REC set-up (USEPA, 2011a).

• Annual operation and maintenance (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 dollars. 

• 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 assumed 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 54% 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-29

• Technical lifetime: 1 implementation event per year per hydraulically fractured well.

Install Vapor Recovery Units (VRUs)

Crude oil and 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) dissolved 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). The 

recovered vapors can be sold or used on site as fuel.

• Capital costs: Capital costs range from $40,000 to $120,000 (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 several 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 piped 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%, technical 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 consists 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 natural 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 Stations 

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 fourpart process that identifies, prioritizes, and implements the most cost-effective emissions reductions. 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-CO2 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 

Effectivenessa

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 Step 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 recovered 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 between 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-CO2 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 

Effectivenessa

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 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.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-32 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

assumes 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 gathering 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% technical applicability factor, and a 100% market penetration factor.

• Technical Lifetime: This analysis assumes a 1 year technical lifetime. 

Identify and Replace or Retrofit High-Bleed Pneumatic Devices

Pneumatic 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 natural 

gas into the atmosphere and thus 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 and 90% (USEPA, 2006b).

• 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 level 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, 2011b). 

• 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 operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is 

assumed to be $0.

• Benefits: Revenue from gas savings of reduced methane leakage. Reductions 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 efficiency 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 systems are used to maintain a tight seal around the piston 

rod, preventing unwanted gas leakage while allowing the rod to move freely (USEPA, 2006). Leak rates 

depend on the fit, alignment of the packing parts, and wear. New packing systems installed on smooth, 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-33

well-aligned compressor rods can be expected to leak as little as 11.5 scfh. Leak rates increase as the 

system ages because of wear on the 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 that it may be desirable to replace packing rings even more frequently. A new, wellfunctioning system could leak as little as 11 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh), compared with worn 

compressor rod packing systems that have leak rates as high as 900 scfh (USEPA, 2006c). 

• Capital costs: Replacement compressor rod packing systems range from $7,800 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 reciprocating 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 market 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 during 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, 2006d). 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, 

increased 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 centrifugal compressors located at gas processing plants and 

compressor stations in the transmission segment.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-34 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 potential 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 pressureregulating 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

Total 

Installed 

Capital Cost 

($2008)

Annual 

O&M 

($2008)

Time 

Horizon

Technical 

Effectivenessa

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 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.

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 methane emissions. DI&M is a proven and costeffective 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 leaks 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 survey 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 components 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 the 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. 

Maintenance 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 analysis assumes an average 

annual cost of $1,600 in 2008 dollars.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 entailed reviewing recent international energy statistics for oil and gas. The second step was to 

develop source-level emission estimates that could be used to build different model ONG systems. 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 

computes the abatement potential as a cumulative reduction for each measure assuming full (systemwide) 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 processing 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 these key statistics for the 10 largest emitting 

countries in 2010. 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-36 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

Table 2-7: International Statistics on Key Activity Drivers: 2010

Country

2010 Emissions 

(MtCO2e)

Dry Natural Gas 

Productiona

(Bcf/year)

Crude Oil 

Productionb

(Mbbl/day)

Gas Processing 

Plant 

Throughputc

(MMcfd) 

Gas 

Transmission

Pipelinesd (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. International Energy Statistics: Gross Natural Gas Production.

b EIA. International Energy Statistics: Total Oil Supply.

c Oil & Gas Journal [OGJ]. June 6, 2011. Worldwide Processing Survey. 

d CIA. 2011. The World Factbook.

e EIA. 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 

determining 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 Model Facilities for the Analysis

For this analysis, we developed model ONG systems 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 were made to reflect specific country systems. 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 is 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 CH4 emissions inventory at the segment/component source level 

(e.g., compressors, valves, connections, pneumatic 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-37

Multiplying the TA factor by the baseline emissions yields the subset of emissions available for 

reductions from each component source and abatement measure. The TA factor comprises two parts. The 

U.S. 2010 GHG emissions inventory serves as the basis for the distribution of emissions across the 

constituent components (see USEPA, 2012b, 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 United States to reflect the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) regulation that was in effect starting in year 2012. This regulation will affect the 

production and processing segments 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. For 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 System 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-38 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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. We start with the 2010 U.S. inventory (USEPA, 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 applied 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 assumed 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 emissions. 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 estimates the level of NSPS-controlled emissions and the subsequent 

distribution of emissions in the baseline projections over time.

Based on the analysis described here, the United States’ abatement potential presented in the MAC 

modeling results can be summarized in the following expression:

Abatement Potential(USA) = �Uncontrolled Emissionsi,t ∗ Technical Effectivenessi,j,t

where: 

Technical Effectivenessi,j,t = Reduction Efficiencyi,j,t * Tech Applicabilityi,j,t * Market Penetrationi,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 technology 

costs for the United States as reported in the USEPA Lesson Learned documentation. We applied the 

Nelson-Farrar3 Oil Field and Refinery Operation cost indices to convert from reported-year costs to 2008

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 costs 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 used the abatement measure costs, revenue, and reduction 

efficiency as described in Section 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-CO2 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 being applied. The resulting annual 

reduced emissions serve as the denominator in the break-even price calculation.

In Table 2-8 we present abatement cost and revenues per metric ton of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) 

reduced for the abatement measures with the largest 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-Even Price Calculation based on 2010 MAC for the United States

Abatement Measure

System 

Component/ 

Process

Reduced 

Emissions

per Unit

(tCO2e)

Annualized 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e)

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e)

Annual 

Revenue 

($/tCO2e)

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e)

BreakEven 

Price 

($/tCO2e)

National 

Incremental 

Reductions 

(MtCO2e)

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/Mcf
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-40 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

From Table 2-8, the annualized capital cost are calculated using the total installed capital costs 

discussed in Section 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 rate

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)

Finally, 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

− Tax 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. Maximum abatement potential for ONG systems is 1,218 MtCO2e in 2030. For the year 

2030, the results suggest that 842 MtCO2e or 40% of CH4 reductions in the ONG sector can be achieved at 

carbon prices less than or equal to $5/tCO2e. Furthermore over 35% of the 2030 emission reductions (747

MtCO2e) are cost-effective at current energy prices (carbon prices ≤ $0/tCO2e). 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES II-41

Table 2-9: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030

Country/Region

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e)

–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 (MtCO2e)

$20

Iraq

Russia

Kuwait

United States

Uzbekistan
OIL AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS 

II-42 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

The MAC illustrates the cumulative abatement achievable at incrementally higher carbon prices. At 

extremely high break-even prices (> $500/tCO2e), 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 2030 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 may have a lower break-even price when applied to facilities with higher CH4

emission rates and higher break-even price at facilities with a lower emissions rate. 

II.2.4.3 Uncertainties and Limitations

Several key areas of uncertainty constrain the accuracy of this analysis. Addressing these

uncertainties would improve the development 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 distribution 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.

Complete information on current abatement technologies used 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-CO2 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.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2011a). 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 Information Administration (EIA). (2011b). 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). (2011c). 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). (2011d). International Energy Statistics: Total Oil Supply. 

IEA: Washington D.C. Obtained from:

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2012). Country Analysis Brief – Uzbekistan. Washington, 

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). (2003a, 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). (2003b, October). Directed Inspection and Maintenance at 

Gate Stations and Surface Facilities. Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington, 

DC: USEPA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006a, October). Installing Vapor Recovery Units on 

Storage Tanks. Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington, DC: USEPA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006b, October). Options for Reducing Methane Emissions 

from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry. Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. 

Washington, DC: USEPA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006c, October). Reducing Methane Emissions from 

Compressor Rod Packing Systems. Lessons Learned From Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington, DC: 

USEPA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006d, October). Replacing Wet Seals with Dry Seals in 

Centrifugal Compressors. Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners. Washington, DC: USEPA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry. Background Technical Support Document. Washington, DC: 

USEPA. Obtained from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/SubpartW_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). (2011b). 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES

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). U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: Inventory 

of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010. EPA 430-R-12-001. Washington, DC: USEPA. 

Obtained from: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012c). 2011 Annex 3: Methodological Descriptions for 

Additional Source or Sink Categories. Sections 3.4 and 3.5. In 2012 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 Taking 

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. Environmental 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-CO2 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 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. Convert Gas Pneumatic 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). (2006a, 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/recommended.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. Washington, 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: Partner 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. 
III. WasteSector 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

III.1. Landfill Sector 

III.1.1 Sector Summary
 

Landfills produce methane (CH4) in combination with other landfill gases (LFGs) 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. CH4 makes up approximately 50% of LFG. The remaining 50% is carbon dioxide 

(CO2) mixed with small quantities of other gases, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The 

amount of CH4 generated by landfills per country is determined by a number of factors that include 

population size, the quantity of waste disposed of per capita, composition of the waste disposed of, and 

the waste management practices applied at the landfill. Changes in these key factors drive projected 

trends in CH4 emissions. For a number of countries, LFG is one of the largest anthropogenic sources of 

CH4 emissions. Despite efforts to control large landfill emissions, the landfill sector remains a significant 

source of CH4 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 CH4 mitigation. 

In 2010, global CH4 emissions from landfills accounted for approximately 850 MtCO2e. Emissions 

from landfills are moderately concentrated in several countries. Over 50% of emissions in 2010 come 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 CH4 from all sources. 

Figure 1-1: Emissions Projections for the Landfill Sector: 2000–2030 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

MtCO2 e 

770 

847 

905 

2000 2010 2020 

Year 

959 

2030 

Malaysia 

Russia 

China 

Mexico 

United States 

ROW 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

Several abatement measures are available to control landfill CH4 emissions and they are commonly 

grouped into three major categories: (1) collection and flaring, (2) LFG utilization systems (LFG capture 

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. 

Global abatement potential in the solid waste landfill sector is estimated to be approximately 589 

MtCO2e of total annual emissions in 2030, or 61% of the baseline emissions. The marginal abatement cost 

(MAC) curve results are presented below in Figure 1-2. These curves suggest that there are significant 

opportunities for CH4 reductions in the landfill sector at carbon prices below $20. Furthermore there are 

approximately 70 to 80 MtCO2e 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 

$/tCO2 e 

50 100 150 200 250 300 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

350 

2010 

2020 

2030 

The following section briefly explains CH4 emissions from landfills. This is followed by the 

international baseline CH4 emissions projections from landfills. Subsequent sections characterize the 

abatement technologies and present the costs and potential benefits. The chapter concludes with a 

discussion of the MAC analysis and the regional results. 

III-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

III.1.2 Methane Emissions from Landfills
 

This section discusses the characteristics of landfills and how these characteristics affect CH4 

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 CH4 and half CO2. 

Typically, LFG also contains small amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen; less than 1% non-CH4 

volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs); and trace amounts of inorganic compounds. The amount and 

rate of CH4 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% CO2 and 49% CH4, by volume. Measurable gas volumes are 

generally available between 1 or 2 years after the waste is landfilled and continue to be generated for 10 

to 60 years. 

The amount and rate of CH4 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 CH4-producing microorganisms. The CH4 production capacity of a 

landfill is directly proportional to its quantity of organic waste. CH4 generation increases as the 

waste disposal site continues to receive waste and then gradually declines after the site stops 

receiving waste. 

•	 Nutrients: CH4-generating bacteria need nitrogen, phosphorus, 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 CH4. Landfills receive water from incoming waste, water produced by 

decomposition, surface water infiltration (precipitation), groundwater infiltration (in unlined 

landfills). In general, CH4 generation occurs at slower rates in arid climates than in nonarid 

climates. 

•	 Temperature: Warm temperatures in a landfill speed the growth of CH4-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: CH4 is produced in 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, CH4 production is negligible. 

The methodology for estimating CH4 emissions from municipal solid waste landfills in this analysis is 

based on the first order decay model (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2006). 

The key characteristics described above can vary considerably across the different types and features 

of the waste disposal site, and this, in turn, influences landfill CH4 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 developing 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 effectiveness 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 efficiency of around 85%. 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 CH4 generation 

at solid waste disposal 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 and 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 declining 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 

biodegradable 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%. 

III-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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, 2012). 

Projected Emissions Estimates 

Worldwide CH4 emissions from landfills are expected to increase at an average long run annual rate 

of 0.6% (USEPA, 2012). Although some of the largest economies in the world continue to emit significant 

quantities of CH4, developing and emerging economies are projected to account for majority of growth in 

CH4 emissions. Table 1-1 presents the projected baseline CH4 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 (MtCO2e) 

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% 

aCAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate 

Source: USEPA. 2012. 

2 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

The United States is the largest emitter of landfill CH4, accounting for over twice the emissions of the 

second largest emitter, Mexico. Although emissions from the top 4 emitters observed in 2010 are 

projected to remain relatively constant, emissions from developing regions including Africa, nonOrganisation 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 considers 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 CH4 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 

Abatement 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. 

III-6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

III.1.3.1 Landfill CH4 Mitigation Technologies 

This section characterizes the mitigation technologies that can be applied to landfills to reduce CH4 

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 landfills 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 migration of CH4 to on-site structures and adjacent property and prevent the release 

of non-CH4 organic compounds (NMOCs) to the atmosphere. Wells and gathering lines may be 

constructed in advance or installed after waste has been landfilled. LFG collection usually 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. Trenches 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 adjust the gas flow (USEPA, 2010). 

Flares ignite and burn LFG. Large landfills have historically collected CH4 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 light 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 with 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 the 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 cubic feet per meter [cfm]). 

•	 Annual Operation 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), assuming an electricity 

price of 7 cents/kWh and consumption rate of 0.002 kWh per ft3. 

•	 Annual Benefits: No economic benefits (energy production) are associated with this option. 

•	 Applicability: This option applies to all basic landfills and engineered landfills. 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 75% 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 projects, 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/ft3. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 

turbine, 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 selling 

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 energy generation systems are between $130 

and $380 per kilowatt of capacity. 

•	 Annual Benefits: Annual revenues are derived from the sale of electricity. 

•	 Applicability: This option applies to all basic landfills and engineered landfills. 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 75% for basic landfills and 

85% 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. 

III-8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 costs 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. Pipeline 

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 

times the energy required to power the equipment and transmit gas to end users, assuming a 

system power demand of 0.002 kWh/ft3. Non energy-related O&M costs are scaled to LFG project 

volumes assuming a cost of $0.0014/ft3. 

•	 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 landfills and engineered landfills. 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a collection efficiency of 75% for basic landfills and 

85% 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 CH4.7 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 abatement 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 (CH4) with oxygen (O2) and converting the CH4 to CO2 and water 

(H2O). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 CH4 emissions. 

The previous non-CO2 mitigation report (USEPA, 2006) evaluated the use of a biocover consisting of a 

clay cap topped 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 constructing the biocover assumes $3/yd3 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 landfills 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 

Diversion 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 nonorganic), electricity, and cost savings 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 CO2 and H2O, while traces of (VOCs 

are also present. This analysis considers three types of composting processes—windrow composting, 

aerated static 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 compost price assumes a weight by volume of 0.32 tonnes/yd3 (DST Model Documentation). 

III-10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

prior to sale. A typical facility will accept both 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 CH4 emissions from anaerobic decomposition and nitrous 

oxides (N2O) emissions from NOx denitrification during the latest composting stages. The IPCC (2006) 

provides representative CH4 emissions of 4 to 10 g/Kg of waste (dry weight) and N2O 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 the 

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 nonmarketable, 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 

$19/tonne-yr (obtained from the composting process model documentation of the MSW DST 

(MSW DST Documentation). 

•	 Annual Benefits: Revenue from compost is from sales 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 tipping 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 

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) 

AD is a complex biological process that uses anaerobic microorganisms to hydrolyze complex 

organics to simple monomers and hence to volatile fatty acids; the volatile fatty acids are converted to 

CH4 and CO2 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 with 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 is 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/yard3 assuming a 0.35 tonne/yard3. Prices reported in Recycle.cc’s 

December 2011 newsletter. Obtained at: http://www.recycle.cc/compostprices.pdf 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

according to the type of product produced, so some processes only produce electricity, others produce 

combined electricity and heat, and some produce gas upgraded 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 CH4 may be released as fugitive emissions during the digestion process. This analysis assumes 

CH4 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 $472/design 

tonne was considered in this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008), which describes this 

cost for facilities of 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes/yr in the United Kingdom (UK). 

•	 Annual Cost: The O&M cost of the AD facility includes the labor, overhead, fuel, electricity, and 

maintenance cost. An O&M cost of $55/tonne 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% CH4/CO2 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 according to the CH4 yield (2,781 ft3 CH4/wet ton) of the incoming waste. 

The market price of electricity is used to estimate the revenues. 

•	 Applicability: This option assumes 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 

components 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 secondary objective is a lower 

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, MBT 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 processes: (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) an aerobic biodrying system producing an RDF with the reject stream sent to a landfill (after 

undergoing an aerobic stabilization process), and (3) systems 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 Option (1) and composting, and Option (3) and AD, this analysis focuses on Option (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 dried material with a slightly 

III-12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 substitute 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 CH4 emissions that accompany the aerobic degradation process as well as some N2O 

emissions from NOx denitrification during the curing stages of the stabilization process. Representative 

CH4 emissions of 0.01 kg/tonne of waste and N2O 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 analysis assumes a capital cost of $15 million 

based on reported facility costs of $244/design tonne (reported as £150 British pounds/tonne) was 

used for this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008). Costs are reported for a 60,000 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 

costs. It does not include residues disposal. A 2007 annual O&M cost of $22/tonne (reported as 

£13 British pounds/tonne) was considered in this analysis and obtained from Eunomia (2008), 

which 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 market coal price of $40/tonne 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, 2012), $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 all landfill types 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction efficiency of 95%. 

•	 Technical Lifetime: 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 other 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, this 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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. Loose 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, no 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 (2010 USD). The capital cost 

consists of construction, engineering, and equipment costs. 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 CalRecycle (2009) 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 CalRecycle (2009) report. The cost of 

disposal of the MRF rejects can be estimated assuming an 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) 

sometimes 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: 

mixed paper 12—$140/tonne; scrap metals 13—$1,307/tonne; and scrap glass—$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 applies 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 USGS 

Mineral Commodities Summary: Iron & Steel Scrap at: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_scrap/. 

III-14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

Waste-to-Energy (WTE) 

WTE is a combustion process; thus, its main emissions include CO2, CO, NOx, and non-CH4 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 incineration 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 and 

incineration have 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 CH4 emissions of 0.2 to 60 kg/Gg of waste (wet weight) and N2O 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 assume $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 of $29/tonne. 

•	 Annual Benefits: Annual revenue from electricity sales. Electricity that is generated by 

recovering heat from combusting 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 

(BTU/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 (4,750 BTU/tonne of waste). The market price of electricity 

is used to estimate the revenues. 

•	 Applicability: This option applies to entire waste stream. 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes reduction efficiency of 100%. 

•	 Technical Lifetime: 20 years 

III.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis 

The 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-CO2 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 MAC curves illustrate the technical, net GHG mitigation 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 the 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 starts by splitting the BAU emissions out to our three 

landfill types (open dump, basic landfill, engineered landfill). Next 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 important 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 total 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 also 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 presents 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 

assumed zero emissions coming from open dumps in these countries and assumed all emissions come 

from basic and engineered landfills. Given the existing level of infrastructure in place there is very little 

change in the assumed distribution over the 20-year modeling horizon. 

III-16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 

provided 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 countries and regions. The characteristics of interest 

included the 

• average annual waste acceptance rates by facility type, 

• average waste depth by facility, 

• decay constant (k) based on climate and moisture content in waste landfilled, and 

• potential CH4 generation capacity (L0) of the typical waste managed in a given model facility. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

Table 1-4: Model 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, 2011). 

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 were available were paired with a 

representative proxy country based on similarities in socioeconomic and technology development trends 

that are closely correlated with a country’s waste composition. Furthermore, waste composition is the 

only parameter that affects both L0 (CH4 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 waste 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 methane recovery (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. 

III-18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

Table 1-5: Model Facility Assumptions for International LFG Mitigation Options 

No. Years Annual WAR Project Design Waste Depth Facility CH4 

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% 

To improve the heterogeneity in the break-even options across countries, we developed a dataset of 

country-specific data of L0 (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 were calculated based on the composition of the waste being landfilled, which is determined 

by the country-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 following logic: 

First, we identified the decay constant (k) and CH4 generation potential of waste (L0) 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, we then used 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 similar 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 closer 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 which 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 characteristics in terms of capacity, 

average depth of waste in place, and annual waste acceptance rates. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-19 
 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

Table 1-6: CH4 Generation Factors by Country 

Country Region1 

k Constant 

(1/yr) 

L0 

(ft3/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 Eurasia 0.06 4,295 WB 

Ukraine Eurasia 0.06 4,886 LMOP 

Jordan Middle East 0.02 5,984 WB 

United States North America 0.04 3,055 LMOP 

1CCSA = 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 Benefits 

This analysis leveraged the USEPA LFG to energy 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 discussed above were used as inputs to estimate the project 

costs across countries. For waste diversion alternatives, we assumed that waste was diverted from 

landfills and sent to alternative facilities for separation and reuse. Any residual waste from these facilities 

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. 

III-20 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

LANDFILLS 

Table 1-7: Example Break-Even Prices for MSW Landfill Technology Options 

Option by Landfill Type 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Annual 

Revenue 

($/tCO2e) 

Annual Tax 

Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break 

Even Price 

($/tCO2e) 

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: Based on USA CH4 generation parameters: L0 = 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 electricity. 

Table 1-8: Break-Even 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 (tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 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 MtCO2e, or 61% of global baseline 

CH4 emissions from landfills, can be abated by adopting mitigation and avoidance options presented in 

Section III.1.3. 

Approximately 112 MtCO2e, 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/tCO2e to $50/tCO2e most countries MAC curves become non 

responsive (vertical). This is because there are few options within this break-even range. Between 

$50/tCO2e to $100/tCO2e an additional 20% of abatement potential becomes economically viable. And, at 

break-even prices (> $100/t CO2e) 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 approximately 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 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

III-22 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 local 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 CH4 emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LANDFILLS 

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.” Waste 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.ipccnggip.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). Obtained at: 

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/index.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. 

Washington, DC: USEPA. EPA 430-R-06-005. Obtained on February 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/db02s04.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. Obtained 

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. Obtained 

on March 7, 2011, at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

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. 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 Methane 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 Division. January. 

World Bank Group. 2010. 2009—World Development Indicators: Table 2.1 Population Dynamics. Obtained on 

March 8, 2011, at: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. 

III-24 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

LANDFILLS 

Zhu, D., P.U. Asnani, C. Zurbrügg, S. Anapolsky and S. Mani. 2007. “Improving Municipal Solid Waste 

Management in India.” Washington DC: The World Bank. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

III.2. Wastewater 

III.2.1 Sector Summary
 

Domestic and industrial wastewater treatment activities can result in deliberate venting and 

fugitive emissions of methane (CH4). In addition, domestic wastewater is also a source of 

nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. CH4 is produced when the organic material present in the 

wastewater flows decomposes under anaerobic conditions. Although most developed 

countries rely on centralized aerobic wastewater treatment systems, which limit the level of CH4 

generated, less developed 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). 

Worldwide CH4 from wastewater accounted for more than 500 MtCO2e in 2010. Wastewater is the 

fifth largest source of anthropogenic CH4 emissions, contributing approximately 4% of total global CH4 

emissions in 2010. China, Nigeria, Mexico, India, and the United States, combined account for 60% of the 

world’s CH4 emissions from wastewater (see Figure 2-1). Global CH4 emissions from wastewater are 

expected to grow by approximately 19% between 2010 and 2030. 

Figure 2-1: CH4 Emissions from Wastewater: 2000–2030 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

MtCO2e 

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. 

N2O emissions from human sewage are a second significant source of GHG emissions within the 

wastewater sector, contributing an additional 2% of global N2O emissions in 2010. Figure 2-2 illustrates 

the growth in N2O 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 N2O in 2030, representing 36% of total 

N2O emissions in the wastewater sector. Growth in N2O emissions between 2010 and 2030 is expected to 

be 16%, slightly lower than the projected growth in CH4 emissions over the same time period. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

Figure 2-2: N2O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater: 2000–2030 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

MtCO2 e 

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 CH4 in wastewater treatment is 138 and 218 MtCO2e 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-cost mitigation measures in the wastewater treatment sector 

constrain the level of abatement achievable at lower carbon prices (less than $30 tCO2e-1) to less than 5% 

of CH4 emissions in 2030. Maximum abatement potential (218 MtCO2e) is 36% of total CH4 emissions in 

the wastewater sector in 2030. 

The following section provides a brief explanation of sector activity, how CH4 and N2O 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 CH4 emissions. Mitigation potentials reported in this 

chapter do not consider potential reductions in N2O emissions, because of limited information on abatement measure 

costs. 

2 Vertical axis is scaled to limited range of prices between $0 and $800/tCO2e. 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 figure 

simply due to the price limits chosen for the vertical axis when reporting the data. 

III-28 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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

$0 

$100 

$200 

$300 

$400 

$500 

$600 

$700 

$800 

$/tCO2 e 

0 20 40 60 80 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

100 120 

2010 

2020 

2030 

III.2.2 GHG Emissions from Wastewater
 

This section discusses how CH4 and N2O emissions are produced in wastewater treatment and 

disposal activities and the current projections of baseline emissions between 2010 and 2030. 

III.2.2.1 CH4 Emissions from Domestic and Industrial Wastewater 

CH4 is emitted during the handling and treatment of domestic and industrial wastewater. 

Wastewater CH4 emissions are produced through the anaerobic decomposition of organic material 

present in the wastewater. Three key factors that determine the CH4 generation potential are the quantity 

of degradable organic material present in the wastewater, the temperature, and the type of treatment 

system used (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; USEPA, 2012a). CH4 generation is positively related to temperature 

so that higher temperatures result in a great amount of CH4 produced. The third key factor that 

determines CH4 generation is the type of treatment system used and more specifically the amount of 

decomposition occurring under anaerobic conditions which is positively related the quantity of CH4 

generated. 

Types of centralized systems that can result in CH4 emissions include 1) aerobic systems that are 

either improperly operated or designed to have periods of anaerobic activity and 2) anaerobic lagoons 

(USEPA, 2012b). Most developed countries currently use centralized aerobic wastewater treatment 

facilities with closed anaerobic sludge digester systems to process municipal and industrial wastewater, 

minimizing CH4 emissions. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

The IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas reporting identifies five major industrial 

wastewater sources for CH4 emissions, which include pulp and paper manufacturing, meat and poultry 

processing (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 CH4 emissions 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). 

III.2.2.2 N2O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater—Human Sewage 

N2O is produced during both the nitrification and denitrification of urea, ammonia, and proteins. 

These waste materials are converted to nitrate (NO3) 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 (N2). N2O can be an intermediate product 

of both processes but is more often associated with denitrification (Sheehle and Doorn, 2002). 

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 2010. Projected 

emissions estimates cover the 20-year period starting in 2010 and ending in 2030. 

Historical Emissions Estimates 

Between 1990 and 2005, CH4 and N2O emissions from wastewater increased by 20% from a combined 

total of 421 MtCO2e in 1990 to 505 MtCO2e in 2005. The primary driver of both CH4 and N2O emissions 

associated with wastewater is population growth. Country-level CH4 emissions are particularly sensitive 

to population growth in countries that rely heavily 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 CH4 emissions from wastewater. In countries with industrial 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 UNFCCC’s 

national reporting inventory database of GHG emissions, only a small number of developed countries 

have historically reported CH4 emission from Industrial sources. For these 24 countries reporting 

industrial and domestic CH4 emissions the share of emissions reported for industrial wastewater ranged 

from less than 2% to nearly 70% of total CH4 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 CH4 emissions are projected to increase by approximately 19% (97 MtCO2e) between 2010 

and 2030. N2O emissions are projected to increase by a similar proportion, up 16% (14 MtCO2e) over the 

same time period. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present the CH4 and N2O 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. 

III-30 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

Table 2-1: Projected CH4 Baseline Emissions from Wastewater: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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 N2O Baseline Emissions from Human: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

As shown in Table 2-1, Africa and the Middle East are two regions projected to experience significant 

growth in CH4 emissions over the next 20 years, increasing by 50% and 33%, respectively. CH4 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. 

N2O 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 N2O 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 

This 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 CH4 emissions, which can be mitigated through investment in infrastructure and/or equipment. 

Conversely, there are no proven and reliable technologies for mitigation of N2O emissions. Mitigation 

steps to limit N2O 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 system 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 municipal 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, and 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. 

The 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 status quo are presented in Figure 2-5. In actuality, 

there are many more than five baseline technology scenarios that may be utilized throughout the world, 

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 

III-32 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

WASTEWATER 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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) assume 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 for 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 CH4 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. Mitigation 

technologies represent add-on technologies that can be applied to existing wastewater treatment systems 

(such as an anaerobic digester with cogeneration) intended to capture and destroy the CH4 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 CH4 

generated during the treatment process. This shift in wastewater treatment approaches will require the 

construction of a new facility that fundamentally changes the existing wastewater management approach. 

This approach usually requires construction of new infrastructure and, therefore, will require significant 

capital investment. As demonstrated in the 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 and 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/km2, 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 106 USD) 

Annual O&M 

Cost 

(2010 106 USD) 

Time 

Horizon 

(Years) 

Technical 

Efficiency 

Anaerobic biomass digester with CH4 

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 analysis 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 

III-34 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

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 discussion highlights three major categories that represent shifts in water 

management or add-on technology. 

III.2.3.2 CH4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Decentralized Treatment 

This section characterizes the reduction in CH4 emissions by adding a collection system and 

centralized treatment facility in developing countries where the current practice is decentralized 

wastewater 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 CH4. The construction and 

implementation of a collection system and subsequent treatment at a centralized facility would 

significantly reduce CH4 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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 cost 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 financiers to estimate the costs of making 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/km2) = 360.54 × Dp-0.844, where Dp 

is population density in (persons/km2). 

•	 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/km2) = 

-0.844 10.095 × Dp .

•	 Annual Benefits: No benefits are associated with this option. 

•	 Applicability: This option applies to all scenarios having no existing centralized collection 

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: 50 years 

Aerobic WWTP—New Construction 

Contaminants in wastewater are removed using a variety of physical, chemical, and biological 

methods. A WWTP typically comprises many unit operations from each of these broad categories. 

Wastewater treatment technologies are also divided into stages of treatment, each of which comprises 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, floatables, 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 settling 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 treatment 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 most common approach used in 

WWTPs is the activated sludge process. This process is an aerobic suspended-growth system 

III-36 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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 the 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 important 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 suspended 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 (USEPA 1980). The costs curves in this report 

are based on actual winning bids for treatment plans, 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 × Q0.73, where Q is the 

flow rate in m3/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, labor 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 × Q0.8517. 

•	 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.2.3.3	 CH4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Collection System without

Treatment 

This section characterizes the reduction in CH4 emissions for the existing condition of a centralized 

collection system without a treatment facility. Figure 2-7 illustrates the step change in technical capability, 

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 × Q0.73, where Q is the flow rate in m3/day. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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 

requirements. Capdetworks provides the following cost curve for an aerobic WWTP, based on 

the flow rate: O&M cost ($MM) = 0.0002 × Q0.8517. 

•	 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 CH4 Mitigation Technology for Existing Centralized Aerobic WWTPs 

This section characterizes the reduction in CH4 emissions from adding an activated sludge digester 

for CH4 collection and energy generation. This option is only applicable to existing centralized aerobic 

WWTPs primarily found in developed countries (Figure 2-8). 

III-38 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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

Domestic 

wastewater 

Centralized 

collection 

Treated 

Aerobic 

WWTP 

Domestic 

wastewater 

Centralized 

collection 

Treated 

Aerobic WWTP 

w/sludge digestion + 

CH4 collection 

Mitigation Technology 

Anaerobic Biomass Digester with CH4 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 reduction in openair drying beds. The sludge is rich in organic matter and has the potential to produce high amounts of 

CH4 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 CH4. Anaerobic digesters are large 

covered tanks that are heated to optimize the methane-generating process. The tanks typically 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% CH4 and the 30 to 40% CO2, 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 turbine. 

•	 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 × Q0.92, where Q is the flow rate in m3/day. 

•	 Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: Typical annual O&M costs for collection 

systems are based on CapdetWorks. CapdetWorks provides the following cost curve for aerobic 

WWTP, based on the flow rate: O&M cost ($MM) = 0.00042 × Q0.7939. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-39 
 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

•	 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 collection efficiency of 60%, which 

increases by 10% each year. 

•	 Technical Lifetime: 20 years 

III.2.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis 

This section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of CH4 abatement 

measures for wastewater treatment systems. 

III.2.4.1 Methodological Approach 

The MAC analysis is based on project costs 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 reported above to calculate the break-even prices for each option and wastewater 

treatment scenario. Finally, the model estimates the mitigation 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 distributions are based on analysis conducted 

by USEPA (2012a). 

Figure 2-9: Domestic Wastewater MAC Analysis Flow Chart 

III-40 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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 treatment. 

Shares allocated to each source (domestic/industrial) were based on historical emissions data 

obtained from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC’s) GHG 

emissions reporting database. Data were limited to 24 Annex I countries accounting for 15% of emissions 

in 2010. For these 24 countries, we calculated a 5-year average share of CH4 emissions attributable to 

domestic sources based on emissions reported between 2002 and 2007. For all other countries, because of 

a lack of data, we assumed emissions projections are wholly attributable to domestic wastewater 

treatment systems to be consistent with USEPA (2012a) projections methodology. Figure 2-10 presents the 

average share of emissions attributed to domestic and industrial sources by country. 

Figure 2-10: Share of Wastewater CH4 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 

treatment 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-CO2 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 systems that reduced CH4 emissions. 

Estimate Abatement 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 measure cost 

estimates for the United States and the corresponding break-even prices associated with each option. 

Table 2-4: Example Break-Even Prices for Wastewater Abatement Measures in 2030 for the United States 

Abatement Option 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Installed 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Present 

Value of 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Present 

Value of 

After Tax 

Benefits 

($/tCO2e) 

Present 

Value of Tax 

Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

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 CH4 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 MtCO2e. 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/tCO2e in 2030. These results 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 breakeven prices. 

III-42 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

Table 2-5: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

20 

China 

Mexico 

Indonesia 

Nigeria 

United States 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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. 

The analysis presented in this chapter attempts to address the data limitations issue by estimating the 

quantities of wastewater treated in a number of alternative treatment systems. For simplification 

purposes, we have exogenously assigned abatement measures 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 

minimization under country- and system-specific conditions. 

The investment in large-scale public infrastructure required to improve wastewater treatment 

systems would not be determined solely by the carbon price associated with CH4 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 technically 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 measures applied to 

industrial wastewater treatment systems. The authors acknowledge that CH4 emissions from industrial 

sources can be significant, and in some countries industrial wastewater emissions may represent more 

than half of total emissions associate with wastewater. However, data 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 from industrial 

sources. International partnerships like the Global Methane Initiative (GMI) have begun to assess the 

level of CH4 emissions available for recovery and use. Any future attempt to model abatement potential 

from the industrial wastewater sector would also require additional detail on the relative contribution of 

CH4 emissions coming from domestic versus industrial wastewater sources. 

III-44 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

WASTEWATER 

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). Obtained 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. 2002. “Improvements to the U.S. Wastewater Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide Emissions Estimates.” Working paper. USEPA: Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks 1990–2011. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Obtained 

at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 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. Environmental 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 

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Issue: Water, Sanitation, People. 14(4):19-21. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES III-45 
IV. Industrial Processes Sector 
 

 

 

 

 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

MtCO2e 

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
 

The production of nitric and adipic acid results in significant nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions as a 

by-product. 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). 

Combined global emissions of N2O from nitric and adipic acid production are shown in Figure 1-1. 

Globally, emissions have declined by about 13% (17 MtCO2e) over the past decade; however, over the 

next 20 years—2010 to 2030—emissions are expected to increase steadily (~20%) growing by 24 MtCO2e 

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 N2O from nitric and adipic 

acid production. 

Figure 1-1: N2O 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 N2O 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 N2O emissions (USEPA, 2012a). Overall, increased global demand for adipic acid 

is expected to have the effect of higher annual N2O emissions resulting from adipic acid production. In 

addition, global N2O 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 production and, consequently, N2O emissions. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-1 
 

 

IV.1.2 N2O 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

120 140 

2010 

2020 

2030 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

Global abatement potential of N2O in nitric acid and adipic acid production is 98 and 115 MtCO2e in 

2020 and 2030, respectively. These results are depicted in the sectoral marginal abatement cost (MAC) 

curves in Figure 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 tCO2e-1). 

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

The following section provides a brief explanation of the manufacturing processes that result in the 

formation of N2O emissions. Next we discuss the projected emissions from these processes out to 2030. 

Subsequent sections characterize the abatement measures and 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. 

N2O 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 N2O from nitric and adipic acid production. The MAC analysis presented here starts by 

assuming the projected emissions presented in USEPA’s 2012 Global Emissions Report (2012a). This 

analysis then derives industry activity from the USEPA 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 

IV-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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 Manufacturers 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 production plants 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). 

As 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 N2O 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 N2O 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 N2O per ton of nitric acid produced. As a result, emissions factors for nitric acid 

production plants may vary significantly based on the operating pressure of the plant, the type of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) control technology (if any) deployed on the plant, and whether N2O abatement has 

been implemented. As shown in Table 1-1, N2O emission rates increase as the plant operating pressure 

increases. Furthermore, non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) is very effective at destroying N2O, 

whereas other technologies used to control NOx emissions, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and 

extended absorption, do not reduce N2O emissions. 

Table 1-1: IPCC Emissions Factors for Nitric Acid Production 

Production Process 

N2O Emissions Factor 

(relating to 100% pure acid) 

Plants with NSCRa (all processes) 2 kg N2O/tonne nitric acid ±10% 

Plants with process-integrated or tailgas N2O destruction 2.5 kg N2O/tonne nitric acid ±10% 

Atmospheric pressure plants (low pressure) 5 kg N2O/tonne nitric acid ±10% 

Medium pressure combustion plants 7 kg N2O/tonne nitric acid ±20% 

High pressure plants 9 kg N2O/tonne nitric acid ±40% 

Source: IPCC, 2006.
 

a Non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR)
 

The IPCC notes that emissions factors as high as 19.5 kilograms N2O 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-CO2 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 emissions 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 the 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 result, 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 adipic 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 adipic 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 capacity 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 was 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 provides a default emissions factor of 300 kilograms ± 10% N2O per ton of adipic acid 

produced (IPCC, 2006). This emissions factor assumes that no N2O control system is in place. 

Additionally, this factor should be used only when national total data are available and plant-level data 

are deemed unreliable. This factor was developed using laboratory experiments measuring the 

IV-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

reactionary stoichiometry for N2O 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 Assumptions 

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 estimates cover the period from 2010 to 2030. 

Historical Emissions Estimates 

Between 1990 and 2005, N2O emissions from nitric and adipic acid production decreased by 37% 

down from 200 MtCO2e in 1990 to 126 MtCO2e 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, N2O emissions actually decreased over the period. The reductions in N2O emissions over 

this period were mostly due to the installation of abatement technologies in the adipic acid industry 

(USEPA, 2012a). 

Projected Emissions Estimates 

Table 1-2 lists the combined projected N2O baseline emissions from nitric and adipic acid production 

by country/region and year. Worldwide N2O emissions are projected to increase by approximately 21% 

(24 MtCO2e) 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 

MtCO2e) in emissions, which represents a 28% increase from 2010, while South Korea is expected to have 

the largest absolute increase (11 MtCO2e). 

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 (N2O) 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 N2O emissions. 

The location of catalyst placement within the nitric acid production process determines the catalyst 

design, composition, 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 occur within the ammonia 

burner, preventing the formation of N2O. Secondary abatement measures such as homogeneous thermal 

decomposition and catalytic decomposition are installed at an intermediate point in the production 

process, removing the N2O formed through 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. Available at: http://www.epa.gov\climatechange\economics\international.html. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-5 
 

 

 

 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

Table 1-2: Projected N2O 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% 

aCAGR = 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. 

This section 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—N2O Abatement Methods 

Adipic acid facilities typically direct the flue gas to a reductive furnace in a thermal destruction 

process to reduce nitric oxide (NOX) emissions. Thermal destruction is the combustion of off-gases 

(including N2O) in the presence of methane. The combustion process converts N2O to nitrogen, resulting 

primarily in emissions of NO and some residual N2O (Ecofys, Fraunhofer ISIR, and Öko-Institute, 2009). 

Facilities may also employee a catalytic decomposition method to abatement N2O generated. The EU 

Emissions Trading System [ETS] and CDM methodologies for this abatement measure suggest that heat 

generated from the decomposition of N2O can be used to produce process steam for utilization in local 

processes, substituting for more expensive steam generated using fossil fuel alone. For this analysis, we 

assume the abatement measures’ conversion of N2O to nitrogen technical effectiveness is 95%. Costs 

presented below are based on a catalytic decomposition method. 

IV-6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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 

(tCO2e/yr) 

Total 

Installed 

Capital

Cost 

Annual 

O&M 

Cost Energy 

Nonenergy 

Adipic Acid Productiona 

Thermal/catalytic decomposition 11.4 2.2 20 96% — 0.3 4,206,218 

Nitric Acid Productionb 

Secondary Abatement— 

Catalytic decomposition in the burner 

1.3 0.4 15 85% — — 779,571 

Tertiary Abatement— 

Direct catalytic decomposition 

2.3 0.2 15 95% — — 871,286 

Tertiary Abatement— 

Non-selective 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 tHNO3/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 

includes 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: Steam produced through the decomposition of N2O 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 costs (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 N2O emissions. Based on recent analysis (Schneider et al., 2010), only 9 of the 23 

operational facilities in 2010 had unabated N2O emissions. 

•	 Technical Effectiveness: This analysis assumes a 95% efficiency converting N2O 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) identified 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 N2O in the ammonia burner and would require 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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 N2O 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 

decomposition 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 HNO3 production capacity2 and a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO3/day. Using these 

assumptions, the initial capital costs would equal $1.3 million (2010 USD). 

•	 Annual O&M Costs: Annual costs include catalyst replacement and recycling of spent catalyst, 

replacement of spare catalyst, and loss of production due to catalyst disruptions. This analysis 

assumes an annual cost of $1.3/tHNO3 produced and a plant utilization rate of 90% (PerezRamirez, 2003). Following the plant example of a 1,000 tHNO3/day, the annual cost would be $0.4 

million (2010 USD). 

•	 Annual Benefits: No benefits are associated with this option. 

•	 Applicability: This option is applicable to all existing nitric acid plants. 

•	 Technical Effectiveness: This analysis assumes an 80% efficiency converting N2O 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 N2O (Perez-Ramirez, 2003). Similar to earlier abatement 

measures, this measure reduces the N2O into nitrogen and oxygen, through thermal or catalytic 

decomposition. 

•	 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 

$6.3/tonne of HNO3 production capacity3 and a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO3/day. Using these 

assumptions, the initial capital costs would equal $2.3 million (2010 USD). 

2 Based on costs of € 0.25/tHNO3 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/ tHNO3 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). 

IV-8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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 process pressure. This analysis assumes an annual cost of $0.6/tHNO3 produced and a plant 

utilization rate of 90% (Perez-Ramirez, 2003). Following the plant example of a 1,000 tHNO3/day, 

the annual cost would be $0.2 million (2010 USD). 

•	 Annual Benefits: Minor 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 steam could 

outweigh the benefit. The ability to accrue benefits would also be limited by the amount of space 

available to add the equipment. 

•	 Applicability: This option is applicable 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 N2O 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 an 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 NOX and N2O 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 HNO3 production capacity based on 

$8.2/tHNO3 reported in 1991 USD (USEPA, 1991) scaled to 2010 USD using the Chemical 

Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPI). Assuming a plant capacity of 1,000 tHNO3/day, the initial 

capital cost would equal $4.6 million (2010 USD). 

•	 Annual O&M Costs: Annual costs total $8.8/tHNO3 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 is 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 N2O into nitrogen and 

water. 

•	 Technical Lifetime: 20 years 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

IV.1.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis 

This section describes the methodological approach to the N2O abatement measures for nitric and 

adipic 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 representative of existing facilities. Next we applied 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. This analysis takes the N2O emissions projections (given) and 

allocates emissions based on production process to derive the model facility inventories. 

Adipic acid facilities are defined through a detailed inventory 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 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.4 

Adipic Acid—Facility inventory 

The first step in the analysis was to determine the allocation of projected emissions to nitric and 

adipic acid production by country. For example, in the United States, adipic acid production accounted 

for approximately 15% of total baseline emissions in 2010, while the majority of emissions 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 applicable 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 literature 

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 capacity.5 Schneider and co-authors also identified the N2O 

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 N2O 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). 

IV-10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

2

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 Capacity 

Producing Country

with N O Abatement 

Unabated 

2 

35% 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

Figure 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 N2O emission controls in place. As the figure 

shows, all but 15% of the adipic acid capacity has N2O abatement controls in place. The 15% of capacity 

with no N2O 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 N2O 

abatement measures (Schneider et al., 2010; EcoFys, 2009, USEPA, 2012b). In 2005, with the establishment 

of the CDM methodology for crediting N2O abatement projects at adipic acid plants, producers in 

developing countries began to adopt N2O abatement measures. Schneider and co-authors point out that 

although the CDM methodology was effective in achieving N2O 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 Inc. [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 N2O abatement. China and Ukraine 

account for over 95% of the capacity with unabated N2O 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 identified as having no 

known N2O abatement measure in place. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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 emissions factor of 300 kg 

N2O 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 totaling 103,800 tonnes of N2O (32.2 MtCO2e) 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 breakout 

the N2O emissions baseline to adipic acid. 

The analysis assumes that N2O 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 Emissionsa 

Share of N2O Baseline, % 

Country Adipic Acid Nitric Acid 

Brazil 5 95 

Chinab 36 64 

France 30 70 

Germany 21 79 

India 1 99 

Italy 27 73 

Japanb 36 64 

Singapore 25 75 

South Korea 5 95 

Ukraineb 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), no 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. 

IV-12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

emissions factor of 8.5 kg N2O per tHNO3 produced7 (IPCC, 2006). Table 1-5 summarizes the model 

facilities for nitric acid production by capacity and resulting annual N2O emissions. 

Table 1-5: Model Nitric Acid Facilities Assumptions 

Model Plants 

Production 

(tHNO3/yr) 

Annual N2O Emissions 

(uncontrolled)

(tN2O) 

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 summarizes the break-even price calculation for nitric and 

adipic acid production facilities. 

Table 1-6: Example Break-Even Prices for N2O Abatement Measures 

Annualized 

Capital

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(MtCO2e) 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Annual 

Revenue 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -

Even Price 

Abatement Option ($/tCO2e) 

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: Break-even price assumes 10% discount rate and 40% tax rate.
 

Thermal destruction based on adipic acid production capacity of 75 kt yr-1 and nitric acid options based on 328kt HNO3 yr-1 production capacity.
 

IV.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results 

Global abatement potential of N2O 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 showing a cumulative reduction potential of 111 MtCO2e. 

7 The default emissions factor for the high pressure process is 9 kg N2O per ton of nitric acid; the default emissions 

factor for medium pressure processes is 7 kg N2O per ton of nitric acid produced. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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 

$/tCO2 e 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 ($/tCO2e) 

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 

IV-14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

NITRIC 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/tCO2e. 

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: Active CDM and Joint Implementation (JI) abatement 

projects in this sector have reported N2O 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 production 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NITRIC 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/benchmarking/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.ipccnggip.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 IFA 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/Publicationdatabase.html/Fertilizer-Outlook-2011-2015.html. 

Kollmuss, A., and M. Lazarus. 2010. “Industrial N2O Projects Under the CDM: The Case of Nitric Acid 

Production” (Working Paper 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. “N2O Emissions from Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production.” Good 

Practice and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Montreal: 

Intergovernmental 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 N2O in nitric 

acid production: Where 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. “N2O emissions from nitric acid plants in CDM and JI 

projects.” Nitrogen+Syngas, 307, 43 –47. 

Schneider, L., M. Lazarus, and A. Kollmuss. 2010. “Industrial N2O 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 1990-2030. EPA 430-R-12-006. USEPA: Washington DC. Obtained at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2projections.html. 

IV-16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

NITRIC AND ADIPIC ACID PRODUCTION 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. 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-demandfrom-pu-sector.html. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-17 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-1: HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and AC: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

MtCO2e 

157 

349 

733 

1,596 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

Japan 

Russia 

South Korea 

United States 

China 

ROW 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

IV.2. HFC Emissions from Refrigeration 

and Air Conditioning 

IV.2.1 Sector Summary 

Anumber of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are used in refrigeration and air conditioning (AC) 

systems 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 ozone depleting substance 

(ODS) phaseout, equipment is being retrofitted or replaced to use HFC-based substitutes or intermediate 

substitutes (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbons [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 dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010. By 2020, emissions from this sector are expected to 

reach 733 million MtCO2e, 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 lowglobal 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% HFC32, 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-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Global abatement potential from refrigeration and AC in 2030 as evaluated in this analysis equates to 

approximately 70% of total annual emissions 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 only 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 MtCO2e in 2030. There are 317 MtCO2e of emissions 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 disposal, 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. 

IV-20 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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% 

Centrifugal PD Chillers, <1% 

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 REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

For the purpose of this analysis, the sector is characterized by six 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-ducted 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 other industrial applications; 

•	 retail food refrigeration, including small commercial refrigerators/freezers; 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, including refrigerated vans/trucks, containers, ship holds, truck trailers, 

railway freight cars, and other shipping containers; 

•	 industrial process refrigeration (IPR) and cold storage warehouses, including complex refrigeration 

systems used in the food/beverage 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 refrigerators and freezers used primarily in residential buildings. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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. 

•	 Large 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 R404A. 

•	 Small retail food equipment (e.g., stand-alone systems) typically used in supermarkets and 

convenience stores; for cost modeling purposes, this equipment is characterized as having a 

charge size of 0.5 kg of 90% R-134a and 10% R-404A (based on the average HFC refrigerant types 

currently installed in the U.S. market). 

•	 Window AC unit or dehumidifier; for cost modeling purposes, this unit is characterized as 

having a charge size of 0.4 kg of R-410A. 

•	 Unitary AC system or PTAC/PTHP; for cost modeling purposes, this system is characterized as 

having a charge size of 8 kg of R-410A. 

•	 Positive 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). 

•	 IPR/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-404A, 25% R-134a, and 25% R-410A (based on 

the average HFC refrigerant types currently installed in the U.S. market). 

•	 Typical 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 MVACs 

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 United 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 USEPA’s Vintaging Model for the United 

States, is used to represent activity data. Consumption 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 facilities 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. 

IV-22 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAGRa 

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 REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

(EU) to reflect higher consumption of low-GWP refrigerants 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). Adjustments 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 MtCO2 in 2010, projected to grow to 

733 MtCO2 by 2020 and 1,596 MtCO2 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 growing 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 reduction 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 (MtCO2e) 

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate.
 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012.
 

IV.2.3 Abatement Measures 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 14 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 

NH3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade 

systems in large retail food 100% New large retail food refrigeration systems 

CO2 Transcritical systems in large retail food 100% New large retail food refrigeration systems 

Retrofits 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 

NH3 or CO2 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 in 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 150 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 HFC-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). 

IV-24 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

equipment, can bring significant emission savings, especially in developing countries, where they are less 

likely to be 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 mentioned 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-134a 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 vehicles5 in all 

countries except the EU, where it is assumed to penetrate in the baseline. The one-time cost is estimated 

at roughly $73 per MVAC system—assumed to be 10% greater in developing countries. These costs 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 current 

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 already begun penetrating the EU and U.S. 

markets 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 one-time capital cost is 

estimated at approximately $59 per MVAC system, resulting 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 produce 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 HFO5 This category includes cars, pick-up trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 $100 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. The assumed incremental cost of the refrigerant is lower for this option than the original HFO1234yf 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, annual costs are assumed 

to be only approximately $2 per MVAC system. These 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 Systems 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 refrigerant 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 

conventional 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 countries, one-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. Annual 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 66% greater in developing countries. At the same time, 

annual refrigerant savings (due to 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 sometimes 

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 CO2 

commonly used in the low temperature circuit and an HFC used as the refrigerant at the medium 

temperature 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 charge and have lower leakage rates, resulting in 

IV-26 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 one-time cost in developed countries is estimated to be 17.5% more expensive than 

conventional DX systems (IPCC, 2005), equivalent to an incremental 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	 NH3 or HCs Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Systems in New Large Retail 

Food 

Similar to the HFC secondary loop 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. For this abatement 

option, the primary refrigerant is assumed to be ammonia (NH3) or HCs, which have a GWP that is 

negligible. Ammonia is not used in conventional supermarket refrigeration systems 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 with 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; Hydrocarbonconversions.com, 2011). 

This abatement option is applied to a newly manufactured large retail food system in a large 

supermarket. The one-time cost in developed countries is estimated to be 25% greater than conventional 

DX systems (IPCC, 2005), equivalent to an incremental cost of roughly $45,600 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 assumed to be higher, annual 

savings are assumed to total more than $8,300. 

IV.2.3.7	 CO2 Transcritical Systems in New Large Retail Food 

This option eliminates the use of HFCs in large retail food refrigeration systems through the use of 

CO2 as the primary refrigerant in a transcritical cycle. CO2 transcritical systems are similar to traditional 

centralized DX designs but must operate at high pressures to accommodate the low critical temperature 

of CO2 (GTZ Proklima, 2008). As a result, special controls and component specifications must be 

incorporated into the system design, which often result in higher upfront costs (USEIA, 2012). 

Additionally, CO2 transcritical systems operate most efficiently in cooler climates, performing an 

estimated 5% to 10% more efficiently than DX 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

energy penalty, the use of CO2 transcritical systems in warmer climates is currently considered less 

viable. Specifically, use of these systems 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, it is estimated that over 1,300 CO2 transcritical systems are 

currently in operation in Europe with installations as far 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 supermarkets 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; 

R744.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 leaks) 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 Retrofits of R-404A in Large Retail Food 

Retail food refrigeration systems containing R-404A, which have high charge sizes and annual leak 

rates, 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 change 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 continued 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 maintenance) 

(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 entire system must be shut down and checks should be made for 

leaks throughout the system. Solenoid 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 modeling 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 costs 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. HCs, such as butane and propane, 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 

IV-28 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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., standalone equipment). No one-time costs are estimated because this option is cost neutral (Unilever, 2008). An 

annual savings of less than $1 per system is estimated to result from avoided HFC refrigerant costs. 

IV.2.3.10 HCs in New Window AC and Dehumidifiers 

R-410A is widely 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 features, 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 and China (GTZ-Proklima, 

2009). 

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to newly manufactured 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 equipment 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., 2012). 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 potential to be downsized by up 

to 15%, which can decrease one-time costs by reducing the amount of materials used. R-32 AC products 

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. Additional 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 savings 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 microchannel heat exchangers (MCHX) in unitary AC equipment 

using R-410A. MCHXs 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 MCHXs transfer heat through a series of small tubes instead of a single or multiple largediameter 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. MCHXs 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 

annual 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, this 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 allows 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 system (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 annual 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, MCHXs 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 MCHXs 

transfer heat through a series of small 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. 

IV-30 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 conventional systems. 

MCHXs 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 

chiller. One-time savings equal to nearly $900 are assumed due to the smaller refrigerant charge. No 

annual costs are assumed for this option. The annual savings associated with avoided refrigerant losses is 

estimated at approximately $50 per chiller. 

IV.2.3.15 NH3 or CO2 in New IPR and Cold Storage Systems 

This abatement option is assumed to be applicable to cold storage and industrial process refrigeration 

systems. Although NH3 refrigeration systems are already common in refrigerated spaces over 200,000 sq. 

ft., additional penetration of NH3 systems is possible in facilities that are less than 200,000 sq. ft. but 

greater than 50,000 sq. ft. In addition, modern NH3 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 CO2 systems. CO2 systems are being 

used in low-temperature refrigeration (−30°C to −56°C), while ammonia/CO2 systems can be used for 

higher temperature refrigeration (−35°C to −54°C). The lower temperature for both systems is limited 

primarily by the −56°C triple point of CO2 being used on the low side. The choice between these systems 

is primarily due to outdoor temperatures; in colder climates, a CO2 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/CO2 

cascade systems. These systems are estimated to be 2% to 20% more energy efficient compared with their 

HFC counterparts (Gooseff and Horton, 2008). 

For cost modeling purposes, this option is applied to a newly constructed IPR/cold storage 

refrigeration system/facility. The incremental one-time cost is estimated at approximately $210,700 per 

system in developed countries (Gooseff and Horton, 2008), assumed to be 10% more in developing 

countries. The annual 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 66% 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 developed 

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 approach 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 using 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 meets SAE J2788 standards to perform MVAC recovery jobs. The 

incremental one-time cost is estimated at approximately $2,025 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 

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, annual costs are assumed to be about $240. The annual savings is estimated at about $440 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 standard. The incremental 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 annual cost is estimated at roughly $870 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 annual 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 

This 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 

practiced 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 gasket or О-ring). A one-time cost of 

approximately $1,870 is estimated per supermarket for parts and labor needed to perform the repair in 

developed countries (USEPA, 1998); in developing countries, this cost is estimated to be 10% greater. The 

annual 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. 

IV-32 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 low 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% of new household 

refrigerators/freezers produced globally contained HCs, with more than 400 million HC units in use 

worldwide (Greenpeace, 2009). This option is not quantitatively assessed in this analysis but will be 

considered for future updates. 

IV.2.3.20 CO2 in Transport Refrigeration 

CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 system (TEAP, 2011). 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 trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-ene) and HFO-1234ze(E) acceptable for use in chillers, used mainly 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, CO2, water, HFC32, and new low-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 to 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, these options 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-33 
 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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) (tCO2e)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 

NH3 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 

CO2 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) 

IV-34 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Table 2-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis (continued) 

Capital

Cost 

(2010

USD) 

Project 

Lifetime 

(years) 

Annual 

Revenue 

(2010 USD) 

Annual 

O&M Costs 

(2010 USD) 

Abatement 

Amount 

(tCO2e) Abatement Option/Facility Type a 

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 

NH3 or CO2 

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 (CO2) 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

IV.2.5.1 Methodological Approach 

The analysis is based on the above representative project costs for model facilities in the United 

States, 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 total 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 regarding 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 accounts for a 

number of elements, such as market choice, the turnover rate to replace existing banks of equipment that 

use HFCs, and the lifetime of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Technical effectiveness 

figures do not account for indirect GHG impacts (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 reductions 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. 

IV-36 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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% 

NH3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 20% 100% 13% 

CO2 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% 

NH3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 35% 100% 21% 

CO2 transcritical systems 60% 100% 47% 

Retrofits of R-404A R-404A systems at or 

beyond average age 100% 46% 1% 

Large Retail Food – Developing 

Distributed systems

New systems 

30% 80% 15% 

HFC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 37% 95% 16% 

NH3 or HC secondary loop and/or cascade systems 13% 100% 4% 

CO2 transcritical systems 20% 100% 8% 

Retrofits of R-404A R-404A systems at or 

beyond average age 100% 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 

Applicability 

Market 

Penetration 

Rate (2030)a 

Reduction 

Efficiency 

Technical 

Effectiveness 

(2030)b 

(continued) 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-37 
 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 

NH3 or CO2 New systems 40% 100% 21% 

IPR & Cold Storage – Developing 

NH3 or CO2 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 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 Appendix D to this chapter. 

b Technical effectiveness figures represent the percentage 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. 

IV-38 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

MVAC—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 REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

IV.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 

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. Additional details on the analyses can be found in Appendix D 

to this chapter. 

Table 2-5: Example Break-Even Prices 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 

NH3 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 

CO2 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 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

(continued) 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-39 
 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Table 2-5: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC (continued) 

Abatement Option/Facility Type 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

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 −194.1 21.7 −66.3 

Positive Displacement Chiller—Developing, New 258.8 164.4 −321.2 23.9 −180.7 

NH3 or CO2 

IPR/Cold Storage—Developed, New 258.8 149.5 −194.1 21.7 −66.3 

IPR/Cold Storage—Developing, New 258.8 164.4 −321.2 23.9 −180.7 

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) 

IV-40 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Table 2-5: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Refrigeration and AC (continued) 

Abatement Option/Facility Type 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital 

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

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 potential in 2020 and 2030 is 208 and 994 MtCO2e, respectively. There are 479 

MtCO2e 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 costeffective. 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/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-41 
 

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

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2e 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

300 

China 

Russia 

Japan 

South Korea 

United States 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 

conservative. 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, CO2 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 greater 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 

average 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, CO2 transcritical large retail food 

IV-42 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

refrigeration systems, distributed refrigeration systems, NH3 or CO2 in new IPR and cold storage 

systems). 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 

increase or decrease in CO2 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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. CO2 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 CO2 (R744) Supermarket Refrigeration in Australia. 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0007/australian_green_cooling_en.pdf. 

Carrier. November 11, 2008. Personal communication between William Walter and Richard Lord of 

Carrier, and Brie Johnson of ICF International. 

Carrier. 2013. 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 Systems Symposium, Scottsdale, AZ. 

Daikin. September 27, 2012. News Release: World's First Commercialization of Air Conditioning 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 Cold 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. 

Environmental 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-transportsolution/. 

EurActiv. January 23, 2013. “Daimler Faces Legal Action Threat over Green Air Conditioning.” Obtained 

February 7, 2013, at: http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/daimler-slammed-return-macdirec-news-516741. 

IV-44 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Godrej. 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 Conditioners.” 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-Friendly Alternatives to HCFCs. 

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Eschborn, Germany. July 2008. 

Available at: http://epa.gov/greenchill/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: http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/files/news/gree-ac-unit-hydrocarbons.pdf. 

Hill PHOENIX. 2012. “Advances in CO2 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 ASHRAE. 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-by2012/. 

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 Assessment 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. 2011. Preparatory study for a review of regulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certain fluorinated 

greenhouse gases. Prepared for the European Commission. September 2011. 

Pham, H. and H. Sachs. 2010. Next Generation Refrigerants: Standards and Climate Policy Implications of 

Engineering Constraints. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Available at: 

http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/1933.pdf. 

R744.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/RTOCAssessment-report-2010.pdf. 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (RAC) Magazine. 2013. “US car giant GM publicly backs HFO-1234yf.” 

January 7, 2013. Obtained February 7, 2013, at: http://www.racplus.com/news/us-car-giant-gmpublicly-backs-1234yf/8640815.article?blocktitle=Latest-news&contentID=2332. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING 

Rugh, J., and V. Hovland. July 17, 2003. National and World Fuel Savings and carbon dioxide Emission 

Reductions 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-carbondioxide?page=1showtext.cfm?t=ptb0810. 

SuperValu. June 12, 2012. SuperValu’s Development of Next Generation Refrigeration Systems: Application of 

Ammonia, CO2 and Propane. Heath, R. and J. Armer. Presented at ATMOsphere America the Business 

Case: Natural 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 (TEAP). 2011. UNEP 2010 Report of the Refrigeration, 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-report2010.pdf. 

Unilever. 2008. “Unilever Ice Cream Cabinets: Conversion to Natural Refrigerants.” Case Study 

disseminated 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 Electricity, 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/gasolinewithtax.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. Environmental 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-CO2 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 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. 

IV-46 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM REFRIGERATION 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 DOWFROSTTM Fluid 

Contribute to Wal-Mart “Green Initiative.” 

Wang, K., M. Eisele, Y. Hwang, 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-47 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-1: HFC and PFC Emissions from Solvent Use: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

MtCO2e 

4 

5 

7 

10 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

South Korea 

Russia 

Japan 

United States 

China 

ROW 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE 

IV.3. HFC Emissions from Solvent Use 

IV.3.1 Sector Summary
 

Historically, 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 dominating 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 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e.) in 2010. By 2030, emissions from 

this sector are expected to more than double, reaching over 10 MtCO2e. 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), 2012a 

Four abatement options were identified for the solvent sector: (1) replacement of HFCs with HFEs, 

(2) retrofitting of equipment, (3) transition to NIK aqueous, and (4) transition to NIK semi-aqueous. 

The global abatement potential is equal to approximately 58.9% of total 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-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 MtCO2e in 2030. There are 4.8 MtCO2e of emissions reductions in 

2030 that are cost-effective (i.e., $0/tCO2e 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-4310mee 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 global distribution of HFC and PFC emissions from solvent use in 

2020 by degreaser type. 

IV-50 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

Figure 3-3: Global HFC Emissions 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 solvent 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 emissions of HFCs from the solvents sector were 5 MtCO2e in 2010, growing to 10 MtCO2e in 

2030. 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 other ODSs in terms of timing and alternative solvent used, charge sizes, and leak rates, 

using the Vintaging Model. 

1 PFC solvent use in precision cleaning end-uses is assumed to discontinue such that no emissions of PFCs are 

projected beyond 2010 from this sector. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-51 
 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE 

Table 3-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Solvent Use: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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% 

CAGRa 

(2010–2030) 

a CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate 

Source: USEPA, 2012a 

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) transition 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) 

program 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 50% Nonretrofitted facilities 

NIK aqueous 100% Electronics cleaning 

NIK semi-aqueous 100% Electronics cleaning 

IV-52 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 HFC4310mee 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 material 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% HFE7200.2 For the purpose of this 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, this 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 abatement 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 maintenance, 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 States, 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 trichloroethylene. 

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 economic, 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 presence 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 nonAnnex 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 improved equipment and cleaning processes using existing solvents 

(retrofit) 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-Kind Aqueous 

This abatement option is applicable 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 aqueous 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 estimated 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-Kind Semi-aqueous 

This abatement option is applicable 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 semiaqueous 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 is 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 iodide (PFBI) and Solstice 1233zd(E), are also emerging 

options. Both substances are new alternatives that may potentially abate HFC and HFE emissions in 

4 Although 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. 

IV-54 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 trans-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 (USEPA, 2012b) and is nonflammable, making 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 US Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program as acceptable for use in electronics, metal, and precision cleaning (USEPA, 2012c). 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 solvents. 

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 also 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 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 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 $11,200 295 

NIK semiaqueous 

Electronic/Retrofitted 

15 $55,000 $6,700 $9,100 

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 

(tCO2e) 

IV.3.4 Marginal Abatement Costs Analysis 

This section describes the methodological approach to the international assessment of abatement 

measures for solvents. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-55 
 

 

 

HFC 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 type combination. Estimating this parameter requires making a 

number of assumptions regarding the distribution of emissions from model facilities 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% 50% 10% 

Electronics—retrofitted 

HFC to HFE 100% 80% 76% 61% 

Aqueous 100% 10% 100% 10% 

Semi-aqueous 100% 10% 100% 10% 

Electronics—nonretrofitted 

HFC to HFE 100% 40% 76% 31% 

Retrofit 100% 20% 50% 10% 

Aqueous 100% 6% 100% 6% 

Semi-aqueous 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 MtCO2e of reductions in 2030. 

The break-even prices presented in Table 3-5 represent model facilities. Actual prices vary by country 

because of the scaling of costs and benefits by international price factors. 

IV-56 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

147 

 

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 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

Abatement Option ($/tCO2e) 

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-aqueous 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-aqueous 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 MtCO2e, respectively. There are 4.8 

MtCO2e of reductions in 2030 resulting from implementing currently available technologies that are costeffective 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 select break-even prices in 2030. 

Table 3-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 CO2 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 projected emissions once adopted. This 

analysis does not project further abatement that can occur because of these alternatives as information on 

their potential uptake by the market and associated transition costs is unknown at this time. 

IV-58 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 expert 

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 

Conclusions.” 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. Meira 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 Group 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. 

United 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 47768-47779. 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-aerosol Solvent Cleaning Under 

SNAP as of August 10, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/solvents/ 

solvents.pdf. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

MtCO2e 

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
 

Foam 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 HFC365mfc. Greenhouse gas emissions from the foams sector (excluding CFCs and HCFCs) were estimated at
 

roughly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010. By 2020, emissions
 

from this sector are expected to reach over 52 MtCO2e, as shown in Figure 4-1.
 

Figure 4-1: HFC Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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 21.9% 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 MtCO2e in 2030. There 

are 27 MtCO2e 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

40 

2010 

2020 

2030 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

Figure 4-2: Global Abatement Potential 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 closed-cell foam 

applications: polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU commercial refrigeration foam, extruded 

polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, PU continuous and discontinuous panel foam, PU one-component 

foam, and PU spray foam. The relative GWP-weighted emission shares of these applications in 2020 are 

shown in Figure 4-3. 

1 Open cell foams experience significant blowing agent leakage due to the cell structure. 

IV-62 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

Figure 4-3: Global HFC Emissions in 2020 by Application Type (% of GWP-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 spray foam contractor using HFC-245fa/CO2 blowing agent: characterized as a typical PU 

spray foam contractor that uses nearly 58,000 kg of HFC-245fa/CO2 PU spray foam annually. 

•	 One-component foam manufacturing facility using HFC-134a or HFC-152a blowing agent: 

characterized as a typical facility that produces one-component foam and uses over 130,000 kg 

per year of HFC blowing agent. 

•	 XPS boardstock production facility using HFC-134a/CO2 blowing agent: characterized as a 

typical facility that creates approximately 1,000,000 board feet of XPS boardstock per year across 

10 lines using nearly 7,100 kg of HFC-134a and CO2 blowing agent. 

•	 PU continuous and discontinuous foams manufacturing facility using HFC-134a blowing agent: 

characterized as a typical manufacturing facility that uses 453,000 kg of HFC-134a per year. 

•	 Appliance demanufacturing facility using manual blowing agent recovery: characterized as a 

typical demanufacturing facility that manually processes 125,000 disposed domestic refrigerators 

per year. 

•	 Appliance demanufacturing facility using fully automated blowing agent recovery: characterized 

as a typical demanufacturing facility that processes 200,000 domestic refrigerators per year using 

fully automated equipment. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

For modeling purposes, data typical for facilities in the United States 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 in other regions. 

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

Assumptions 

Foam consumption for the United States is estimated using the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA’s) Vintaging Model. This consumption and associated 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 

European 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 the transition away from HFCs is 

already complete). Similarly, in developing countries, no HFC consumption is assumed in PU appliance, 

commercial refrigeration, XPS boardstock, PU spray, and PU continuous and discontinuous foams, 

because these subsectors are 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 MtCO2e in 2010, projected to grow to 52 

MtCO2e by 2020 and 92 MtCO2e 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 USEPA’s Vintaging Model, with emissions 

estimated 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 manufacturing operations and (2) properly recovering and 

disposing of foam contained in the equipment 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 CO2 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. 

IV-64 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

Table 4-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Foams Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CAGRa 

(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), 2012a.
 

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 calculations are provided in Appendix F to this chapter. 

Additional options considered, but not yet included in the cost analysis, are examined in Sections 

4.3.11 through 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/CO2 to HC 100% New spray foam applications 

Spray: HFC245fa/CO2 to CO2 100% New spray foam applications 

XPS: HFC134a/CO2 to LCD/alcohol 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS 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. Technical issues exist with using HCs, including flammability, and lower 

insulation performance (USEPA, 2009), 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). 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 methylal, 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 assumed 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 premixing stations, as well as training, trials, testing, and certification (TEAP, 2012; 

UNEP, 2011a). Incremental annual 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. 

Technical issues exist with using hydrocarbons, such as flammability and 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 wellproven (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 baseline. One-time costs are estimated at about $1.26 million per facility associated 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, 

2012; UNEP, 2011b). Incremental annual costs associated with replacement formulations are estimated at 

nearly $105,000 (UNEP, 2011b). These annual costs are more than offset by annual savings of about 

$602,000 associated with lower blowing agent costs. 

IV-66 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

IV.4.3.3 HC in Polyurethane Spray Foams 

This option replaces HFC-245fa/CO2 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/CO2 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/CO2 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/CO2 blends used in PU spray foam with CO2 (water). In the process 

of using CO2 (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 CO2, which is used as a blowing agent. Using CO2 (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). CO2 is considered to have moderate foam properties (due to its high 

thermal conductivity and high density), and requires greater thickness that leads to a cost penalty 

compared to other options (TEAP, 2012). The use of CO2 in this application is most predominant in Japan, 

with reported use also in North America and Spain (UNEP, 2010). 

This option applies to all HFC-245fa/CO2 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 $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 costs 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 CO2-based blends used in extruded polystyrene (XPS) 

boardstock foam with liquid CO2 (LCD)/alcohol. LCD is blended with other foam components under 

pressure prior to the initiation of the chemical reaction. When decompressed, the CO2 expands, resulting 

in froth foam that further expands with the additional release of CO2 from the water/isocyanate 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). Foams blown with CO2 may suffer from lower thermal performance, lower dimensional 

stability, and higher density versus fluorocarbon-blown foams (USEPA, 2009). To overcome these 

limitations, CO2 can be blended with HCs or HFCs (Williams et al., 1999; Honeywell, 2000; Alliance, 

2001). 

This option applies to all HFC-134a/CO2 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 HFC134a/CO2-based blend with LCD/alcohol in one of 10 production lines. One-time costs are estimated at 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS 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 HCs, 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 HFC134a in PU one-component foams eliminates HFC emissions during manufacturing 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 $399,0003 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 manufactured PU one-component foam. This option is 

not applied 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 annual 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 density, 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. 

IV-68 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 typically 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 labor 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 currently 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 existing 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 machines that separate all components, 

including 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, because 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 electricity costs (CARB, 2011). 

IV.4.3.11 Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent in PU Foams 

Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent5 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 Foam recovery from disposed appliances is already mandatory in a number of countries, including Japan and the 

European Union. 

5 Other unsaturated 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 these 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS 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 United States, Japan, European Union (up to 10MT), India, 

and Asia Pacific, South America, Central America, Middle East, and Africa regions (Honeywell, 2012a). 

The first commercial 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 

United States (Whirlpool, 2012). Solstice LBA has a GWP of 4.7 to 7 (USEPA, 2012b). The foam blowing 

agent is also considered to be nonflammable (Honeywell, 2012a), which could limit capital costs to 

convert from an HFC to this product. Solstice 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 once production 

volume increases. Recent evaluations showed up to a 4% improvement in energy efficiency compared to 

HFC-245fa in domestic refrigerators (TEAP, 2012; Honeywell, 2012a), and a 5% to 10% energy 

performance improvement compared to HFC-245fa in spray and panel foams (Honeywell, 2012a), 

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. Because 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. This 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 Agent6 (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 sales starting in the EU and Japan; approval for sales in the United 

States 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, 2012). 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 same 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 one6 Other unsaturated 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 Solstice compounds described here. 

IV-70 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

component foam and achieve similar emission reductions, but at different costs. Because it is 

nonflammable 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. This 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 conversion 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 foams 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 

(Crestani, 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 examined 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) (tCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS 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) (tCO2e) 

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 $1,000,000 — $4,865,000 99,380 

Appliance EOL: Fully 

automated process 

Appliance demanufacturing 

facility using fully automated 

blowing agent recovery 

25 $5,000,000 — $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 percentage 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 Assessment 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 capture 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 for 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 indirect 

GHG emissions can be significant, and such differences, to the extent data is available on such, are accounted for in 

the cost analyses. 

IV-72 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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; figures 

do not account for indirect greenhouse gas impacts associated with increased electricity consumption (e.g., for foam blowing processes or for 

end-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 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 IV.4.5.4. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-73 
 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -

Even Price 

($/tCO2e) 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

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 

One-component: HFC-134a to HCs— 169,603 0.5 −3.0 0.1 −2.6 

Developing 

One-component: HFC-152a to HCs 18,265 4.0 −3.7 0.6 −0.2 

Continuous and discontinuous: HFC134a to 588,900 0.1 −0.8 0.0 −0.7 

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 MtCO2e, respectively. There are 27.0 

MtCO2e 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). 

IV-74 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

Europe 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 

$/tCO2 e 

0 5 10 15 20 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

−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 Curves for Top Five Foam Emitters in 2030 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS 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 Management 

Services Limited, UK (p. 3). 

CARB. September 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.). 2012a. 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-Component Foam—HFO-1234ze. 2004– 

2012. Available at: http://www51.honeywell.com/sm/lgwp-uk/applications-n2/one-component-foamHFO-1234ze.html. 

Technology and 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 Programme (UNEP). 2011a. Project Proposal: China. China HCFC Phase-out 

Management Plan. UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/64/39. June 15, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.multilateralfund.org/MeetingsandDocuments/currentmeeting/64/English/1/6429.pdf. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011b. Project Proposal: Mexico. Mexico HCFC Phaseout 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-CO2 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, 2009. 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 1990-2030. EPA 430-R-12-006. Washington, DC: USEPA. Obtained from: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html. 

IV-76 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM FOAMS MANUFACTURING 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). August 10, 2012b. Protection 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-MostEnvironmentally-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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-77 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE 

IV.5. HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use 

IV.5.1 Sector Summary
 

Aerosol 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 aerosols sector were estimated at roughly 45 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010 and are expected to climb to 146 MtCO2e by 2030 as shown 

in Figure 5-1. A majority of the growth is attributed to an increase in the consumption of HFCs for aerosol 

applications in developing countries. 

Figure 5-1: HFC Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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 

from 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 MtCO2e in 2030. There are 70 MtCO2e of emissions 

reductions that are cost-effective at currently projected energy prices for 2030. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

been 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 produces 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 applications are displayed in Figure 5-3. 

IV-80 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC-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 aerosol 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 market. 

IV.5.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions 

Global emissions of HFCs from the aerosols sector were estimated to be 45 MtCO2e in 2010, growing 

to 146 MtCO2e in 2030, as shown in Table 5-1. The majority of emissions are HFC-134a, with lesser 

amounts of HFC-152a and HFC-227ea. Emissions are projected to grow significantly as developing 

countries’ economies grow and demand for consumer aerosols grows. Emissions were estimated using 

USEPA’s Vintaging Model and assumptions about initial market size of 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/trigger 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. Costs are analyzed based on a single DPI 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE 

Table 5-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Aerosol Product Use: 2010-2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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 propellant, 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 each 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 flammability 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). 

IV-82 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 storage 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 companies 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 costeffective 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 is 

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 HFCcontaining aerosol products. This variability is attributable 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 propellant 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 

propellants (MicroCare, 2011). The manufacturer of this chemical indicates that Europe and Japan have 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC 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 sustainability (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 inexpensive 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 cylinders 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 (high) 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 possesses 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 companies 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 MDIs, 

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 

IV-84 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE 

include the patient’s manual dexterity, ability to 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 

type 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 

Table 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 Facility 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 

(tCO2e) 

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 Effectiveness 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-85 
 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE 

systems are upgraded in the future. Table 5-4 summarizes 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 each 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 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost ($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

IV-86 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

2.0 

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 MtCO2e, respectively. There are 70 

MtCO2e 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 regional 

grouping at select break-even prices in 2030. 

Table 5-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break -Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-87 
 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 increasing 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 2015 (UNEP, 2010). 

IV-88 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC EMISSIONS FROM AEROSOL PRODUCT USE 

References
 

Amazon, 2013. Falcon DPSGRN Dust-Off ECO Duster, 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). Enviros 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 BlastTM 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 Oxidation.” 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, MicroCare 

Corporation, and Emily Herzog, ICF International. 

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. 

Nardini, 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 of 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-duster10oz/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: 2010 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 2011. 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). (2012). 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. 

X-rates.com. 2006. Available at: www.x-rates.com. Accessed January 2006. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

IV.6. HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Protection 

IV.6.1 Sector Summary
 

The 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 from the fire protection 

sector (excluding halons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons) were estimated at roughly 21 million metric tons 

of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010, as shown in Figure 6-1. By 2030, emissions from this 

sector are expected to reach over 59 MtCO2e. 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 (MtCO2e) 

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 options 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 increase 

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 MtCO2e 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-91 
 

 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

6 

2010 

2020 

2030 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

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 emissions 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 United States 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. 

IV-92 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

Streaming 

Agents, 47% 

Class A Flooding 

Agents, 51% 

Class B Flooding 

Agents, 3% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

Figure 6-3: Global HFC and PFC Emissions in 2020 (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

IV.6.2.1 Activity 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 phaseout 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 HFCs 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 MtCO2e and are projected to 

grow to 43 MtCO2e 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-93 
 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

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 (MtCO2e) 

CAGRa 

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., CO2, 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 protect 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 annual leak rate 

of 2% (see Appendix H to this chapter). 

IV-94 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

surface fire hazards4 and newly built total flooding systems to protect against Class B fuel hazards5 in 

large (> 3,000 m3) marine applications. All costs are presented in 2010 dollars based on the Consumer 

Price Index (U.S. Department 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 portable 

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 (Wickham, 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 flooding 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 based on Wickham (2002), who estimates that over 90% of the Halon 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 approximately 10% of the U.S. applications served by Halon 1301 had hazardous materials of the Class B 

type. However, because much of the former Halon 1301 Class B applications have been replaced by non-HFC 

alternatives (e.g., carbon dioxide), this analysis assumes that 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

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 

Inert gas systems extinguish fires using argon, nitrogen, or a blend of the two, sometimes 

incorporating CO2 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 of 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). Class 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 prohibitive. 

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 use 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. 

IV-96 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

effective in extinguishing small fires in large volume spaces (≥ 3,000 m3) (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 extinguishment”) 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 m3), 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 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 

$0.36/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 model 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 baseline attributable to each representative facility and the technical effectiveness for each 

technology in each facility. 

8 See footnote 3. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-97 
 

FK-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 PROTECTION 

Table 6-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis 

Abatement 

Option 

Facility 

Type 

Project 

Lifetime 

(years) 

Annual 

Revenue 

(2010 

USD) 

Abatement

Amount 

Developed Developing Developed Developing (tCO2e)

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 distribution of emissions by Class (A or B), in addition to processspecific 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 assumed 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 Appendix H to this chapter. 

b Technical effectiveness figures represent the percentage 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. 

IV-98 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

-

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

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 

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 

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 with lower 

agent replacement costs. 

Table 6-5: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Fire Protection 

Abatement Option 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost ($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break Even 

Pricea ($/tCO2e) 

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 MAC Analysis Results 

Global abatement potential in 2020 and 2030 is 0.7 and 6.4 MtCO2e, 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 and 

expert opinion. Great uncertainty is associated with future projections of market behavior. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

Table 6-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

IV-100 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC AND PFC EMISSIONS FROM FIRE PROTECTION 

References
 

ICF International. 2009. Opportunities for Combined Heat and Power in Data Center. 

Prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. March 2009. Available at: 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/datacenters/pdfs/chp_data_center 

s.pdf. 

International 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 Subcommittee on Fire-Protection, 46th 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 19th Meeting of the 

Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG), The World Bank, Washington, DC. 

R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2007. Means Square Foot Costs, 29th 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=ptb0810. 

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-CO2 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 Substance (ODS) End-Use Applications: Draft 

Report. Prepared by ICF International for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012). 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. 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

IV.7. PFC Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production 

IV.7.1 Sector Summary
 

Emissions of the perfluorocarbons (PFCs)—perfluoromethane (CF4) and perfluoroethane 

(C2F6)—are generated during brief process upset conditions in the aluminum smelting process. 

During the aluminum smelting process, when the alumina (Al2O3) 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 CF4 and C2F6 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 longlasting 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 an estimated value of 

26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010 to a projected value of 37 MtCO2e 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 software. 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 

effect (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 report. 

2 Please note that IAI (2011) publishes a historical value of 24.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(MtCO2e) 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

MtCO2e 

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 Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 

Global abatement potential in the primary aluminum sector is 22 MtCO2e 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.worldaluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/08/20/2012_anode_effect_survey_report.pdf. 

IV-104 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 CF4 and C2F6 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 Aluminium 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 world). More information on the estimation methodology is available in the update to 

the Global Emission Report (USEPA, 2012). Figure 7-3 shows the percentage of total PFC emissions 

according to production technology type in 2020. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-105 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

PFPB, 59% 

SWPB, 

15% 

VSS, 20% 

CWPB, 3% HSS, 3% 

ALUMINUM 

Figure 7-3: Global PFC Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP-Weighted 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 2010, 

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 of 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 Yearbook: Aluminum [Advance Release]. Available online at: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf. Most of this increase was in 

India and Norway. 

IV-106 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

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 country-specific aluminum production data described above is then disaggregated to cell 

technology type using primary aluminum smelting technology 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 PFPB technology. All current 

and future production in China is also assumed to be PFPB technology. 

New primary aluminum production is increasingly taking place in emerging and developing regions, 

including China and the Middle East, and other countries, including Iceland, where there is the 

availability of long term, economically attractive power. New facilities open using new, less emissive 

PFPB technologies. In addition, over time older 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 high-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, after 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 MtCO2e in 2010, and are projected to grow to 37 MtCO2e 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, 2011). 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 factor 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/primaryaluminium-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, production 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 value of 2.5% available at the time of the analysis for this report is likely too small, even taking into 

account the current global slowdown. Out to 2020 and beyond, as China, India and other countries increasingly 

urbanize, this growth rate will likely further 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

Table 7-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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 

systems9 and installing alumina point-feed systems.10 The two abatement options considered for this 

analysis are (1) a minor retrofit involving the upgrade of process computer control systems only and (2) a 

major 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 with 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-art 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 implemented after
 

extensive computer modeling and large-scale development work is conducted on test cells.
 

12 It should be noted that, as previously mentioned, existing, 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.
 

IV-108 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

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 costs 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 additional operating costs 

were assumed to equal the percentage 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 approximately $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 efficiency 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 technology 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-109 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

for the older facility types (VSS, HSS, and SWPB). According to Marks (2011b), there is no opportunity for 

conventional CWPBs to install 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 application. 

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 

additional operating costs were assumed to equal the percentage 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 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). 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 parameters 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. 

IV-110 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

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 

(tCO2e) 

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, five different electrolytic cell types are used to 

produce aluminum—VSS, HSS, SWPB, CWPB, and PFPB, which is considered the most technologicallyadvanced process to produce aluminum. 

A facility’s performance may be represented by the mean or median (depending on the size of the 

cohort of facilities and the range of performance) PFC emission factor—PFC emissions per unit 

production (e.g., metric tons CO2e/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 stateof-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-ofthe-art (as opposed 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 Effectiveness 

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 abatement 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 penetration, and reduction efficiency assumptions are 

held constant 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-111 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

Table 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 

CO2e/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 

CO2e/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 

CO2e/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 

CO2e/metric 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 CO2e/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 

CO2e/metric ton Al. The production capacity of the facility is 200,000 metric tons per year.a 

a It should be noted 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 tons CO2e/metric ton Al. Median performance for all IAI non-Chinese producers is about 0.23 

metric tons CO2e/metric ton Al, while median Chinese PFPB performance is about 0.7 metric tons CO2e/metric ton 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 more 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 option/facility combination. Table 7-6 

illustrates the break-even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 USD. 

IV-112 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

-

– –

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

Table 7-6: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Primary Aluminum Production 

Abatement 

Option 

Model Facility 

Type 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

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 

MtCO2e, which is approximately 58% of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 7-7 presents the 

cumulative reductions achieved at selected break-even prices. Figure 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-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

Central 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-113 
 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 2 4 6 8 10 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

12 

Australia 

China 

Canada 

Russia 

United States 

ALUMINUM 

Figure 7-4: Marginal 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 CO2e/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 

voluntary PFC emission reduction goal of reduce emissions of PFCs per metric ton of aluminum by at 

least 50% by 2020 as compared to 2006 (IAI, 2013). In addition, commissioning of new—less emissive— 

facilities to meet global demand will also have the result of reducing the effective emission factor. 

IV-114 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ALUMINUM 

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 

Aluminum Industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Program. London, UK. August 24. 

International Aluminium Institute (IAI), 2013. Results of the 2012 Anode Effects Survey: Report on the 

Aluminum 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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Marks, J. 2011a. Personal communication with Jerry Marks via e-mail. June 22. 

Marks, J. 2011b. Personal communication with Jerry Marks via e-mail. July 14. 

Martchek, K.J. 2006. Modeling 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). (2012). 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. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011a. 2010 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). 2011b. Personal communication with E. Lee Bray, U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Commodity Specialist. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

MtCO2e 

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
 

Trifluoromethane (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 to 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 equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010 to 286.4 MtCO2e 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 HCFC-22 production capacity in 

these countries. 

Figure 8-1: HCF-23 Emissions from HCFC-22 Production: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 

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 participate 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-117 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

300 

2010 

2020 

2030 

HFC-23 EMISSIONS 

Framework on Climate Change’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and through their destruction 

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 eligible 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 and 

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 another assessment, approximately 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 costs to mitigate HFC-23 emissions from those 

facilities that 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. There is uncertainty regarding 

the future of HFC-23 CDM projects and compliance carbon markets 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 MtCO2e, 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 production 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/tCO2e and $1/tCO2e. 

Figure 8-2: Global Abatement Potential in HCFC-22 Production: 2010, 2020, and 2030 

IV-118 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC-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 the atmosphere as an unwanted 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). 

Additionally, 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 historical 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 with 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 built 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 developed 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 that 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 manufacturing, despite restrictions on HCFC-22 production for dispersive 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-119 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residual 

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 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

IV.8.1.3 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions 

Emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production were estimated to be 127.9 MtCO2e in 2010, growing 

to 286.4 MtCO2e 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 (MtCO2e) 

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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, 2012 

IV-120 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC-23 EMISSIONS 

To estimate historical emissions of HFC-23, dispersive and feedstock HCFC-22 production levels 

were developed and subsequently multiplied by a HFC-23/HCFC-22 coproduction 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 to 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 (USEPA, 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-reported HFC23 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, 

USEPA 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 percentage 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 emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-121 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC-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% New 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 

(2010 USD) 

Abatement 

Amount (tCO2e) 

Facilities with no abatement 

technology 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 

IV-122 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HFC-23 EMISSIONS 

IV.8.2.1 Thermal Oxidation 

Thermal oxidation, the process of oxidizing HFC-23 to CO2, hydrogen 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 hydrogen 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 lifetime 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 constructing 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 how 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 

HCFC-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 downtime, 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 analysis. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-123 
 

 

 

 

HFC-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 this sector. These facilities included the following: 

•	 Residual Emissions: 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 developed 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 Korea, 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 percentage 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-year 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 period that cannot exceed 10 years). 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 reductions 

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 effectiveness of thermal oxidation for each facility type. 

IV-124 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

HFC-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 discussed 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 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break -Even 

Price 

Model Facility Type ($/tCO2e) 

Non-CDM and uncontrolled facility 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 MtCO2e, 

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-even prices between $0/tCO2e and $1/tCO2e in 2030, hence the “L” shape of the curves. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

HFC-23 EMISSIONS 

Table 8-7: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

IV-126 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

HFC-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 would 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 November 

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 mitigation 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 presented by Miller et al. (2011). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-127 
 

 

 

 

HFC-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 the 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 and adjusted for inflation. 

McCulloch, A. and A.A. Lindley. 2007. “Global Emissions of HFC-23 Estimated to Year 2015.” Atmos. 

Environ. 41:1560-1566. 

Miller, B.R., and L.J.M. Kuijpers. 2011. “Projecting Future HFC-23 Emissions.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 

Discuss., 11: 23081-23102. 

Miller, 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 (CHF3) 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. ICF 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 Agency (USEPA). 2006.	 Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 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). (2012). 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. 

Will, R., A. Kishi, and S. Schlag. 2004. CEH Marketing Research Report: Fluorocarbons. Chemical 

Economics Handbook. SRI Consulting, Menlo Park, California. 

Will, R., and H. Mori. 2008. CEH Marketing Research Report: Fluorocarbons. Chemical Economics 

Handbook. SRI Consulting, Menlo Park, CA. 

IV-128 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

MtCO2 e 

28 

18 

20 

22 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

South Korea 

Singapore 

Japan 

United States 

China 

Rest of World 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

IV.9. F-GHG Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing 

IV.9.1 Sector Summary
 

The semiconductor manufacturing sector uses several fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) 

including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), perfluorcarbons (PFCs) such as 

carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) and perfluoroethane (C2F6), and the hydrofluorocarbon HFC-23 

during fabrication, a portion of which are eventually emitted to the atmosphere. In addition, 

nitrous oxide (N2O) and several fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs) are used in the sector, but 

emissions from HTFs and N2O are not included in this analysis. 

Between 2000 and 2010 the production levels in the semiconductor manufacturing industry have 

rapidly grown, and the complexity of devices produced has advanced substantially. However, over this 

time period F-GHG emissions from this 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 an emissions rate target which will entail further implementation of 

mitigation technologies.

1 

Figure 9-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e)

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 set 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_agreement_on_pl 

an_to_strengthen_industry_through_international_cooperation/ 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-129 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-$100 

$0 

$100 

$200 

$300 

$400 

$500 

$600 

$700 

$/tCO2 e 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

Six mitigation technologies are considered which reduce F-GHG emissions from semiconductor 

manufacturing: thermal abatement systems, catalytic abatement systems, plasmas abatement systems, the 

NF3 remote chamber clean process, gas replacement, and process optimization. Significant 

implementation 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 more 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 MtCO2e in 2010, 4.6 MtCO2e in 2020 and 4.2 MtCO2e 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 price of $50/tCO2e. 

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

IV-130 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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 economic 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 CF4 and other gases (e.g., C2F6) occur when a fraction of the gases 

used in processes react to form other F-GHGs. 

Other than etching and chamber cleaning, at least three other semiconductor manufacturing 

processes result in greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the use 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 estimating 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 illustrated 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 

remainder. A description of the characteristics of the old and new fab considered for purposes of analysis 

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 emissions 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 reduction goals. These trends are described below. 

Between 2001 and 2011, global semiconductor manufacturing, measured on the basis of total 

manufactured layer area (TMLA), indicates 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 the 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

clean, new, 

14% 

etch, 

new, 16% 

clean, 

old, 

55% 

etch, old, 

15% 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

Figure 9-3: Global F-GHG Emissions in 2020 by Fab Type and Process (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

the silicon wafer base layer plus all the metal interconnect layers and the silicon consumption reflects just 

the base. More 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-cleaning processes have evolved as semiconductor technologies have advanced 

and understanding of the emission pathways associated with manufacturing has improved. As 

technologies advanced, 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 compared to newer fabs. Older fabs may emit approximately 

80% of F-GHG emissions total from chamber-cleaning processes and about 20% of emissions from etch 

processes. These percentages change to about 45%/55% clean/etch for newer fabs. This shift in the source 

of emissions over time is a result of the following: 1) newer fabs generally are trending to NF3 remoteclean technologies that result in lower emissions on a CO2e basis than traditional older C2F6- or C4F8-

based clean systems, 2) more technologically advanced 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 they will 

continue to use NF3 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 This 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 activity. 

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 kgCO2e/cm2, which is a 30% reduction from the 2010 WSC 

aggregate baseline emissions rate (including China, which was not included in the 2010 goal) of 0.33 

3 Korea has a baseline year of 1998. 

IV-132 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

kgCO2e/cm2. 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 agreement 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 goal 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 relation 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 takes into account voluntary mitigation activities 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 Semiconductor Manufacturing: 2010-2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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, 2012 

4 Best practices, which will be continuously reviewed and updated by the WSC, can be found here: 

http://www.semiconductorcouncil.org/wsc/uploads/Final_WSC_Best_Practice_Guidance_26_Sept_201-2.pdf 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-133 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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 implemented. 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 semiconductor industry. 

IV.9.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis 

Six mitigation technology options were considered for the semiconductor manufacturing sector: 

thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF3 remote chamber clean, gas replacement, 

and process optimization. 

•	 Thermal abatement: These point-of-use abatement systems, that use heat to destroy or remove FGHGs 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, Al2O3) that destroy or remove F-GHGs. 

•	 Plasma abatement: Plasma, in a point-of-use abatement system, is used to react with (thereby 

destroying or removing) F-GHGs from the process effluent stream. 

•	 NF3 remote chamber clean: Highly ionized NF3 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 CO2 basis than traditional in-situ chamber clean processes that use 

approximately 20% to 50% of the gas in a process and have lower efficiencies (USEPA, 2010). 

•	 Gas replacement: Higher global warming potential (GWP) gases are replaced with lower GWP 

gases, and in some cases more efficient gases (e.g., C4F8 may replace C2F6 in a traditional 

chamber-cleaning process). 

•	 Process optimization: Processes are adjusted to become more efficient, using more gas within the 

process, and thus resulting in lower emissions. 

These technologies reduce emissions from either etch or chamber-cleaning 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 

IV-134 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

n/a 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

Table 9-3 presents a summary of the engineering cost data for each of the mitigation technologies. 

Table 9-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis 

Abatement 

Option 

Project Lifetime 

(years) 

Capital Costs 

(2010 USD) 

Annual Costs 

(2010 USD) 

Abatement Amount 

(tCO2e) 

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 

NF3 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 chambercleaning 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 affecting 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 NOx 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; Burton, 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 per 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 summarized in Table 9-4. The per-tool cost is the same for 

both new and old fabs. 

•	 Annual Revenue: No 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; USEPA, 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-135 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

Table 9-4: Annual Cost per Tool for Thermal Abatement Systems 

Annual Cost Component Cost (2010 USD) 

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 

abatement systems. Additionally, because these systems are based on destruction via catalyst, they must 

be process/stream specific to achieve the 99% emission reductions quoted in the literature and used in 

this analysis (Fthenakis, 2001; Burton, 2003). 

Because catalytic destruction systems operate at relatively low temperatures, their use results in little 

or no NOx emissions, and the required amounts of water are also low. Because of the high cost of catalyst 

replacement, these systems are the least widely used type of abatement (expert judgment). 

Cost estimates for this technology are as follows: 

•	 Capital Costs. Capital costs are associated with purchasing and installing 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. Facilities 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 associated 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 (H2), 

oxygen (O2), water (H2O), or methane (CH4) 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 needed on each tool chamber. The costs of plasma abatement systems 

are developed using the following information: 

IV-136 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

•	 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 NF3 Remote Chamber Clean 

NF3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that offers the benefit of having a 

particularly high (~98%) utilization rate of NF3 (IPCC, 2006), resulting in relatively low emissions 

compared with traditional chamber cleans. NF3 remote clean systems dissociate NF3 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 (F2), and other gases, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber 

systems. The use of NF3 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 NF3 remote clean systems will differ for new and old fabs because of the “readiness” 

for NF3 remote clean installation. “Readiness” consists of having the current infrastructure (e.g., duct 

work, hook-ups) for system installation. It was assumed that old fabs are do not have the current 

infrastructure to use NF3 remote clean, whereas 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 purchasing the NF3 remote system 

and the additional necessary F2 scrub for use after the chamber cleaning of the waste stream. The 

costs for system purchase for a new fab are estimated to be $3 million. Old fabs are assumed to 

not be “NF3 ready,” or in other words, these facilities are not assumed to have the current 

infrastructure to handle the direct installation of NF3 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 valves in addition to the costs of the systems 

which are assumed 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 NF3 remote clean systems are subject to annual costs that 

include the purchase of larger volumes of gas (NF3 versus traditional chamber-cleaning gases 

such as C2F6), general maintenance, and the cost of F2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas 

from the effluent. Remote clean requires a lot of NF3, so much so that NF3 purchases are 

estimated to comprise anywhere from 25% to upward of 75% of annual facility gas consumption 

(expert judgment). New fab costs annually for NF3 remote clean are estimated to be $1.2 million 

and to be $3.4 million for old fabs (Burton, 2003). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-137 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

Table 9-5: Capital Costs per CVD Chamber for Making a Facility NF3 Ready 

Activity Capital Cost (2010 USD) 

Labor/gas hookup $3,980 

NF3 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 old fab and 22 years for a new 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 C4F8 to replace C3F8 or C2F6. In addition, the replacement gas (C4F8 ) is often 

used/consumed more efficiently during CVD chamber cleaning than the original gas C2F6 or C3F8, 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 C2F6 or C3F8 with C4F8 face a capital expenditure that reflects 

the aggregate cost of the C4F8 gas hook-up and an engineer’s time cost for implementation. Based 

on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) number NM0317, the aggregated cost of 

equipment, C4F8 gas hook-up, and an engineer’s time for implementation and installation is 

estimated to be $1.2 million 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 C2F6 or C3F8 with 

the more expensive C4F8. The costs of these gases, taken from CDM NM0303, are $35 per 

kilogram of C2F6, $26 per kilogram of C3F8, and $72 per kilogram of C4F8. Costs for old fabs were 

estimated to be $64,230, which is based on an average amount of gas consumed per facility. Gas 

consumption information was estimated based on USEPA 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 (CDM methods NM0289, NM303, NM0317, NM0335). 

•	 Technical Lifetime: As with NF3 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 from a process by modifying or adding to 

the process recipe. Process optimization is considered to be only applicable for chamber cleans because 

IV-138 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

these processes offer the opportunity for more flexibility than etch processes. Etch processes are typically 

developed to optimize production yield, and they are only adjusted to increase this yield; a company 

would not risk negatively impacting it (Beu, 2005; Fthenakis, 2001). Process gas optimizations for CVD 

clean processes can be implemented because adjustments to these processes are much less precise than 

etch processes. There is room to reduce emissions without affecting yield. Optimization of clean processes 

to reduce emissions usually results 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: No 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 adjusting 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 C2F6 traditional chamber clean, and the related savings were estimated to be $129,070. As 

for the gas replacement annual cost, this number varies depending on the size of the facility. 

However, consumption information was only able to be estimated based on USEPA Voluntary 

Partnership data, in which facility age and gas consumption relationships were not 

distinguishable. 

•	 Reduction Efficiency: Observed reduction efficiencies for abatement of C2F6 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 NF3 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 

This section discusses 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 this 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-139 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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 CO2e 

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 C2F6 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, based 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 recent 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 NF3 remote chamber cleans as opposed to traditional chamber cleans, which results in 

relatively lower cleaning emissions. New fabs are assumed to use NF3 remote clean mainly, and 

have abatement on all etch processes and all in situ chamber cleaning processes. It was assumed 

that new 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 taken into account in this analysis. 

The facilities used represent two clearly defined and distinct types of facilities. These defined 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 somewhere 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 assumptions 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 combination. Estimating this parameter requires 

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. 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. 

IV-140 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

0% 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

split 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 assumed 

distribution of annual facility-level emissions by process for each fab type. 

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

Percentage 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% 

NF3 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 

Abatement Measure Effectiveness 

Thermal abatement 50% 90% 50% 15% 95% 15% 

Catalytic abatement 50% 5% 0% 5% 99% 1% 

Plasma abatement 50% 5% 0% 0% 97% 1% 

NF3 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-141 
 

 

 

 

 

-

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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 penetration 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, it was assumed that because most new fabs 

already have NF3 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 

facility type to estimate the abatement potential achievable under each abatement measure. For the 

purposes of this analysis we assume a 10/90 split in 2010 for the distribution of annual emissions coming 

from new and old fabs. In future years, we assume based 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 new fabs have lower break-even prices for thermal, catalytic, and plasma abatement measures, 

old fabs have lower break-even prices for NF3 remote clean, gas replacement, and process optimization 

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-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Semiconductor Manufacturing 

Reduced Annualized Net Annual Tax Benefit of Break Even 

Emissions Capital Costs Cost Depreciation Pricea 

Abatement Option (tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) 

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 

NF3 remote clean 22,551 114 242 18 338 

Gas replacement 6,240 36 10 6 40 

Process Optimization 1,648 13 −78 2 −68 

Old 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%. 

IV-142 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

-

– –

-$50 

$0 

$50 

$100 

$150 

$200 

$250 

$300 

$350 

$400 

$450 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

1.2 

Japan 

China 

Singapore 

South Korea 

United States 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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 (MtCO2e) 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 Curves for Top Five Emitters in 2030 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-143 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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/tCO2e) 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 current 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., 

CF4 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 normalized emission rate goal was not known at the time of the analysis. 

IV-144 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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/semiconductorpfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. 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, NF3 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, Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductorpfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental 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). (2012). 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. 

WSC, 2011. Joint Statement of 15th Meeting of the World Semiconductor Council (WSC). Resulting from the 

World Semiconductor Council in Fukuoka, Japan. May 26, 2011. 

Bartos, 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-145 
 

 

 

 

 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

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/emissionscontrol/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 2012 

Edition. 

•	 WSC, 2012. Joint Statement of 16th 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: PFC 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) 

IV-146 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

MtCO2 e 

29 

44 

53 

64 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

South Korea 

Brazil 

India 

United States 

China 

ROW 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

IV.10. SF6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems 

IV.10.1 Sector Summary
 

Electric utilities use transmission and distribution equipment that contains sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6). Equipment insulated with SF6 is most frequently found at electrical substations. 

Emissions of SF6 occur as a result of leaking equipment and improper handling practices 

during servicing and disposal. 

Global SF6 emissions from electric power systems (EPSs) are expected to increase through 2030, 

reaching 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) (see Figure 10-1). In these 

projections, China represents a significant share of total emissions by 2030. Brazil, India, South Korea, and 

the rest of world increase their SF6 emissions marginally, while the United States experiences a decline 

over the same time period. 

Figure 10-1: SF6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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 (LDAR): Various monitoring and repair methods reduce gas 

leakage from gaskets and faulty seals in equipment. 

•	 Equipment refurbishment: Refurbishing old equipment reduces longer-term leakage problems 

that cannot be addressed sufficiently by LDAR. 

•	 SF6 recycling: Technicians transfer SF6 to special gas carts prior to maintenance or 

decommissioning, reducing emissions that would otherwise result from the venting of SF6 to the 

atmosphere. 

•	 Improved SF6 handling: Employee training efforts that improve general handling practices of 

SF6 to reduce and avoid instances such as accidentally venting the gas, using inappropriate 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-147 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

SF6 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 have 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, SF6 recycling 

is widely used, but there remains significant potential for reductions through other measures, particularly 

improved SF6 handling. In the developing world, SF6 recycling is rarely conducted; therefore, there are 

significant opportunities for reductions from increased SF6 recycling in addition to significant reduction 

opportunities from improved SF6 handling (NCGC, 2010; NEPA, 2005). The most cost-effective 

reductions can be achieved by improving general SF6 handling practices at EPSs in the developing world. 

In these cases, the cost per ton is −$1.20/tCO2e. The most expensive emission reductions for the 

developing world are from implementing LDAR at $1.98/tCO2e. Opportunities to reduce emissions in the 

United States are more expensive, expected to range from −$0.20/tCO2e for improved SF6 handling to 

$9.40/tCO2e for equipment refurbishment. 

The manufacture of equipment for electrical transmission and distribution can also result in SF6 

emissions, but this type of emission is not included in this assessment. 

The global abatement potential in the EPS sector is 42.8 MtCO2e in 2030, which represents 67% 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 emission reductions in 2010, 2020, 

and 2030. 

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

IV-148 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Venting 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% 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

In 2030, approximately 7.5 MtCO2e, or a 12% reduction in baseline emissions, is technically 

achievable at a break-even price of $0/tCO2e. At $5/tCO2e, an additional 28 MtCO2e may be reduced, 

equating to a cumulative reduction of 56% of the global emissions baseline. The remaining reductions of 7 

MtCO2e are available at incrementally higher prices. 

In the following sections of this chapter, we first characterize the source of SF6 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 description 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 and 

discusses some of the uncertainties and limitations to the analysis. 

IV.10.2 SF6 Emissions from Electric Power Systems 

Emissions of SF6 from electrical equipment used in EPSs broadly occur through two routes: 

equipment leakage and handling losses. Leakage losses can occur at gasket seals, flanges, and threaded 

fittings and are generally larger in older equipment. Emissions from improper handling can include 

intentional venting to the atmosphere or unintentional venting, such as transferring SF6 between 

containers and equipment using improperly attached or improperly sized fittings. Figure 10-3 presents 

the global distribution of SF6 emissions by emission stream assumed for this analysis. Leakage losses 

correspond to periodic leakage from equipment (9%) and chronic leakage from equipment (23%). 

Improper handling 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 technical applicability of the options identified to mitigate these emission streams. 

Figure 10-3: Percentage of Global SF6 Emissions in 2020 by Emission Stream 

(% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-149 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS) 

The amount of SF6 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 SF6 emissions from EPSs, this 

analysis considers reduction costs for a typical electric transmission and distribution system that uses SF6-

insulated electrical equipment totaling 100,000 pounds of nameplate capacity. The system includes a 

variety of SF6-insulated electrical equipment (including circuit breakers, circuit switchers, and gasinsulated substations), although the vast majority of SF6 is contained in high voltage circuit breakers. 

Circuit breakers within the system are assumed to be produced by ABB, Alstom, HVB AE, Mitsubishi, 

and Siemens, with an equal proportion of breakers from each manufacturer. 

The analysis considers several possibilities for the maintenance and SF6 handling procedures used at 

the typical electric transmission and distribution system, reflecting different levels of emissions. For the 

purpose of this analysis, the three types of systems include the following: 

•	 Residual emissions system: In Europe and Japan, abatement options are close to fully 

implemented. Therefore, a residual emissions system represents an EPS containing SF6-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 abatement system represents an EPS 

containing SF6-insulated equipment located in a developing country, which for this analysis 

would mean any country outside of Europe, Japan, and the United States.1 

•	 Partially controlled system: Abatement options have been partially to fully applied in the United 

States.2 The partially controlled system represents an EPS containing SF6-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 partially uncontrolled systems 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 Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends 

The key activity data that drives SF6 emissions from EPSs is the amount of SF6-insulated electrical 

equipment in use; this quantity is important for both leakage and handling losses. 

However, data are not available on the total amount of SF6-insulated equipment currently in use or 

historically in use at the country level. In the absence of such data, changes in the amount of SF6-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 SF6 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 emissions and employee training and investments 

in SF6 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.
 

IV-150 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncontrolled 

Abatement 

System 

(Developing), 

73% 

Partially 

Controlled 

Abatement 

System (U.S.), 

22% 

Residual System 

(Europe/Japan), 

6% 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

Figure 10-4: Global SF6 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

According 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 SF6 necessary for the operation of switchgear has declined 

significantly and the tightness of equipment has improved. Such engineering design changes have 

resulted in smaller leakage amounts and less frequent leakage over time (McCracken et al., 2000; 

Rhiemeier et al., 2010). The average age of SF6-insulated equipment in developed countries (including 

Europe, Japan, and the United States) is considerably older than in developing countries. Until recently, 

developing countries were slow to adopt SF6-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 grown at a more gradual 

pace. The average SF6-insulated circuit breaker in developing countries, therefore, is assumed to leak less 

than the average SF6-insulated circuit breaker in developed countries. 

Handling Emissions 

Employee training and investments in SF6 handling technologies (such as SF6 recovery carts) vary 

widely among countries and regions. The use of equipment and accessories to properly handle SF6 is high 

in developed countries (Rothlisberger, 2011a) 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 SF6 receive formal training and certification (EC Reg. 

No. 842/2006). In the United States, employee training has improved significantly since 1999 by 

companies participating in the USEPA’s voluntary SF6 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 USEPA voluntary program. Employee training is 

low to nonexistent in at least some developing countries (NEPA, 2005). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-151 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS) 

IV.10.2.2 Emission Estimates and Related Assumptions 

Global SF6 emissions from EPSs in 2010 were estimated to be 44 MtCO2e, which represents a 10% 

decrease from 1990 levels. This emissions decline, despite increases in the amount of SF6 in use over the 

same time period, was based largely on improved management practices and the retirement of old leakprone 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 SF6-insulated equipment being used in the 

developing world without the application of SF6 abatement technologies and practices. These emission 

increases have been offset somewhat by the improved design of modern SF6-insulated equipment being 

installed in the developing world. But from 2010 to 2030, global SF6 emissions from EPSs are still 

projected to increase 44% from 44 to 64 MtCO2e (see Table 10-1), driven largely by increases in emissions 

from developing countries in Asia. 

Table 10-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Electric Power Systems: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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 SF6 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 SF6 sales to electric utilities and estimates of net electricity consumption by region. This method 

assumes that purchases of SF6 by electric utilities are equal to emissions of SF6 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 demand (EIA, 2009) for the country’s 

3 The assumption that SF6 purchases are equal to emissions is conservative in that some EPSs purchase SF6 to fill new 

equipment rather than to replace SF6 lost through emissions. 

IV-152 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

region; as described above, changes in electricity demand correlate to changes in the electrical grid, which 

correlate to changes in SF6 emissions. 

IV.10.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis 

The four abatement options for this sector are SF6 recycling, LDAR, equipment refurbishment, and 

improved SF6 handling. Replacing existing SF6-insulated equipment with newer equipment that holds 

less SF6 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 

SF6-containing equipment can be as high as a million to several million dollars, it is not examined in this 

analysis for systems located in developing countries. All options are applicable to EPSs that are subject to 

abatement (those outside of Europe and Japan). For the purpose of this analysis, four distinct emission 

streams were analyzed for the sector, and each emission stream can only be abated by one of the 

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 

SF6 Recycling 

Uncontrolled abatement system 

Partially controlled system 

90% 

LDAR 

Uncontrolled system 

Partially controlled system 

50% 

Equipment Refurbishment 

Uncontrolled system 

Partially controlled system 

95% 

Improved SF6 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 SF6 Recycling 

This option involves transferring SF6 from electrical equipment into storage containers during 

equipment servicing or decommissioning so that the SF6 can be reused. Recycling is conducted using an 

SF6 reclamation cart (commonly referred to as a gas cart). The gas cart recovers the SF6 from the 

equipment and purifies it for future use; the recovered and purified SF6 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 SF6 into the atmosphere and then replacing it with fresh SF6. 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-153 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 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 (tCO2e) 

SF6 Recycling 15 $479,560 $67,994 $5,372 46,833 

$71,934 $6,256 $19,937 8,618 

LDAR 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 SF6 

Handling 1 $13,526 

$13,526 

$90,659 

$25,025 

$253 

$2,508 

62,444 

34,474 

The SF6 recycling option addresses emissions that occur if SF6 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, SF6 vented to the atmosphere accounts for 30% of emissions from uncontrolled systems (in 

developing countries) and 10% of emissions from partially controlled systems (in the United States). 

SF6 recycling can reduce emissions by 4,320 pounds for the uncontrolled systems 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 SF6 recycling option are summarized below: 

•	 Capital costs. The average total capital costs 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 capital costs for the partially controlled system are less than 

the cost per unit, because U.S. systems have implemented SF6 recycling to a greater extent and 

fewer gas carts are needed across U.S. systems: less than one per system. 

•	 Annual operation and maintenance (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 were 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 SF6 emissions 

multiplied by the cost per pound of SF6 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 SF6 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 SF6 recycling is 90%. 

IV-154 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

IV.10.3.2 Leak Detection and Leak Repair (LDAR) 

LDAR is a two-step process. First, a leak detection technique is used to identify gas leaks from SF6-

insulated equipment. Leak detection methods vary and can involve simple techniques such as using soap 

and water solutions to more sophisticated techniques such as those requiring cameras to visualize the 

source of SF6 leaks by exploiting the strong infrared adsorption of SF6 for detection. Thermal imaging 

cameras allow the detection of even minor leaks without the need to take equipment out of service. The 

abatement option analyzed 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 completely. 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). 

Emissions addressed by LDAR 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. SF6 emissions from periodic equipment leakage 

account for 10% of emissions from both uncontrolled systems (in developing countries) and partially 

controlled systems (in the United States) (Rothlisberger, 2011a; 2011b). 

Emission reductions from LDAR were estimated to be 800 pounds for the uncontrolled system and 

440 pounds for the partially controlled system. The lifetime of this abatement option is five years 

(Czerepuszko, 2011a). Cost and revenue estimates for LDAR are summarized below: 

•	 Capital costs. The capital costs associated with purchasing thermal imaging cameras were 

estimated to be $95,000 for an uncontrolled abatement system and $91,000 for a partially 

controlled system. The cost for a single thermal imaging camera was approximately $98,000 

(Czerepuszko, 2011a). 

•	 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 were 

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 SF6 emissions 

multiplied by the cost per pound of SF6 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 implemented the 

option to a lesser extent than the partially controlled system—therefore the potential for 

reductions is greater. In addition, because the cost of SF6 per pound varies regionally and costs 

significantly less in the United States (Rothlisberger, 2011a), the cost of SF6 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 technical lifetime of this option is five years. 

•	 Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for LDAR is 50%. 

IV.10.3.3 Equipment Refurbishment 

Unlike LDAR, 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 SF6 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 SF6 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-155 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 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 LDAR option (and often are), using LDAR 

over time requires high servicing costs because of the extent of the LDAR required and the amount of gas 

needed to replace the emitted gas. Using LDAR 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, SF6 from chronically leaking equipment accounts 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 the partially controlled system. The lifetime 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 equipment. 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 an 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 refurbishment 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. Annual revenue, which was estimated based on the reduction of SF6 emissions 

multiplied by the cost per pound of SF6 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 SF6 per pound is significantly less for the partially 

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 SF6 Handling 

This option involves improving the procedures and techniques for handling SF6, 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) SF6 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 

SF6 is accidently vented by a technician. Improving SF6 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. 

SF6 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). 

IV-156 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

Employee training and investments in SF6 handling technologies (such as SF6 recovery carts) are 

measures that improve SF6 handling; several technical references are available with detailed guidance on 

the proper techniques for recovering, disposing and other handling practices of SF6 gas (CIGRE, 2005; 

IEC, 2008; IEEE, 2012). Emission reductions from improved SF6 handling were estimated to be 5,800 

pounds for the uncontrolled system and 3,200 pounds for the partially controlled system. The lifetime of 

this abatement option was one year, with training conducted on an annual basis (Rothlisberger, 2011a). 

Cost and revenue estimates for the improved SF6 handling option are summarized below: 

•	 Capital costs. The capital costs associated with improved SF6 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 system 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. Annual revenue, which was estimated based on the reduction of SF6 emissions 

multiplied by the cost per pound of SF6 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 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 SF6 per pound is significantly less for the partially 

controlled system, so less money is saved through reduced emissions. 

•	 Technical Lifetime: The technical lifetime of this option is 1 year. 

•	 Reduction Efficiency: The reduction efficiency for improved SF6 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 SF6 emissions 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, to calculate a 

break-even price for the options available for each EPS system. 

IV.10.4.2 Definition of EPS Model Facilities 

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 SF6 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 SF6 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-157 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS) 

implement reduction measures such as leak detection and repair and gas recycling practices (USEPA, 

2012). 

Key Characteristics of the Partially Controlled System 

In the last decade, electric utilities have begun to voluntarily reduce SF6 emissions by applying the 

abatement options included in this analysis (USEPA, 2011a). The baseline emission projections for the 

partially controlled system were developed under the assumption that the adoption of abatement 

technologies and practices in the United States will continue to grow into the future (as it has over the last 

decade through voluntary efforts such as USEPA’s SF6 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 USEPA (2011b). The 

size of the partially controlled system was a typical medium-sized facility with 100,000 pounds of 

installed SF6 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. 

Figure 10-5 presents 2010 emission rates from EPSs that participate in the USEPA voluntary 

Partnership. Emission rates reported through the Partnership contributed to the average U.S. emission 

rate of 8.8% used in this analysis (USEPA, 2011a). 

Figure 10-5: Distribution of 2010 Emission Rates Reported through USEPA’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 

SF6 Emission Rate 

Source: USEPA, 2011a 

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 United 

States (for which emission rates are available) if that system had similar characteristics to the average 

IV-158 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

system in the developing world. The size of the uncontrolled system was a typical medium-sized system 

with 100,000 pounds of installed SF6 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 significantly 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 reflects uncontrolled systems. 

Table 10-4: EPSs System Country Mapping 

Residual Emission Systems Partially 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 model 

facility. Table 10-6 illustrates the break-even calculation for each abatement measure expressed in 2010 

USD. Improved SF6 handling is the only options with a negative break-even price, also known as a “noregrets” 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/tCO2e. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-159 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS) 

Table 10-5: Technical Effectiveness Summary 

Technical Market Reduction Technical 

Abatement Option Applicability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness 

Developing Countries 

SF6 Recycling 

LDAR 

Equipment Refurbishment 

Improved SF6 Handling 

United States/Canada 

SF6 Recycling 

LDAR 

Equipment Refurbishment 

Improved SF6 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 EPSs 

Reduced Annualized Net Annual Tax Benefit of Break -Even 

Emissions Capital Costs Cost Depreciation Pricea 

Abatement Option (tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) 

Developing Countries 

SF6 Recycling 46,833 $2.2 −$1.3 $0.5 $0.45 

LDAR 8,673 $4.8 −$1.4 $1.5 $1.98 

Equipment Refurbishment 6,591 $3.7 −$1.5 $0.6 $1.65 

Improved SF6 Handling 62,444 $0.4 −$1.4 $0.1 −$1.20 

United States/Canada 

SF6 Recycling 8,618 $1.8 $1.6 $0.4 $3.05 

LDAR 4,788 $8.4 $0.6 $2.5 $6.45 

Equipment Refurbishment 7,278 $12.2 −$0.7 $2.1 $9.40 

Improved SF6 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 SF6 reductions in the EPS sector is estimated to be 43 MtCO2e, 

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 83% of the maximum abatement potential is achieved at break-even prices below 

$5/tCO2e in 2030. 

IV-160 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

-

– –

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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 

Table 10-7: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-161 
 

 

SF6 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 uncertainty 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 published information on emission levels or rates in the developing world 

that are based on actual measurements. Also, there is very limited information on the 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 at specific points within EPSs also makes 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. Much 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. 

IV-162 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER 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 Large Electric Systems (CIGRE). 2005. Guide for the Preparation of Customised 

“Practical SF6 Handling Instructions.” Brochure No. 276. 

International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE). 2010. SF6 Tightness Guide; Brochure No. 430. 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2008. High-voltage Switchgear and Controlgear – Part 303: 

Use and Handling of Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6). IEC Technical Report 62271-303. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (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 SF6 Emission Remediation. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/electricpowersf6/documents/conf00_mccracken_paper.pdf. 

North China Grid Company (NCGC). 2010. SF6 Recycling Project of North China Grid—Project Design 

Document. North China Grid Company. CDM Project 3707. Obtained at: 

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/ 

MPHV4MMDLVU2I0E4ZP69TWKSRAT3HB/view.html. 

National Electric Power Authority (NEPA). 2005. Reducing SF6 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 SF6 Emissions 

Trends from Electrical Equipment—Edition 1.1. Ecofys Emission Scenario Initiative on Sulphur 

Hexafluoride for Electric Industry. Obtained at: http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/esisf6_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 Lukas Rothlisberger of DILO and 

Paul Stewart of ICF International. 

Smythe, K. December 1-3, 2004. Trends in SF6 Sales and End-Use Applications: 1961-2003. International 

Conference on SF6 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 Administration, 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). (2011a). SF6 Emission 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 (USEPA). (2011b). 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-163 
 

 

 

SF6 EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012). 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 SF6 Gas Emissions from GIS&GCB in Japan. Presented at the CIGRE SC A3 & B3 

Joint Colloquium in Tokyo. 

IV-164 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

MtCO2 e 

10 

5 5 5 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

Ukraine 

Israel 

Kazakhstan 

Russia 

China 

ROW 

 

 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

IV.11. SF6 Emissions from Magnesium Production 

IV.11.1 Sector Summary
 

The magnesium metal production and casting industry uses SF6 as a cover gas to prevent the 

spontaneous combustion of molten magnesium in the presence of air. Fugitive SF6 emissions 

occur primarily during three magnesium manufacturing processes: primary production, diecasting, and recycling-based production. Additional processes that may use SF6 include sand 

and gravity casting, as well as wrought, anode, and permanent mold casting; however, these are not 

included in this analysis. 

Between 2000 and 2010, global SF6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing have decreased 50%, 

from 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) to 5 MtCO2e (USEPA, 2012). Over this 

time period, magnesium production has increased, but growth has been offset by major initiatives to 

phase out the use of SF6 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 MtCO2e (USEPA, 2012). 

Figure 11-1: SF6 Emissions from Magnesium Production: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

ROW = Rest of World
 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012.
 

Global abatement potential of SF6 in the magnesium manufacturing sector is 5 MtCO2e 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 SF6 emissions 

from magnesium production and processing operations. These emission abatement measures all include 

substituting SF6 with an alternate cover gas: SO2, HFC-134a, or NovecTM 612. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-165 
 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM MANUFACTURING 

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

This 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 

emissions 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 SF6 Emissions from Magnesium Manufacturing 

Use of SF6 as a cover gas is the only source of emissions from magnesium production. Although 

studies indicate some destruction of SF6 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 SF6 used is emitted to the atmosphere. This analysis uses three model 

facilities to define magnesium production across die casting, primary production, and reprocessing 

(recycle/remelt) facilities. Global SF6 emissions from magnesium production by facility type are shown in 

Figure 11-3. Model facilities are based on industry data from the United States, but apply to magnesium 

facilities globally. 

For the purpose of evaluating the cost of reducing SF6 emissions from magnesium production, this 

analysis considers reduction costs for three typical magnesium production facilities—die casting, 

recycle/remelt, and primary production, which were generally characterized based on facility-specific 

case studies measuring average SF6 consumption, production capacity, and type. We characterize these 

typical facilities as follows: 

IV-166 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Die casting, 

51% 

Recycle, 2% 

Primary 

production, 

47% 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

Figure 11-3: Global SF6 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

•	 Die 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 tons of 

magnesium per year, and emits 0.17 kg of SF6 per metric ton of magnesium produced, 

representing a total annual facility emission of 4,483 kg of SF6. Production and 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 SF6, assuming all SF6 used is emitted to 

the atmosphere. 

•	 Recycle/Remelt 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 tons of magnesium per year, and emits 

1.09 kg of SF6 per metric ton of magnesium produced, representing a total annual facility 

emission of 20,026 kg of SF6. Production and emissions data from 2007 is used to define the preabatement emissions baseline (USEPA, 2011). Emissions data were reported by the facility based 

on its consumption of SF6, assuming all SF6 used is emitted to the atmosphere. 

•	 Primary Production Facility: Assumes the same characteristics as the die casting facility. 

IV.11.2.1 Activity Data or Important Sectoral or Regional Trends 

The primary activity data for this sector are the quantities of magnesium produced or processed. 

Between 1990 and 2010, global SF6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing have decreased 58%, from 

12 MtCO2e to 5 MtCO2e (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 SF6 in magnesium production in 

numerous countries. 

From 2010 to 2030, emissions from magnesium production are projected to stay in the range of 

approximately 5 MtCO2e (USEPA, 2012). Emissions from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) countries decrease substantially in the short term because of facility closures in 

North America and SF6 phaseout efforts (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2011). As a result, the OECD 

share of global SF6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing is projected to decrease from 40% in 2010 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM MANUFACTURING 

to 12% in 2030. Major SF6 phaseout efforts are driven by the USEPA’s voluntary partnership in the United 

States, and the regulatory directives in Japan and Europe. 

SF6 emissions from magnesium manufacturing in non-OECD Asia are projected to increase 

significantly 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 SF6 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 SO2 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 MtCO2e in 2010, growing to 5.22 

MtCO2e 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 SF6 Emission 

Reduction Partnership (USEPA, 2011) and USGS (2011). As per IPCC 2006 guidelines, it is assumed that 

all SF6 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 (MtCO2e) 

CAGRa 

Country/Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 (2010 –2030) 

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: USEPA, 2012 

IV-168 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

IV.11.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis
 

Three potential options are available for reducing SF6 emissions from magnesium production and 

processing operations. These emission abatement measures all include replacing SF6 with an alternative 

cover gas: SO2, 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 Applicability 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 612 100% 

Die casting 

Recycle/remelt 

Primary production 

Alternative cover gas—HFC-134a 95% 

Die casting 

Recycle/remelt 

Primary production 

Alternative cover gas—SO2 100% 

Die casting 

Recycle/remelt 

Primary production 

IV.11.3.1 Replacement with Alternative Cover Gas—Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Historically, SO2 has been used as a cover gas in magnesium production and processing activities. 

However, because of toxicity, odor, and corrosivity concerns, SO2 use was discontinued in most 

countries. Current SO2 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 Canada, 1998). The use of SO2 has the potential to reduce SF6 emissions by 100% 

because a complete replacement of the cover gas system is involved. Currently, SO2 is being used as a 

cover gas; for example, it is used as a cover 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 SF6 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 SO2 as an alternative cover gas incur capital costs related to the cost for new 

piping, 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 facilities and an annual gas purchase cost of $74,833 

for recycle/remelt facilities. SO2 is significantly less expensive than SF6, and the required gas replacement 

ratio is 1:1, resulting in a significant net savings in material costs. Replacing SF6 with SO2 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 SF6. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-169 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM MANUFACTURING 

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 SF6 (Milbrath, 2002; Ricketts, 2002; Hillis, 2002). In addition, currently, HFC-134a is used as 

a cover gas at two diecasting facilities in Israel (UNFCCC, 2008a, 2008b).While fluorinated gases have an 

advantage over SO2 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 significantly less than that of SF6: thus, the GWPweighted 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 SF6 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 capital 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-134a results in annual gas purchase costs of $32,908 each for die casting and 

primary production facilities and $147,005 for the recycle/remelt facility. HFC-134a is not only less 

expensive than SF6, but additionally HFC-134a has a gas replacement ratio of 0.5:1, resulting in significant 

net savings in material costs. Replacing SF6 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 SF6. 

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 SF6 (Milbrath, 2002; Ricketts, 2002; Hillis, 2002). Additionally, currently, NovecTM612 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 SO2 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 SF6. NovecTM 612 is assumed to be technically 

applicable to all model facilities. 

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 NovecTM612 results 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 SF6 is 0.3:1, significantly less NovecTM 

612 is required to process the same quantity of magnesium. These costs are offset by the avoided costs of 

purchasing SF6, 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 presents all of the data needed to calculate the break-even price for the options analyzed. 

All options have an assumed lifetime of 15 years. 

IV-170 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

Table 11-3: Engineering Cost Data on a Facility Basis 

Project 

Lifetime 

(Years) 

Annual 

Savings*

(2010 USD) 

Annual O&M 

Costs (2010

USD) 

Abatement 

Amount 

(tCO2e) 

Abatement 

Option 

Capital Costs

Facility Type (2010 USD) 

SO2 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 section 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 facility 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-sized facility currently in production in the United 

States where abatement option was implemented in 2008. Annual production is assumed to be 26 

kilo tons. The annual SF6 usage rate was 0.17kg/ ton produced (based on data reported by facility 

under USEPA SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership). This emission factor multiplied by the 

annual production of magnesium yields annual facility emissions of approximately 4.4 tons of 

SF6 (equal to 107,550 tCO2e). 

•	 Recycle/Remelt facility—Represents medium-sized 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 tons. The 

annual SF6 usage rate was 1.09 kg/ ton of magnesium produced (based on data reported by 

facility under USEPA SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership). This emission factor multiplied by 

the annual production yields annual facility emissions of approximately 20 tons of SF6. 

•	 Primary production facility—Assumes similar characteristics as the die casting model facility. 

Annual magnesium production is 26 kilotons and a SF6 usage rate of 0.17 kg/ton of production. 

The model primary production facility annual emissions are 4.4 tons of SF6. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-171 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM MANUFACTURING 

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/facility-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 Applicability Penetration Efficiency Effectiveness 

Die Casting Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 612 100% 45% 100% 45% 

Alternative cover gas—HFC-134a 100% 45% 95% 43% 

Alternative cover gas—SO2 100% 10% 100% 10% 

Recycle/Remelt Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 612 100% 10% 100% 10% 

Alternative cover gas—HFC-134a 100% 10% 95% 9% 

Alternative cover gas—SO2 100% 80% 100% 80% 

Primary Production Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 612 100% 45% 100% 45% 

Alternative cover gas—HFC-134a 100% 45% 95% 43% 

Alternative cover gas—SO2 100% 10% 100% 10% 

We assume that all three abatement measures are technically applicable to all facility types, hence 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 NovecTM612 and 

HFC-134a over SO2, with an equal chance of adopting either NovecTM612 or HFC-134a. The same 

assumptions were made for a primary production facility. For recycle/remelt facility, experts believed 

that there would be a preference for SO2 over the other two alternative cover gases, with an equal chance 

of adopting either NovecTM612 or HFC-134a. Multiplying 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—NovecTM 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 prices. 

IV.11.4.5 MAC Analysis Results 

The global abatement potential for SF6 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/tCO2e in 

2030. 

IV-172 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

– –

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

Table 11-5: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in Magnesium Manufacturing 

Abatement Option 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital

Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net 

Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Die Casting Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 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—SO2 107,144 $1.00 −$1.07 $0.20 −$0.27 

Recycle/Remelt Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM 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—SO2 478,621 $0.22 −$1.07 $0.05 −$0.89 

Primary Production Facility 

Alternative cover gas—NovecTM612 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—SO2 107,144 $1.00 −$1.07 $0.20 −$0.27 

Tax Benefit 

of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

BreakEven 

Price 

($/tCO2e) 

Table 11-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break -Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2.5 

China 

Kazakhstan 

Israel 

Russia 

Ukraine 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM MANUFACTURING 

Figure 11-4: Marginal Abatement Cost Curves 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 SF6 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 Emissions Report. 

IV-174 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 

References
 

Bartos, S., J. Marks, R. Kantamaneni, C. Laush. 2003. Measured SF6 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 SF6 in Magnesium Melt Protection. 

Presented at the International Conference on SF6 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 Meridian 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 SF6 in the 

Magnesium Industry. Presented at the International Conference on SF6 and the Environment: 

Emissions Reduction Technologies, November 21-22, San Diego, CA. 

Ricketts, N. 2002. Environmental Implications of Using HFC-134a as a Replacement for SF6 in the Magnesium 

Industry. Presented at the International Conference on SF6 and the Environment: Emissions Reduction 

Technologies, November 21-22, San Diego, CA. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008a. SF6 Switch at Ortal 

Diecasting 1993 Ltd. Production. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Obtained May 2010 at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1233931497.2/view. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008b. SF6 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 SF6 to the 

Alternative SO2 at RIMA Magnesium Production. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change. Obtained May 2010 at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1239262577.48/view. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012). 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). 2011. Case Study: U.S. Magnesium Industry Adopts 

New Technology 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. NovecTM 612 as a Substitute for SF6 in Magnesium Processing: 

Experience to Date in Varied Casting Operations. 3M. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-175 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

MtCO2e 

0.02 

2.29 

2.11 

1.87 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

Malaysia 

Germany 

United States 

Japan 

China 

Rest of World 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

IV.12. Emissions from Photovoltaic Cell Manufacturing 

IV.12.1 Sector Summary
 

The photovoltaic (PV) cell manufacturing process can use multiple fluorinated greenhouse gases 

(F-GHGs) during production, including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and the 

perfluorocompounds (PFCs) carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) and perfluoroethane (C2F6,). During the 

manufacture of PV cells some of the F-GHGs not used in processes 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 equivalents (MtCO2e) in 2010. As Figure 12-1 shows, by 2030, emissions from the 

manufacturing of PV cells are expected to decrease to 1.9 MtCO2e. 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 updates incorporate new market information which has resulted in 

significantly lower emission estimates. The decrease in emissions can be attributed to lower expected 

growth in production and lower fraction of production assumed to use 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 Cell Manufacturing: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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 NF3 remote chamber clean process. Due to the lack of mitigation cost 

information specific to PV production, data is drawn from experience reducing emissions from similar 

processes in semiconductor manufacturing. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2.5 

2010 

2020 

2030 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

The marginal abatement cost (MAC) analysis estimates a global mitigation potential of 1.7 MtCO2e, 

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 

High capital costs and relatively low emissions reduction amounts result in relatively high breakeven 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 than $120/tCO2e. 

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 resulting in F-GHG emissions, including CF4, C2F6, and 

NF3, 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. CF4 and 

C2F6 are used during the manufacture of some crystalline silicon (c-Si) PV cells, and NF3 is used during 

the manufacture of amorphous silicon (a-Si) and tandem a-Si/nanocrystaline (nc) silicon PV cells. 

However, not all poly-silicon manufacturing process use F-GHGs, this was taken into consideration in the 

analysis. Processes for PV cells manufactured on other thin films do not require the use of GHGs; 

therefore, these processes were not considered in this analysis. 

IV-178 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etch, 

10% 

Clean, 90% 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

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, operation, 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 gCO2 eq. per kWh compared to between 300 and 1000 g CO2 

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 

last 10 years thanks to performance improvements, raw material savings and manufacturing process 

improvements” (EPIA, 2011). Implementing PFC and NF3 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-GHGs: CF4, C2F6, and NF3.

1 Figure 12-3 shows the breakdown of 

etch and clean emissions for the typical facility. 

Figure 12-3: Global F-GHG Emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-179 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

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, and 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 large 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 increased their 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 countries, 

questions 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 was 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 International, 

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 close, 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 capacity replacement. These 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 to 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 

NF3 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. 

IV-180 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

F-GHG emissions from PV manufacturing are estimated to be approximately 2.29 MtCO2e in 2010. By 

2030, emissions from manufacturing PV cells are expected to decrease to 1.87 MtCO2e. This decrease can 

be attributed to the decrease in the annual PV production for 2030 compared to 2010. The annual 

production 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 little 

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 silicon (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 CF4 and C2F6 during manufacturing, as not all PV 

processes use F-GHGs. 

The projected revised emissions are estimated based on annual PV production, differentiated by type 

of technology, country, and the emission factors for respective types. However, now the 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 

proportions: 77% crystalline Silicon (c-Si), 12% amorphous Silicon (a-Si) and the rest Cadmium Telluride, 

Copper Indium Gallium Selenide 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 produced is estimated based on the cell efficiency, using new data obtained from IEA Solar 

Photovoltaic Roadmap (IEA, 2010), and an assumed solar constant of 1000 W/m2. 

The NF3 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 NF3 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 looking at lifecycle NF3 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 Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis 

Four mitigation technology options were identified for the PV manufacturing sector: thermal 

abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, and NF3 remote chamber clean. 

•	 Thermal abatement: These point-of-use abatement systems, that use heat to destroy or remove FGHGs 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, Al2O3) that destroy or remove F-GHGs. 

•	 Plasma abatement: Plasma in a point-of-use abatement system is used to react (destroy or 

remove) F-GHGs from the process effluent stream. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-181 
 

 

 – 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

Table 12-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from PV Cell Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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 

• NF3 remote chamber clean: Highly ionized NF3 is used to clean chemical vapor deposition 

chambers. This process is highly efficient (~98%), resulting in lower emissions on a mass and CO2 

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 Option Applicable 3s) 

Thermal abatement Etch and clean 95% Fthenakis (2001), Beu (2005), and USEPA (2009)
 

Catalytic abatement Etch and clean 99% Fthenakis (2001), Brown et al. (2012)
 

Plasma abatement
 Etch 97% Fthenakis (2001), Hattori et al. (2006) 

NF3 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 chambercleaning processes. The use of thermal abatement offers the benefit of not affecting the manufacturing 

process (Applied Materials, 1999); however, the systems do require space that may not be available in 

IV-182 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

some facilities. In addition, these systems require large amounts of cooling water, and the use of the 

systems result in regulated NOx emissions. 

The total facility capital cost for installing thermal abatement systems is estimated to be $5.7 million. 

This estimate includes 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 using 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 there may be some space constraints as 

mentioned for thermal abatement systems. Additionally, because these systems are based on destruction 

via catalyst, they must be process/stream specific to achieve the 99% emission reductions quoted in the 

literature and used in this analysis (Fthenakis, 2001; Burton, 2003). 

Because catalytic destruction systems operate at relatively low temperatures, their use results in little 

or no NOx emissions, and the required amounts of water are low as well. Because of the high cost of 

catalyst replacement, 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 manufacturing 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 dissociates the F-GHG molecules 

that react with fragments of the additive gas (hydrogen (H2), oxygen (O2), water (H2O), or methane 

(CH4)) 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 PFC molecules (Burton, 2003). 

The capital cost for plasma abatement systems is estimated to be $1.8 million per facility (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. 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 NF3 Remote Chamber Clean 

NF3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that has the benefit of having a 

particularly high (~98%) utilization rate of NF3 (IPCC, 2006), resulting in relatively low emissions 

compared with traditional chamber cleans. (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.) NF3 remote clean systems dissociate NF3 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-183 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

selectively remove material in the chamber. The by-products of remote clean include HF, fluorine (F2), 

and other gases, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber systems. 

It is assumed that PV facilities are not “NF3 ready”; in other words, these facilities do not have the 

current infrastructure to handle the direct installation of NF3 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 facility cost for NF3 remote clean is estimated to be $3.4 million (Burton, 

2003). These costs are associated with the purchase of larger volumes of gas (NF3 versus traditional 

chamber clean gases), general maintenance, and F2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas from the 

effluent. No annual cost savings are associated with using this technology. 

IV.12.3.5 Summary of Mitigation Technology Costs and Characteristics 

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 

(tCO2e) 

Thermal abatement 7 $5,701,971 $0 $328,862 13,625 

Catalytic abatement 7 $6,906,594 $0 $455,277 14,199 

Plasma abatement 7 $1,814,664 $0 $51,848 1,398 

NF3 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-GHGs 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-GHGs are used during the manufacture of crystalline silicon (c-Si) PV cells, amorphous silicon (aSi), and tandem a-Si/nanocrystaline (nc) silicon PV cells. Other thin film PV technologies do not require 

the use of F-GHGs. 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. 

IV-184 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

•	 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-GHGs: CF4, C2F6, and NF3.

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 

achievable by each technology/process combination. Estimating 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 

Applicability 

Market 

Penetration 

Technical 

Applicability 

Market 

Penetration 

Reduction 

Efficiency 

Technical 

Abatement Measure Effectiveness 

Thermal abatement 85% 65% 85% 20% 95% 20% 

Catalytic abatement 85% 10% 85% 10% 99% 8% 

Plasma abatement 85% 25% 0% 0% 97% 2% 

NF3 remote clean 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 abatement 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-Even 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-185 
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

Table 12-5: Example Break-Even Prices for Abatement Measures in PV Cell Manufacturing 

Abatement Option 

Reduced 

Emissions 

(tCO2e) 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

($/tCO2e) 

Net Annual 

Cost 

($/tCO2e) 

Tax Benefit of 

Depreciation 

($/tCO2e) 

Break Even 

Pricea 

($/tCO2e) 

Thermal abatement 

Catalytic abatement 

Plasma abatement 

NF3 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/tCO2e. These significantly higher breakeven 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 reductions in the PV manufacturing sector is estimated to 

be 1.7 MtCO2e, 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 curves for the top five emitting 

countries and the rest of world for this sector. 

Table 12-6: Abatement Potential by Country/Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Break Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

IV-186 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

$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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

China 

Japan 

Germany 

Malaysia 

United States 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

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

As 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/tCO2e). 

IV.12.5 Uncertainties and Limitations 

The PV industry is a relatively new manufacturing 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 abatement system reduction 

efficiencies 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., CF4 is harder 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 emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-187 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

As this is the foundation of future baseline emission estimates, 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 assumes that any new manufacturing is done to meet the increase in 

installed capacity and not to replace any 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 the “least accurate 

estimation method” (IPCC, 2006). The Tier 1 method gives an aggregate emission estimate for all of the FGHG using processes simultaneously, which introduces a higher level of uncertainty as the utilization 

rates of gases 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. 

IV-188 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

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-Technology Report.” 

TT#0510469A-ENG. International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), Albany, New York. 

December 2005. Obtained at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductorpfc/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/features/emissionscontrol/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, NF3 remote 

clean, and capture membrane unit costs. 

CRS, 2012. “U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal 

Support.” 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-exceeddemand-beyond-2012/. 

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. 

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 Process.” 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-189 
 

 

 

 

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL MANUFACTURING 

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: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductorpfc/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/semiconductorpfc/documents/qimonda_report.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (FGHG) 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. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 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. 

IV-190 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

7 

12 12 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

MtCO2e 

Year 

Singapore 

Japan 

South Korea 

China 

FLAT PANEL DISPLAY 

IV.13. PFC Emissions from Flat Panel Display Manufacturing 

IV.13.1 Sector Summary
 

Flat panel display (FPD) manufacturing processes generate fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-GHG) 

emissions including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and carbon 

tetrafluoride (CF4), which are used in etching and chamber-cleaning processes commonly used 

in electronics manufacturing. 

Global annual F-GHG emissions from FPD manufacturing are estimated to be approximately seven 

and a half million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MtCO2e) in 2010, projected to grow to 12 

MtCO2e 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 NonCO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990 to 2030 (USEPA, 2012). The updated projections include lower 

expected production levels 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, variable industry production growth rates, and 

rapidly evolving FPD technologies. 

Figure 13-1: F-GHG Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2000–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-191 
 

 

 

 

 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

$/tCO2e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

6 

2010 

2020 

2030 

FLAT PANEL DISPLAY 

Six mitigation technology options were examined for this sector: central abatement, thermal 

abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF3 remote chamber clean, and gas replacement. 

Global abatement of F-GHG emissions in FPD manufacturing is estimated to be 9.3 MtCO2e in 2020 

and 9.6 MtCO2e 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 Potential in FPD Manufacturing: 2010, 2020, and 2030 

The following sections of this chapter first describe the activities and sources of F-GHG emissions in 

the FPD manufacturing sector and present the projected emissions for 2010 to 2030. Subsequent sections 

characterize the six abatement measures considered and present the engineering costs assumptions used 

in the MAC analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the MAC modeling assumptions used to 

estimate the global abatement potential. We conclude 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 potential (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 lightemitting diode displays. 

IV-192 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etch, 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 industry are generally similar), characterized based on an average gas 

consumption, an assumed 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 Emissions in 2020 by Facility Type (% of GWP-Weighted Emissions) 

IV.13.2.1	 Activity 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 represent 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 using 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 MtCO2e (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 

countries 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 technology 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-193 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLAT PANEL DISPLAY 

IV.13.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions 

The large majority of FPD manufacturing is in Asia, and production capacity continues to grow in 

that region. As shown in Table 13-1, from 2010 to 2030, emissions from global FPD manufacturing are 

expected to grow by a factor of 54 times, from 3 MtCO2e in 2010 to 162 MtCO2e in 2030. Much of this 

growth occurs between 2015 and 2030. This increase is expected to be attributed to growth in production 

and emissions 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 production (DisplaySearch, 2010); and (2) 

China’s share of world emissions is projected to steeply increase partly because emissions for the WLICC 

member countries are assumed to meet and maintain the reduction goal of 3.01 MtCO2e. 

Table 13-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from FPD Manufacturing: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CAGRa 

(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, 2012 

IV.13.3 Abatement Measures and Engineering Cost Analysis 

Six mitigation technology options were identified for the FPD manufacturing sector: central 

abatement, thermal abatement, catalytic abatement, plasma abatement, NF3 remote chamber clean, and 

gas replacement. 

•	 Central abatement: These are large-scale abatement systems that are generally located on the 

roof of facilities and are applicable to etch emissions (SF6). 

•	 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 with 

catalysts (e.g., CuO, ZnO, Al2O3) that destroy or remove F-GHGs. 

•	 Plasma abatement: Plasma in a POU abatement system is used to react (destroy or remove) 

F-GHGs from the process effluent stream. 

•	 NF3 remote chamber clean: Highly ionized NF3 is used to clean 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 CO2 basis than traditional in-situ chamber clean processes which uses 

approximately 20% to 50% of the gas in a process (IPCC, 2006). 

• Gas 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 

emissions from a type of process (etch and/or clean). The next sections describe each of these mitigation 

options in more detail. 

IV-194 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

Central abatement Etch 77% CDM project #3333 

Thermal abatement Etch and clean 95% Fthenakis (2001), Beu (2005), and USEPA (2009) 

Catalytic abatement Etch and clean 99% Fthenakis (2001), Brown et al. (2012) 

Plasma abatement Etch 97% Fthenakis (2001), Hattori et al. (2006) 

NF3 remote chamber clean 

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 (SF6) 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 applicable to etch emissions. Two CDM projects (one from LG and one from Samsung) 

in Korea have used 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 million for a facility. No 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 chambercleaning processes. The use of thermal abatement offers the benefit of not affecting 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 the use of the 

systems results in regulated NOx emissions. 

The total facility capital cost for installing thermal abatement systems is estimated to be $5.7 million. 

This estimate includes 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 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 chambercleaning 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 purchasing and installing the abatement systems is estimated to be 

$6.9 million 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 estimated to incur an annual cost of $455,280. As with other 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-195 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLAT 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 plasma source that effectively 

dissociates the F-GHG molecules that react with fragments of the additive gas (hydrogen (H2), oxygen 

(O2) water (H2O), or methane (CH4)) to produce low molecular weight 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 (Motorola, 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. The total 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 NF3 Remote Chamber Clean 

NF3 remote chamber clean is an alternative cleaning technology that has the benefit of having a 

particularly high utilization rate of NF3 (~98%; IPCC, 2006), resulting in relatively low emissions 

compared with traditional chamber cleans. (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 lower.) NF3 remote clean systems dissociate NF3 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 (F2), 

and other gases, most of which are removed by facility acid scrubber systems. The use of NF3 remote 

clean systems is much more prevalent in new facilities because the technology was not available when 

many old facilities were constructed. 

It is assumed that FPD facilities are not “NF3 ready”; in other words, these facilities do not have the 

current infrastructure to handle the direct installation of NF3 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 facility cost for NF3 remote clean is estimated to be $3.3 million (Burton, 

2003). This cost is associated with the purchase of larger volumes of gas (NF3 versus traditional chamber 

clean gases), general maintenance, and F2 scrubs to remove the highly explosive gas from the effluent. No 

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 NF3 to replace SF6. 

Facilities replacing SF6 with NF3 incur an estimated capital 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 

IV-196 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

Central 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 

NF3 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 amount 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 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.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 77% chamber clean emissions, which 

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 Estimating 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 applicability and market penetration. These 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-197 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLAT 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 

Abatement Measure Effectiveness 

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% 

NF3 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). The 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 

potential 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-Even Prices 

The MAC 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 (tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) ($/tCO2e) 

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/tCO2e 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/tCO2e. The CAS is the most expensive at $240/tCO2e. These costs are 

IV-198 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

$0 

$100 

$200 

$300 

$400 

$500 

$600 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 Analysis Results 

The global abatement potential for F-GHG emissions reductions in the FPD manufacturing sector is 

estimated to be 9.6 MtCO2e, or 80% of total projected emissions in 2030. Table 13-6 presents the 

cumulative reductions achieved at selected break-even prices for China, Japan, Singapore, 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 (MtCO2e) 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 Curves by Emitting County in 2030 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-199 
 

 

FLAT PANEL DISPLAY 

As the results show, the abatement potential in the FPD manufacturing sector can be significant (80% 

of sectoral emissions). Over 2.4 MtCO2e of F-GHG emissions could be reduced in China at a carbon price 

of ~$25/tCO2e; 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). We 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. 

IV-200 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLAT 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/emissionscontrol/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, NF3 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 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. 

Prather, M., and J. Hsu. June 2008. “NF3, the Greenhouse Gas Missing from Kyoto.” Geophysical Research 

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 and Paul 

Stewart of ICF International. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (FGHG) 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/semiconductorpfc/documents/ibm_report.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 1990-2030. EPA 430-R-12-006. Washington, DC: USEPA. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES IV-201 
V. Agriculture Sector 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

V.1. Non-Rice Croplands 

V.1.1 Sector Summary
 

Land management in croplands influences soil N2O emissions, CH4 fluxes, and soil organic 

carbon (C) stocks (and associated CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere). Soil N2O emissions are 

influenced by human activity, including synthetic nitrogen fertilization practices, application 

of organic fertilizers such as manure, drainage of organic soils, cultivation of N-fixing crops, and 

enhancement of N mineralization in soils through practices such as cultivation/management of native 

grasslands and forests (Mosier et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2007). Globally, N2O emissions from agricultural 

soils increased by about 19% between 1990 and 2010 While N2O emissions from all sources grew only 4%. 

In 2010, soil N2O emissions account for approximately 56% of the global N2O emissions, up from 51% in 

1990.

1 In contrast to soil N2O, 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, compared to the estimates typically developed for GHG inventories, the emissions 

presented in this chapter will be lower because the following types 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 N2O emissions were 3240.7 MtCO2e in 1990 and 3,519.6 MtCO2e in 2010. Agricultural soils total N2O 

emissions were 1,658.1 MtCO2e 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 with 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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., 2010). The IFPRI IMPACT model projections provide a set of prices consistent 

with population and productivity assumptions for the MAC analysis. 3, 4

Figure 1-1 presents projected baseline N2O and CH4 emissions and changes in soil organic carbon 

from non-rice cropland soils; As shown in Figure 20-1, N2O emissions from global non-rice cropland soils 

are projected to be 506, 500 and 504 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2010, 2020 and 

2030, respectively.5 Non-rice cropland soils are a net sink for methane, sequestering approximately 38 

MtCO2e of CH4 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 2030 

MtCO2 e 

Year 

CH4 

N2O 

Soil C 

3 The IMPACT outputs separated the world into 116 regions, with larger countries defined individually and smaller 

countries combined into regions. A mapping 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 USEPA (2012) to 

disaggregate regional projections 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 projected 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. 

V-2 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

Figure 1-2 presents the projected net GHG emissions (N2O and CH4) 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. 

Figure 1-2: Baseline Net GHG Emissions from Non-Rice Croplands, Top Five Emitting Countries 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

MtCO2e 

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 

(MtCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 price 

of $5 per ton of CO2 equivalent ($/tCO2e), net GHG abatement potential for global non-rice cropland soils 

is approximately 65 MtCO2e, or about 13% of its baseline net emissions of 476 MtCO2e in 2010. Mitigation 

potential at $5/ tCO2e reduces to 10% of the 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 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

The following section offers a brief description of the model used. Section IV.20.3 presents 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, N2O and CH4 emissions, and soil 

C stocks in this analysis. DAYCENT is a process-based model (Parton et al., 1998; Del Grosso et al., 2001) 

that simulates biogeochemical C and N fluxes between the atmosphere, vegetation, and soil by 

V-4 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 simulated by 

DAYCENT 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, 2005, 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 N2O and CH4 emissions, and soil organic C stock changes were simulated by 

DAYCENT at a 0.5°grid resolution. Indirect N2O emissions6 were estimated simulated amounts of nitrate 

leaching, N runoff in overland water flow, and NOx emissions from a site according to the DAYCENT 

model7 combined with the IPCC default factors for indirect N2O 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 N2O (USEPA, 2013). 

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 Carbon 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 cropland 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 cropland in the DAYCENT simulations at an approximate first year of 

cultivation, based on historical records compiled by Ramankutty and Foley (1998) and Ramankutty et al., 

(2008). 

Due to lack of global data availability, low input crop production with intensive tillage practices were 

assumed prior to 1950, consistent with typical practices in that time period. From 1950 to 2010, 

management was based on data including tillage and residue management, weeding practices, mineral N 

fertilization, manure N amendments 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 insufficient data for 

determining typical crop rotation practices from the global datasets. Maize and sorghum were doublecropped 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 consistent with the observed yields. More detail on the input data 

and simulation framework is provided in Appendix O. 

6 N2O emissions occurring with transport of N from one site to another where N2O 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 increments. 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 GHG 

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 soybeans) to increase the coverage of cropland 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 last 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-rice 

cropland areas reported by FAOSTAT. 

Projected baseline emissions and crop production were then established for both irrigated and 

rainfed production systems using simulated yields and GHG emissions rates from DAYCENT model and 

adjusting with projected growth 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 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 global food 

demand (Nelson et al., 2010). 

V.1.3 Abatement Measures 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 N2O 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 soil. Similarly, 

V-6 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 associated 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 and 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. 

•	 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. 

Reduced Fertilization 

This option reduced baseline fertilizer application levels by 20%. 

•	 Applicability: 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 where 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: This 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

Split N Fertilization 

Under this option, the baseline N application amount was applied in three separate and equal 

amounts (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 Applicability 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 nitrification 

inhibitor, 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 benefits are included in this option. 

9 Following Del Grosso et al. (2009).
 

10 Following Del Grosso et al. (2009) and Branson et al. (1992).
 

V-8 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

CROPLANDS 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-9 
 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 

V-10 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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-CO2 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 general 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 Marginal Abatement Cost (IMAC) model, is 

documented in USEPA (2006) and Beach et al. (2008). 

V.1.4.2 MAC Analysis Results 

Global 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 CO2 

equivalent ($/tCO2e). Table 1-3 presents mitigation potential at selected break-even prices for 2030. GHG 

mitigation and its cost-effectiveness 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 ($/tCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 Top-Five Emitting Countries in 2010 and 2030 

Table 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 approximately 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. 

Adoption 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 business-as-usual baseline. 

V-12 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

Table 1-4:	 Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO2e) (“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 N2O 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 N2O) of reduced fertilization 

nearly equals that of no-till. Over an even longer time scales, only the N2O 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 optimum 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 

•	 Economic 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 129 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, accounting for about 39% of the global total 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-13 
 

 

 

 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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-rice Croplands Management: 2010, 2020, and 2030 

(Includes “Optimal N Fertilization” Strategy) 

Table 1-5: Global Total Abatement Potential from Cropland Soils by Measure (MtCO2e) (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. 

V-14 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

-$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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

fertilizer use that is much higher than optimal. 13 This suggests that N2O 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 curves are subject to a number of uncertainties and limitations: 

•	 Optimistic assumptions 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 the model determined the optimal fertilizer rates, fertilizer 

use typically decreased in China between 30 and 50% for major crops as compared to baseline levels. N2O emissions 

also declined. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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 cultural and institutional 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 heterogeneous 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. Approximations had to be made based on 

limited literature or expert judgment. Moreover, collecting and developing regionally specific 

cost estimates of emerging and/or not widely adopted management practices or mitigation 

measures has been a challenge and in some cases global datasets had to be used. 

•	 Biophysical modeling uncertainties. The evaluation of simulated crop yields against observed 

yields suggests that DAYCENT modeling performance varies by crop 14, leading to potential 

biases in estimated GHG emissions. Model 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 

procedure 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 options 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. 

Alternative 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 observed yields; simulated average yields for 

wheat, barley and sorghum are lower than observed yields; simulated average yields for soybean are above observed 

yields. 

V-16 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

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: N2O emissions from managed 

soil, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse 

gas inventories, Vol. 4: Agriculture, forestry 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 dynamics 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 Pollution 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. DeAngelo, 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 N2O 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 

Agriculture 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. Assessing 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CROPLANDS 

Parton, W.J., J.W.B. Stewart, C.V. Cole. (1988) “Dynamics of C, N, P, and S in grassland soils: a model.” 

Biogeochemistry 5:109-131. 

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, Soil 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 analysis 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:10.1029/2007GB002952. 

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-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. EPA 

430-R-06-005. Washington DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 1990–2030. EPA 430-R-12-006. Washington DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2011. Washington, D.C. 

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2012. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database. Available at 

http://www.wri.org/project/cait/. 

V-18 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

V.2. Rice Cultivation 

V.2.1 Sector Summary
 

Rice cultivation is an important global source of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) 

emissions. There are also changes in soil organic carbon (C) stocks and associated CO2 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 CH4. Some of this CH4 is 

dissolved in the floodwater, but the remainder is released to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice 

plants themselves. Minor amounts of CH4 also escape from the soil via diffusion and bubbling through 

the floodwaters. In addition, as with other crops, human activities influence soil N2O 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 emissions from rice cultivation were approximately 561 MTCO2e. The 

top 5 emitting countries – India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and China –accounted for 77% of the 

global total net emissions. Figure 2-1 displays the baseline net global GHG emissions for the rice sector. 

Net GHG emissions from rice cultivation are projected to grow by 33% to 750 MTCO2e 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 contributor to 

the increase in net GHG emissions simulated between 2010 and 2030 is a reduction in the soil C sink over 

time. In the Denitrification-Decomposition (DNDC) model, there 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 

become much smaller and offset a smaller portion of the non-CO2 emissions. 

Figure 2-1: Net GHG Emissions Projections for Rice Cultivation: 2000–2030 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

MtCO2 e 

565 

722 

756 

2010 2020 2030 

Year 

China 

Vietnam 

Bangladesh 

Indonesia 

India 

ROW 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

Table 2-1 shows the baseline CH4, N2O and soil carbon estimates for rice cropland by region. Rice 

cultivation results in emissions of CH4 and N2O, and these are offset by storage of carbon in the soil. In 

2010, GHG emissions from rice cultivation include 484.1 MTCO2e CH4 and 260.0 MTCO2e N2O, offset by 

179.2 MTCO2e of c stored in the soil, for net non-CO2 emissions of 564.9.1 MTCO2e, or about 5.8 percent 

of global non-CO2 emissions (EPA, 2012). 

Table 2-1:	 Baseline CH4, N2O, and Soil Carbon Estimates for Rice Cropland for 2010, 2020 and 2030 by 

Region 

2010 2020 2030 

Country/Region CH4 N2O Soil C CH4 N2O Soil C CH4 N2O 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 

Global 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 MtCO2e in 2010, 203 MtCO2e in 2020 and 

200 MtCO2e in 2030. 

Figure 2-2 also shows the finding that significant reductions are feasible even at a low values per ton 

of carbon. For example, there are approximately 76 MtCO2e of net GHG emission reductions that are costeffective in 2010 at a price of $5/ton, (13.5 % of the baseline estimate). In 2030, approximately 87 MtCO2 of 

reductions 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. 

V-20 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

The following section offers a brief description of CH4 and N2O 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 level. 

V.2.2	 CH4 and N2O Emissions and Changes in Soil Carbon from 

Rice Cultivation 

Rice production is a major source of GHG emissions. Global, Tier-I datasets such as EPA’s Global 

Anthropogenic Non-CO2 GHG Emissions Report (EPA, 2012) show that agriculture is the biggest source 

of CH4 emissions, and within agriculture, rice cultivation is the second largest source, behind enteric 

fermentation.1 Rice cultivation accounted for 7% of global CH4 emissions in 2005 (USEPA, 2012). Rice 

cultivation is also a significant source of N2O emissions but these are not included in most global datasets. 

1 Global CH4 emissions from agriculture were estimated at 3,035.4 MtCO2e (2005), about 45% of the global total of 

6815.8 MtCO2e. Rice produced 500.9 MtCO2e and enteric fermentation produced 1,894.3 MtCO2e (USEPA, 2012, 

Table 6). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

In this section, we describe baseline emissions of CH4,, N2O, and soil carbon from rice cultivation as well 

as crop production 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 CH4 

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. Methanogenic bacteria decompose soil 

organic matter under anaerobic conditions in rice paddies, generating CH4. Significant amounts of CH4 

are oxidized by aerobic methanotrophic bacteria into CO2 in the soil. The remaining unoxidized CH4 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 CH4 sinks, paddy rice cultivation is 

a major source of CH4 emissions. 

N2O is another significant component of net GHG emissions from rice cultivation. N2O is produced 

through nitrification and denitrification from microbial activities under the anoxic condition. N2O 

emissions occur directly from soils, and indirectly through volatilization of compounds such as NH3 and 

NOx and subsequent deposition as well as through leaching and runoff. Table 2-1 shows that in 2010, 

while CH4 accounted for the largest share of emissions with 484.1 MtCO2e (65% of non-CO2 emissions 

from rice cultivation), N2O contributed substantially, with 260.0 MtCO2e (35%). Both dry and irrigated 

rice are a source of N2O emissions. 

Soil carbon stocks are not a non-CO2 GHG but also have important implications for net GHG 

emissions and are affected by non-CO2 mitigation options so we estimate total emissions net of their 

effect on soil C stocks in 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 processes 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 infiltration, 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 CH4, N2O and soil carbon fluxes from rice 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 CH4 (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). 

V-22 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

0 

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 world. 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 systems. 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) country-level statistics (FAOSTAT 2010) were used to 

establish 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, Top 5 countries, by Type and Water Management 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-23 
Table 2-2: Baseline yields for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for selected countries (kg/ha) 

RICE 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE 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 Deepwater Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deepwater Upland Irrigated Rainfed Deepwater 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 1,253,843 

V-24 
 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 were 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 

global 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 Deepwater 

Afghanistan 208,030 40 40 — — 

Angola 2,465 1 1 — — 

Argentina 211,148 90 90 9 — 

Australia 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-25 
 

 

RICE 

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 Deepwater 

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) 

V-26 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

RICE 

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 Deepwater 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-27 
 

 

RICE 

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 Deepwater 

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% 

V-28 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

RICE 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-29 
 

 

RICE 

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% 

V-30 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 (CH4, direct and indirect N2O 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 adjusted 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 2010 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

V.2.2.2 Emissions Estimates and Related Assumptions 

This section briefly discusses the historical and projected emission 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 emissions from 

global rice cultivation increased by 4.4% between 1990 and 2005, from 480 MtCO2e to 501 MtCO2e. Asia, 

the predominant rice-producing region, accounted for over 80% of the total CH4 emissions in 2005. Africa 

contributed another 10%, and the remaining methane emissions in this sector came from Central and 

South America and other regions. The GER did not report historic N2O emissions and soil carbon stock 

changes from the rice cultivation sector. 

Projected Emissions Estimates 

Worldwide CH4 and N2O 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 shifts towards more livestock and other more expensive food products with 

higher incomes. The estimated total CH4 emissions from rice cultivation are 484.1 MtCO2e in 2010, 482.2 

MtCO2e in 2020 and 472.9 MtCO2e in 2030. The total estimated N2O emissions are 260.0 MtCO2e in 2010, 

324.5 MtCO2e in 2020 and 340.5 MtCO2e in 2030. 

V.2.3 Abatement 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-CO2 GHG were excluded from the analysis. 

Twenty-six mitigation scenarios were then analyzed using DNDC 9.5 5

. The scenarios addressed 

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 production 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 

fertilizer, and 30% reduced fertilizer). 

The water management system under which rice is produced is one of the most important factors 

influencing CH4 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 CH4 emissions. 

Other practices (e.g., fertilizer applications, tillage 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 fertilizer and 

other management practices but do not affect water management were identified as beginning with “base” rather 

than “cf” or “md”. 

V-32 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

decomposition, nitrification and denitrification (Neue and Sass, 1994; Li et al., 2006). Due to the complex 

interactions, changes in management practices would trigger changes in multiple GHG fluxes. For 

instance, while drainage of rice fields during the growing season would significantly reduce CH4 

emissions, emissions of N2O actually increase (Zheng et al., 1997, 2000; Cai et al., 1999; Zou et al. 2007). 

Rice mitigation options 

The mitigation options included for rice water management system under which rice is produced is 

one of the most important factors influencing CH4 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 CH4 emissions. Other 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 26 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: flood regime (continuous flooding [CF], mid-season drainage [MD], dry seeding [DS], alternate 

wetting and drying [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 Incorporation Management Fertilization 

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, Autofertilization 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-33 
 

RICE 

Table 2-6: Alternative Rice Management Scenarios Simulated using DNDC (continued) 

Residue Alternative 

Abbreviation Scenario Flooding Incorporation Management Fertilization 

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-fertilization 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”. 

V-34 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 

Dryland 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 

Conventional 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 residue 

Fertilizer 

Conventional fertilizer N applied as urea on plant date using a crop-specific rate 

Ammonium sulfate fertilizer N applied as ammonium sulfate on plant date using a crop-specific rate 

Nitrification inhibitor nitrification inhibitor is used with urea; reduced conversion of NH4 to NO3 is simulated with 60% 

efficiency over 120 days 

Slow-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) 

20% reduced Crop-specified baseline fertilizer N rate is reduced by 20% (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 

fraction 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 (cf_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 instance, 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 mid-season drainage 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 subcategory. 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 were assumed to have any capital cost. 

•	 Annual Operation 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 changes 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 drainage, 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 

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-CO2 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 that 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 $5 per ton of CO2 equivalent ($/tCO2e). In 2030, total 

abatement potential in the sector is 21 MtCO2e at no carbon price, 57 MtCO2e at a carbon price of 

$5/tCO2e, and 124 MtCO2e at a carbon price of $20/tCO2e, 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 topemitting countries and aggregate regions comprising the rest of the globe are presented in Table 2-8. 

V-36 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

Table 2-8: Abatement Potential by Region at Selected Break-Even Prices in 2030 (MtCO2e) 

Country/ Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

Mitigation potential and its cost-effectiveness vary 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 rice cultivation. For 

instance, in 2030 mitigation potential in Asia is estimated to be 27 MtCO2e with no carbon price and 34 

MtCO2e at a carbon price of $20/tCO2e. Central and South America can achieve mitigation potential of 12 

MtCO2e in 2030 at no carbon price, and mitigation potential can increase to 22 MtCO2e at a carbon price 

of $20/tCO2e. 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 reductions. 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 CH4 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-37 
 

RICE 

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 

V-38 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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, emissions 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-39 
 

 

 

RICE 

Figure 2-5: Marginal Abatement Cost Curve, Baseline Area Case 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 50 100 150 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

India 

China 

Indonesia 

Vietnam 

Bangladesh 

V-40 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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 the 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 organic 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 approaches 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 cultural 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 interactions may affect the aggregate GHG mitigation 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-41 
 

 

 

 

 

RICE 

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. 

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. 

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. Environmental Protection Agency (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 Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database. Available at 

http://www.wri.org/project/cait/. 

V-42 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

V.3. Livestock 

V.3.1 Sector Summary
 

Livestock operations generate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. The 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly come from two sources, enteric fermentation and 

manure management. Methane is produced as a by-product of the digestive process in animals 

through a microbial fermentation process. The quantity of enteric fermentation CH4 emissions is 

determined by the animal’s digestive system, diet and management practices. Livestock manure 

management can produce both CH4 and N2O emissions. Methane is produced when manure decomposes 

under anaerobic conditions. The quantity of manure CH4 emissions is determined by the type of 

treatment or storage facility, the ambient climate, and the composition of the manure. Manure N2O 

emissions result from nitrification and denitrification of the nitrogen that is excreted in manure and urine. 

In 2010, the global non-CO2 GHG emissions from livestock operations were approximately 2,286 

MtCO2e. 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 MtCO2e emitted in 2010. Globally, livestock is the largest 

source of CH4 emissions, contributing approximately 29% of total global CH4 emissions in 2010. As 

shown in Figure 3-2, the top 5 emitting countries – India, China, Brazil, the United States, and Pakistan – 

accounted for 44% of the sector’s total CH4 emissions. Growth in CH4 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 

3,000 

MtCO2 e 

2,202 2,286 

2,512 

2,729 

2000 2010 2020 2030 

Year 

Pakistan 

United States 

Brazil 

China 

India 

ROW 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-43 
 

LIVESTOCK 

Figure 3-2: CH4 Emissions Projections for the Livestock Sector: 2010–2030 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

MtCO2e 

India

Brazil

China

United States

Pakistan

ROW

India

Brazil

China

United States

Pakistan

ROW

India

Brazil

China

United States

Pakistan

ROW 

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 MtCO2e. Livestock contributed approximately 

4% of total global N2O emissions in 2010. As presented in Figure 3-3, China, India, the United States, 

Brazil, and Pakistan together account for 63% of global N2O emissions from livestock operations in 2010. 

N20 emissions are expected to grow about 16% between 2010 and 2030 to about 156 MtCO2e, slightly 

lower than the projected growth in CH4 emissions over the same time period. 

Figure 3-3: N20 Emissions Projections from the Livestock Sector: 2010–2030 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

MTCO2 e 

2010 2020 2030 

India 

China 

Brazil 

United States 

Pakistan 

ROW 

V-44 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 MtCO2e in 2030, or about 9.8% of total GHG emissions in that year. 

1 These 

results suggest that there are significant opportunities for GHG reductions in the livestock sector. 

Approximately 86 MtCO2e can be reduced in 2030 at no or low carbon prices below $5 per ton of CO2 

equivalent. 

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

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2 e 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

The following section offers a brief description of CH4 and N2O 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 CH4 emissions. Mitigation options that 

focus on potential reductions in N2O emissions are not included due to relatively small potential abatement potential 

and limited information on abatement measures and costs. However, N2O emissions are affected by changes 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

V.3.2 CH4 and N2O Emissions from Livestock Management 

This section discusses how CH4 and N2O emissions are produced in livestock operations and the 

current projections of baseline emissions between 2010 and 2030. 

V.3.2.1 CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation 

Enteric fermentation produced about 1945 MtCO2e of CH4 in 2010 and accounts for about 90% of the 

total CH4 emissions from livestock. Methane is produced as a by-product of the digestive process in 

animals. This microbial fermentation process produces CH4 that can be exhaled or excreted by the animal. 

The quantity of CH4 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 CH4 emissions; nonruminant animals (e.g., swine, horses, mules) also 

produce enteric CH4 emissions but at much lower rates compared to ruminant animals. 

The quantity, quality and digestibility of feed significantly affect enteric CH4 emissions. The main 

constituents of the diet - sugars, starch, fiber, protein and lipid - appear to have varying impacts on 

methane emissions. In general, increased intake of starch and soluble sugars decreases rumen pH, which 

suppresses methanogens, thus resulting in lower CH4 emissions. Lower feed quality such as higher 

content of insoluble fiber leads to higher CH4 emissions. Provision of feed supplements, such as dietary 

oils, is found to have an inhibitory effect on CH4 production in the rumen (Hristov et al., 2013). 

Management practices that improve animal productivity, such as the usage of antibiotics and bovine 

somatotropin (bST), often reduce CH4 emissions per unit of meat or milk even though these activities can 

increase CH4 emissions per animal. 

V.3.2.2 CH4 and N2O Emissions from Manure Management 

Manure Management CH4 Emissions 

Manure management produced about 206 MtCO2e of CH4 in 2010, smaller than enteric fermentation 

but still a significant global source of CH4 at about 3% of global total methane production.2 In livestock 

waste management systems, CH4 is produced when manure decomposes under anaerobic conditions, for 

example in lagoons, ponds or pits. The quantity of CH4 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). Higher ambient temperature and moisture conditions favor CH4 production. 

Manure Management N2O Emissions 

In addition to CH4, livestock waste management produced about 135 MtCO2e of N2O in 2010. Nitrous 

oxide is produced from livestock waste through nitrification and denitrification. Nitrous 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 2012). Nitrous oxide 

generation is most likely to occur in dry manure handling systems. 

2 Global CH4 emissions in 2010 totaled 7,549.2 MTCO2e (USEPA, 2012, Table A2) 

V-46 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

V.3.2.3 Baseline CH4 and N2O 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, total non-CO2 GHG emissions from livestock operations increased by 4% 

between 1990 and 2005, from 2,201 to 2,292 MtCO2e (USEPA, 2012). This 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 CH4 emissions increased 7% between 

1990 and 2005 while emissions of CH4 and N20 from livestock waste management decreased 9% between 

1990 and 2005. 

Projected Emissions Estimates 

This analysis uses the 2005 country-level livestock population data from the Global Anthropogenic 

Non-CO2 Emissions Report (“GER”) as a starting point (USEPA, 2012). However, for the period 2010— 

2030 an alternate business-as-usual forecast was constructed using livestock production and market price 

projections generated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)’s International Model 

for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) (Nelson et al., 2010) to derive 

projected livestock populations. A key rationale for relying directly on these model outputs is that the 

IFPRI IMPACT model projections 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 rapidly in developing countries than in the developed world. 

3 The year 2010, although historical, is the first year of the modeling forecast period. 

4 The IMPACT outputs separated the world into 116 regions, with larger countries defined individually and smaller 

countries combined into regions. A mapping 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-47 
 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

Table 3-1: Projected Baseline Emissions from Livestock Management: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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. Worldwide CH4 

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 from Enteric Fermentation: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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) 

V-48 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

Table 3-2: Projected Baseline Emissions from Enteric Fermentation: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) (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, worldwide 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 topemitting 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 of 

regions, global emissions grow at an average annual growth rate of 0.8%. 

Table 3-3: Projected Baseline Emissions from Manure Management: 2010–2030 (MtCO2e) 

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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 specific country, region or livestock production system. Assumptions 

have to be made to extrapolate the estimates in other countries, regions and production systems. This 

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 measures, such 

as those that potentially reduce livestock enteric fermentation CH4 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, this analysis evaluates six mitigation options for enteric fermentation CH4 emissions and ten 

options for manure management CH4 emissions. 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. 

V.3.3.1 Enteric Fermentation CH4 Mitigation Technologies 

This section characterizes the mitigation technologies that can be applied to reduce enteric CH4 

emissions. Many of the currently available enteric 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 because increased productivity means fewer animals are required to produce the same amount of 

meat or milk, and fewer animals mean reduced GHGs. 

Unfortunately, many 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 

outside than their potential role in reducing GHGs. Most have greater than usual uncertainty about costs 

and effectiveness, especially under long term use. For example, 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 fermentation GHG mitigation options, excluding them from cost or break-even analysis because 

“more 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 the sensitivity of these results to productivity assumptions in Section V.3.5 which replaces 

the assumption of constant production with an assumption of constant animal population and also 

examines a no antimethanogen case. 

V-50 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

Table 3-4: Abatement Measures for Enteric Fermentation CH4 

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

(2010 USD) (2010 USD) Revenue) 

Improved Feed 

Conversion 

0 25–295 per head NA CH4: –39.4% to 

+39.6% 

0–79% increase 

in animal yield 

Antibiotics 0 4–9 per head NA CH4: –0.4% to – 

6% 

5% increase in 

animal yield 

bST 0 123–300 per 

head 

NA CH4: –0.2% to 

+10.3% 

12.5% increase in 

animal yield 

Propionate 

Precursors 

0 40–120 per head NA CH4: –10% beef 

cattle and sheep; 

–25% dairy 

animals 

5% increase in 

animal yield 

Antimethanogen 0 9–33 per head NA CH4: –10% 5% increase in 

animal yield 

Intensive Grazing 0 –180 to +1 per 

head 

NA CH4: –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 option 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 and $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 variation 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 feed 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 already feed 

mixed rations). 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

•	 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 and $9 per head for 

beef cattle including the costs of antibiotics and increased labor costs for implementation. 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 (bST) 

This measure administers 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 and $300 per head for dairy cows. This cost is based on the cost of purchasing bST 

and the additional labor costs required for administering. 

•	 Annual Benefits: Using bST results 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 livestock production. 

•	 Technical Efficiency: This analysis assumes a reduction in emissions per head between 0% and 

6%. 

Propionate Precursors 

This option involves administering propionate precursors (malate, fumarate) to animals on a daily 

basis. Hydrogen produced in the rumen through fermentation can react to produce either CH4 or 

propionate. By adding propionate precursors to animal feed, more hydrogen is used to produce 

propionate and less CH4 is produced. 

•	 Annual Cost: Typical annual costs for purchasing and administering propionate precursors are 

between $40 and $120 per head for beef cattle, sheep, and dairy animals. 

•	 Annual Benefits: Administering propionate precursors results 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. 

V-52 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

•	 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 CH4 emissions per head of 10% for 

beef cattle and sheep and a reduction of 25% for dairy animals. 

Antimethanogen 

Antimethanogen is a vaccine that can be administered to animals to suppress CH4 production in the 

rumen. The vaccine is currently in infancy of development 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 and $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 ruminants 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 and $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 Manure Management CH4 Mitigation Technologies 

Mitigation options for reducing CH4 from livestock manure focus on changes in manure management 

practices that capture the CH4 to flare or use for energy production (see Table 3-5). There are fewer 

options for reducing N2O 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 smallscale digesters for developing regions. Revenues are generated from the use of captured CH4 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 2012; 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 are assumed for large digester systems with 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 much smaller in developing countries, the capital cost per animal 

generally ends up being lower than in developed regions. 

Table 3-5: Abatement Measures for Manure Management 

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 

(2010 USD) (2010 USD) Regions 

Complete-mix Digester, Hogs 

With Engine 100 per head 

(US) 

0.11 per head 

(US) 

20 CH4: -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 CH4: -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 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 

588 per head 

(US) 

2.06 per head 

(US) 

20 CH4: -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) 

V-54 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

(2010 USD) (2010 USD) Regions 

Fixed-film Digester, Hogs 

With Engine 128 per head 

(US) 

0.15 per head 

(US) 

20 CH4: -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 CH4: -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 CH4: -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 CH4: -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 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 

773 per head 

(US) 

2.01 per head 

(US) 

20 CH4: -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 CH4: -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 

(continued) 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

(2010 USD) (2010 USD) Regions 

Polyethylene 

Bag Digester, 

Cooking Fuel 

and Light 

20 per 1000 

lbs liveweight 

0.5 per 1000 

lbs liveweight 

10 CH4: -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 CH4: -85% $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 

the EU-27 

region 

Labor costs, 

labor share, 

energy prices 

Complete-mix Digester 

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: This 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-mix digesters, they are maintained at 

constant temperatures throughout the year to maintain constant gas production. 

V-56 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

•	 Capital Cost: $790/$1288 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 Lifetime: 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 option 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. CH4 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 significantly 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 about 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 per 1,000 lbs liveweight 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

•	 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: 10 years 

Centralized 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) , $1,007 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 livestock 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 

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-CO2 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.3.4.1 Development of Disaggregated Baseline Livestock Populations 

Livestock population projections at a disaggregated level are a key component of estimating potential 

emissions reductions from livestock production. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 present baseline projected livestock 

populations by species 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 (2012), adjusted using 

livestock production and market price projections from Nelson et al. (2010) to derive projected 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) 

V-58 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 grassland 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-59 
 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

Table 3-7: Regional Livestock Populations by Species, 2010 and 2030 

Asses Mules Buffalo Camels Cattle Dairy 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 America 

LIVESTOCK 

V-60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

production 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 used 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 categories 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 options. 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 irrigation or are in humid and 

subhumid or temperate highland LPS designations. The 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 manure management emissions for each subset of livestock populations 

were calculated using the IPCC default values consistent with those used in USEPA (2012). The one 

exception is for enteric fermentation emissions in Africa, where relative emissions reported in Robinson 

et al. (2011) were used to scale default IPCC emissions per head for different LPS categories. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-61 
 

LIVESTOCK 

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 Other 

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 OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 

V-62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 $5 per ton of CO2 equivalent ($/tCO2e). In 2030, total abatement potential in the livestock 

sector is 70 MtCO2e at no carbon price, 86 MtCO2e at a carbon price of $5/tCO2e, and 128 MtCO2e at a 

carbon price of $20/tCO2e, 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 (MtCO2e), Baseline 

Production Case 

Break-Even Price ($/tCO2e) 

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 

Mitigation potential and its cost-effectiveness vary 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. For 

instance, in 2030 mitigation potential in Asia is estimated to be 27 MtCO2e with no carbon price and 34 

MtCO2e at a carbon price of $20/tCO2e. Central and South America can achieve mitigation potential of 12 

MtCO2e in 2030 at no carbon price, and mitigation potential can increase to 22 MtCO2e at a carbon price 

of $20/tCO2e. Figure 3-5 shows the MAC curves for the top-five emitting countries in 2030. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

India 

Brazil 

China 

United States 

Pakistan 

The MAC analysis also suggests that mitigation of enteric fermentation methane emissions presents 

the most cost-effective mitigation opportunity for options evaluated in this report. Manure management 

mitigation measures mostly require additional investments or financial incentives to achieve emissions 

reductions. The 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/MtCO2e) 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 cattle 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 (regardless of price) calculated in the MAC analysis. 

V-64 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

Figure 3-6. Global Net GHG Livestock Emissions Reduction Potential by Mitigation Option (Baseline

Production Case) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

MtCO2 e 

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 may 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 result 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 constraint 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 increase 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-65 
 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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

2020, and 2030 

-$30 

-$20 

-$10 

$0 

$10 

$20 

$30 

$40 

$50 

$60 

$/tCO2e 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

$/tCO2e MTCO2e Production (%) MTCO2e Production(%) MTCO2e 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% 

V-66 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 additives, 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 mitigation 

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-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

2010 

2020 

2030 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-67 
 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

$/tCO2e MTCO2e Production (%) MTCO2e Production(%) MTCO2e 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. 

V-68 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 

$/tCO2 e 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

Non-CO2 Reduction (MtCO2e) 

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 

$/tCO2e MTCO2e Production (%) MTCO2e Production (%) MTCO2e 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-69 
 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 options. 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 2030 

Metric Tons 

Year 

Base 

Small Digesters 

Large Digesters 

Improved Feed Conversion 

Antibiotics 

bST 

Propionate Precursors 

Antimethanogen 

Intensive Grazing 

V-70 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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 2030 

Metric 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 conditions 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. 

•	 Availability 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 CH4 emissions and enhancement in soil 

carbon storage, would require a different analytical framework that is beyond the scope of this 

study. 

GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-71 
 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

•	 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 inhibit the adoption of a new GHG-mitigating 

technology (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 potential 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 mitigation 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 interactions may affect the 

aggregate 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 that reduce CH4 emissions from manure 

management (e.g., aeration) would likely increase N2O emissions; measures that improve feed 

conversion efficiency would likely change N2O emissions in livestock manure; measures that 

improve diet quality for grazing livestock would likely change GHG emissions from agricultural 

soils. The interactive effects are not fully addressed in this analysis. 

V-72 GLOBAL MITIGATION OF NON-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK 

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. Edited by Pierre J. 

Gerber, Benjamin Henderson and Harinder P.S. Makkar. FAO Animal Production 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. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2006). Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse 

Gases. EPA 430-R-06-005. Washington DC. 

USEPA (2010). Anaerobic Digestion Capital Costs for Dairy Farms. Washington, 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 Economics 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-CO2 GREENHOUSE GASES V-73 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460