Methane
Modeling non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation & the Importance of a Multi-gas Abatement Strategy Francisco de la Chesnaye Methane & Sequestration Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4th Sino-Korean-US Economic & Environmental Modeling Workshop, Beijing, China – May, 2001
Overview » Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Contribution to Climate Change » Benefits of Multi-gas Abatement Strategy » U.S. and China Estimates and Projections » Other Country Emission Estimates and Projections » Mitigation Analyses & Marginal Abatement Curves
Contribution of Anthropogenic Gases to Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Since Pre-Industrial Times (measured in Watts/m2)
24%
Carbon Dioxide 1.4 W/m2
5%
49%
12% 10%
Total = 2.9 Watts/m2 Source: Hansen, 2000
Methane 0.7 W/m2 Nitrous Oxide 0.15 W/m2
CFCs, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 0.35 W/m2
Tropospheric O3 0.3 W/m2
Sources of Non-CO2 Gases • Methane -- landfills, natural gas systems, coal mining, livestock manure, ruminant livestock; 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP) = 21 • N20 -- agricultural soils, autos, industrial (adipic & nitric acid production); GWP = 310 • High GWP Gases; GWPs range tens - thousands – HFC -- CFC substitutes: refrigeration, A/C, foams, solvents, fire extinguishing, aerosols – SF6 -- electricity generation, magnesium – PFCs -- aluminum and semiconductors – HFC-23 -- HCFC-22 production
Illustrative MACs for Methane and Carbon Dioxide
CH4
Share of Emissions ‘97/’98 (MMTCE) US 1,814: CO2 82%; non-CO2 18% China 980: CO2 78%; non-CO2 22%
P
CO2
Total Energy Prices
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
- benefits of multi-gas abatement strategy: lowers marginal and total costs of achieving reductions
P* $0
A*
0
Abated GHG (MMTCE)
Market Price
Methane Source and Abatement Technologies Methane Source (global %) Ruminant Livestock (23%)
Abatement Tech ($ - costed) Nutrition & Health; Production Enhancing Agents;
Rice Paddies (16%)
Change in growing practices
Natural Gas and Oil Systems (15%)
$ - Maintenance, practices, technologies
Biomass Burning (11%)
NA
Landfills (11%)
$ - Capture use for electricity gen or direct gas use, flares
Coal Mining (8%)
$ - Degasification, pipeline injection, Catalytic oxidation, flares
Domestic Sewage (7%)
Aerobic treatments
Livestock Manure Management (7%)
$ - Digester capture and use for electricity gen
Futute technologies: New catalytic oxidation; Fuel cells; micro-turbines; Methane inhibitors
U.S. Methane Emission Estimates & Projections by Source: 1990 - 2020 TG CH 4 35
MMTCE @ 21 GWP
Baseline Projections do not include U.S. Climate Change Action Plan reductions
201 Other
30
172 Ruminant Livestock
25
143 Livestock Manure
20
115 Coal Mining
15
86
10
57
5
29
0 Source:
Natural Gas and Oil Landfills 1990
2000
2010
2020
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990 – 2020: Inventories, Projections, and Reductions, EPA, 1999
Opportunities for
US Methane Emission Estimates • Landfills, natural gas, coal, manure, ruminants • Industry-specific data available through EPA voluntary programs • Common drivers of future emissions include human population growth, GDP per capita and and energy production and consumption – Reference Case of the Annual Energy Outlook prepared by the Energy Information Administration (DOE, 2001)
Industrialized Country BAU Methane Emissions by source 200
Natural Gas & Oil
Emissions (MMTCE)
180 160
Livestock Enteric Fermentation
140
Landfilling of Waste
120 Coal Mining 100 Livestock Manure Management
80 60 40
Other Non-Agricultural Sources
20
Other Agricultural Sources
0
Wastewater 1990
1995
2000 Year
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
2005
2010
200
China
100
India Brazil Mexico
0
Emissions (MMTCE)
300
Methane Projections for China, India, Brazil, & Mexico
1990
2000
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
Year
2010
2020
Methane Emissions in 2020 300
Natural Gas Manure Landfills
Emissions in 2020(MMTCE)
250
Ruminants 200
Rice
150
100
Coal 50
Total 5.4 0
China
India
Brazil Country
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
S.Kor
Methane Emissions by Sector for Select Regions Based on 2010 Baseline Emissions 300
Manure Management
Methane Emissions (MMTCE)
250
Natural Gas
Total Emissions 200
Coal Mining 150 Landfill 100 Enteric Fermentation 50
Rice Other
US
EU
Russia
Region Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
China
High GWP (F gases) 1995/97 & 2010 90.0
80.0
70.0
HFCs PFCs SF6
MMTCE
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 US 1995
Source: EPA Reports.
US 2010
EU 1995
EU 2010
China 1997 China 2010
S. Korea 1997
S. Korea 2010
U.S. Methane Marginal Abatement Curve for 2010 (major sources except ruminants) Abated Methane (% of Baseline of 186 MMTCE) 0%
11%
22%
33%
44%
$200 Increasing Energy Prices ($/MMBtu or $/kWh)
Value of Carbon Equivalent (1996 $/TCE)
$250
Observed Data
$150
$100
$ / TCE= 30e
$50
45 102−MMTCE − 60
$0
Market Price
($50) 0
10
20
30
40
50
A b a t e d M e t h a n e ( M M T C E) Source:
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990 – 2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions, EPA, 1999
60
70
80
EPA’s Cost Analysis Methodology • Identify emission reduction technologies and practices • Estimate achievable savings (GHG reductions) from each technology/practice • Investigate costs of each technology/practice (capital, O&M costs) and economic life • Solve for carbon-equivalent price for the savings that yield an NPV of $0 at selected discount rates
Methane Marginal Abatement Curve (MAC) • Landfills, natural gas systems, coal mines, and manure management sectors • Methodology and data validated by experience with EPA methane voluntary programs • Uses field cost data or a “model” system for benefitcost calculations • Comprehensive, based on over 280 observations yielding amount of abated methane and unit cost/price ranging from ($20) to $200 / ton of carbon equivalent
Methane (MAC)
• Rank order of individual opportunities by cost per emissions reduction • $0/ton CE set to market price of abated GHG – for methane this is an energy price
• Any point along a MAC represents the marginal cost of abating an additional unit of methane
China Methane MAC for 2010 Modeled vs Applying US Percent Reductions $250
$200
MAC based on new approach
$/TCE
$150
MAC based on applying US sectoral MAC % reductions
$100
MAC based on applying total US MAC % reductions
$50
$0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
$(50)
MMTCE
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
China HGWP MAC for 2010 Modeled vs Applying US Percent Reductions $250
$200
$/TCE
$150 MAC based on new approach $100
$50 MAC based on applying US % reductions $0 0
2
4
6
8
10
MMTCE
12
14
16
18
Methane Reductions by Sector Based on 2010 Baseline Emissions and a Carbon Price of $50/TCE
Methane Emissions (MMTCE)
250 Abatement from: 200 Manure Management
Total Emissions
Natural Gas 150
Coal Mining Landfills
100 Remaining Emissions 50
China
Russia
EU
Region Source: EPA Reports.
US
Methane Marginal Abatement Curves for Coal, Natural Gas, Landfills, & Manure Mgt, Select Regions - 2010 Baseline Emissions
Japan
Brazil Mexico
$200 $175
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
China
$150
EU-15
$125
Ukraine
$100
Russia
Australia/ New Zealand
$75
US
Canada
$50 India
$25 $0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
($25)
Methane Reductions (MMTCE)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Methane MACs based on 2010 Baseline Emissions for China, India, Brazil, and Mexico 250 225
Brazil
200
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
175 150 China
125 Mexico 100 75 50 India
25 0 -25
5.00
10.00
15.00
-50 -75 -100 Methane Reductions (MMTCE)
20.00
25.00
30.00
Percent of 2010 Baseline Methane Emissions Abated for Select Developing Countries 250
China 200
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
Brazil
150
100
India Mexico
50
0 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
-50
-100
Percent of 2010 Baseline Emissions
12%
14%
Methane Analysis Uncertainties and Limitations • Size and scale of methane sources over time • Major focus on currently available technologies • Lack of data on some of the technologies currently used by industry
Issues in Developing Global Methane MACs • Analytical Scenarios – – – –
U.S. or EU level data & analyses Russia, China, South Korea Brazil, Mexico Regional groups, e.g., SE Asia
• Transparency of analyses • Similarity and selections of options
Issues in Developing Global Methane MACs - continued • Industry / Social perspective, i.e., discount rates and taxes • Standardization of costs • Policies and measures in baseline • Data quality and availability • Technology innovation & diffusion
International non-CO2 GHG Network • Coordinated between US EPA MSB, IEA GHG R&D office in UK, and European Commission Environment DG • First, organizational meeting in Brussels June 14-15, 2001; focusing on emission and cost analyses methodologies; coverage of key regions, countries; representation of sectors; incorporation into macro-economic models • Next meeting at the 3rd Non-CO2 Conference, Netherlands, January 2002; looking to broaden participation from other countries, especially developing countries from Asia & Latin America
For More Information Francisco de la Chesnaye Tel: 202-564-0172 E-mail: [email protected] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation, Methane & Sequestration Branch 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (6202 J) Washington, DC 20460 Fax: 202-565-2077 www.epa.gov/ghginfo/
Nature, 7 Oct 99: “Multi-gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol.” By J. Reilly, R. Prinn, J. Harnisch, J. Fitzmaurice, H. Jacoby, D. Kicklighter, P. Stone, A. Sokolov, and C. Wang at MIT
• Looked at all GHG: CO2, CH4 , N2O and HGWPs & sinks • Showed that the inclusion of sinks and abatement opportunities from Non- CO2 gases could reduce the cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol by 60% • In 2010, for Annex B as a whole, the benefit of a multi-gas approach would be about $38 billion/year • For the U.S. alone, the benefit would be about $25 billion/year, a 40 percent reduction in costs from a CO2 only control approach • Suggests that 100-year GWPs fail to capture important time horizon and climate-chemistry effects
Science, 29 Oct 99: “Costs of multigreenhouse gas reduction targets for the U.S.” By K. Hayhoe, A. Jain, H. Pitcher, C. MacCracken, M. Gibbs, D. Wuebbles, R. Harvey, and D. Kruger
• Looked at CH4 and CO2 reductions • Multi-gas approach to meet greenhouse gas emission targets can – increases the control options – can lower the national costs of meeting international agreements
• Based on EPA MACs, it’s estimated that for short-term targets CH4 can offset CO2 reductions and reduce U.S. costs by more than 25% relative to strategies involving CO2 alone.
4th Sino-Korean-US Economic & Environmental Modeling Workshop, Beijing, China – May, 2001
Overview » Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Contribution to Climate Change » Benefits of Multi-gas Abatement Strategy » U.S. and China Estimates and Projections » Other Country Emission Estimates and Projections » Mitigation Analyses & Marginal Abatement Curves
Contribution of Anthropogenic Gases to Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Since Pre-Industrial Times (measured in Watts/m2)
24%
Carbon Dioxide 1.4 W/m2
5%
49%
12% 10%
Total = 2.9 Watts/m2 Source: Hansen, 2000
Methane 0.7 W/m2 Nitrous Oxide 0.15 W/m2
CFCs, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 0.35 W/m2
Tropospheric O3 0.3 W/m2
Sources of Non-CO2 Gases • Methane -- landfills, natural gas systems, coal mining, livestock manure, ruminant livestock; 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP) = 21 • N20 -- agricultural soils, autos, industrial (adipic & nitric acid production); GWP = 310 • High GWP Gases; GWPs range tens - thousands – HFC -- CFC substitutes: refrigeration, A/C, foams, solvents, fire extinguishing, aerosols – SF6 -- electricity generation, magnesium – PFCs -- aluminum and semiconductors – HFC-23 -- HCFC-22 production
Illustrative MACs for Methane and Carbon Dioxide
CH4
Share of Emissions ‘97/’98 (MMTCE) US 1,814: CO2 82%; non-CO2 18% China 980: CO2 78%; non-CO2 22%
P
CO2
Total Energy Prices
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
- benefits of multi-gas abatement strategy: lowers marginal and total costs of achieving reductions
P* $0
A*
0
Abated GHG (MMTCE)
Market Price
Methane Source and Abatement Technologies Methane Source (global %) Ruminant Livestock (23%)
Abatement Tech ($ - costed) Nutrition & Health; Production Enhancing Agents;
Rice Paddies (16%)
Change in growing practices
Natural Gas and Oil Systems (15%)
$ - Maintenance, practices, technologies
Biomass Burning (11%)
NA
Landfills (11%)
$ - Capture use for electricity gen or direct gas use, flares
Coal Mining (8%)
$ - Degasification, pipeline injection, Catalytic oxidation, flares
Domestic Sewage (7%)
Aerobic treatments
Livestock Manure Management (7%)
$ - Digester capture and use for electricity gen
Futute technologies: New catalytic oxidation; Fuel cells; micro-turbines; Methane inhibitors
U.S. Methane Emission Estimates & Projections by Source: 1990 - 2020 TG CH 4 35
MMTCE @ 21 GWP
Baseline Projections do not include U.S. Climate Change Action Plan reductions
201 Other
30
172 Ruminant Livestock
25
143 Livestock Manure
20
115 Coal Mining
15
86
10
57
5
29
0 Source:
Natural Gas and Oil Landfills 1990
2000
2010
2020
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990 – 2020: Inventories, Projections, and Reductions, EPA, 1999
Opportunities for
US Methane Emission Estimates • Landfills, natural gas, coal, manure, ruminants • Industry-specific data available through EPA voluntary programs • Common drivers of future emissions include human population growth, GDP per capita and and energy production and consumption – Reference Case of the Annual Energy Outlook prepared by the Energy Information Administration (DOE, 2001)
Industrialized Country BAU Methane Emissions by source 200
Natural Gas & Oil
Emissions (MMTCE)
180 160
Livestock Enteric Fermentation
140
Landfilling of Waste
120 Coal Mining 100 Livestock Manure Management
80 60 40
Other Non-Agricultural Sources
20
Other Agricultural Sources
0
Wastewater 1990
1995
2000 Year
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
2005
2010
200
China
100
India Brazil Mexico
0
Emissions (MMTCE)
300
Methane Projections for China, India, Brazil, & Mexico
1990
2000
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
Year
2010
2020
Methane Emissions in 2020 300
Natural Gas Manure Landfills
Emissions in 2020(MMTCE)
250
Ruminants 200
Rice
150
100
Coal 50
Total 5.4 0
China
India
Brazil Country
Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
S.Kor
Methane Emissions by Sector for Select Regions Based on 2010 Baseline Emissions 300
Manure Management
Methane Emissions (MMTCE)
250
Natural Gas
Total Emissions 200
Coal Mining 150 Landfill 100 Enteric Fermentation 50
Rice Other
US
EU
Russia
Region Source: Compiled in EPA Reports.
China
High GWP (F gases) 1995/97 & 2010 90.0
80.0
70.0
HFCs PFCs SF6
MMTCE
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 US 1995
Source: EPA Reports.
US 2010
EU 1995
EU 2010
China 1997 China 2010
S. Korea 1997
S. Korea 2010
U.S. Methane Marginal Abatement Curve for 2010 (major sources except ruminants) Abated Methane (% of Baseline of 186 MMTCE) 0%
11%
22%
33%
44%
$200 Increasing Energy Prices ($/MMBtu or $/kWh)
Value of Carbon Equivalent (1996 $/TCE)
$250
Observed Data
$150
$100
$ / TCE= 30e
$50
45 102−MMTCE − 60
$0
Market Price
($50) 0
10
20
30
40
50
A b a t e d M e t h a n e ( M M T C E) Source:
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990 – 2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions, EPA, 1999
60
70
80
EPA’s Cost Analysis Methodology • Identify emission reduction technologies and practices • Estimate achievable savings (GHG reductions) from each technology/practice • Investigate costs of each technology/practice (capital, O&M costs) and economic life • Solve for carbon-equivalent price for the savings that yield an NPV of $0 at selected discount rates
Methane Marginal Abatement Curve (MAC) • Landfills, natural gas systems, coal mines, and manure management sectors • Methodology and data validated by experience with EPA methane voluntary programs • Uses field cost data or a “model” system for benefitcost calculations • Comprehensive, based on over 280 observations yielding amount of abated methane and unit cost/price ranging from ($20) to $200 / ton of carbon equivalent
Methane (MAC)
• Rank order of individual opportunities by cost per emissions reduction • $0/ton CE set to market price of abated GHG – for methane this is an energy price
• Any point along a MAC represents the marginal cost of abating an additional unit of methane
China Methane MAC for 2010 Modeled vs Applying US Percent Reductions $250
$200
MAC based on new approach
$/TCE
$150
MAC based on applying US sectoral MAC % reductions
$100
MAC based on applying total US MAC % reductions
$50
$0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
$(50)
MMTCE
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
China HGWP MAC for 2010 Modeled vs Applying US Percent Reductions $250
$200
$/TCE
$150 MAC based on new approach $100
$50 MAC based on applying US % reductions $0 0
2
4
6
8
10
MMTCE
12
14
16
18
Methane Reductions by Sector Based on 2010 Baseline Emissions and a Carbon Price of $50/TCE
Methane Emissions (MMTCE)
250 Abatement from: 200 Manure Management
Total Emissions
Natural Gas 150
Coal Mining Landfills
100 Remaining Emissions 50
China
Russia
EU
Region Source: EPA Reports.
US
Methane Marginal Abatement Curves for Coal, Natural Gas, Landfills, & Manure Mgt, Select Regions - 2010 Baseline Emissions
Japan
Brazil Mexico
$200 $175
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
China
$150
EU-15
$125
Ukraine
$100
Russia
Australia/ New Zealand
$75
US
Canada
$50 India
$25 $0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
($25)
Methane Reductions (MMTCE)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Methane MACs based on 2010 Baseline Emissions for China, India, Brazil, and Mexico 250 225
Brazil
200
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
175 150 China
125 Mexico 100 75 50 India
25 0 -25
5.00
10.00
15.00
-50 -75 -100 Methane Reductions (MMTCE)
20.00
25.00
30.00
Percent of 2010 Baseline Methane Emissions Abated for Select Developing Countries 250
China 200
Value of Carbon Equivalent ($/TCE)
Brazil
150
100
India Mexico
50
0 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
-50
-100
Percent of 2010 Baseline Emissions
12%
14%
Methane Analysis Uncertainties and Limitations • Size and scale of methane sources over time • Major focus on currently available technologies • Lack of data on some of the technologies currently used by industry
Issues in Developing Global Methane MACs • Analytical Scenarios – – – –
U.S. or EU level data & analyses Russia, China, South Korea Brazil, Mexico Regional groups, e.g., SE Asia
• Transparency of analyses • Similarity and selections of options
Issues in Developing Global Methane MACs - continued • Industry / Social perspective, i.e., discount rates and taxes • Standardization of costs • Policies and measures in baseline • Data quality and availability • Technology innovation & diffusion
International non-CO2 GHG Network • Coordinated between US EPA MSB, IEA GHG R&D office in UK, and European Commission Environment DG • First, organizational meeting in Brussels June 14-15, 2001; focusing on emission and cost analyses methodologies; coverage of key regions, countries; representation of sectors; incorporation into macro-economic models • Next meeting at the 3rd Non-CO2 Conference, Netherlands, January 2002; looking to broaden participation from other countries, especially developing countries from Asia & Latin America
For More Information Francisco de la Chesnaye Tel: 202-564-0172 E-mail: [email protected] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation, Methane & Sequestration Branch 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (6202 J) Washington, DC 20460 Fax: 202-565-2077 www.epa.gov/ghginfo/
Nature, 7 Oct 99: “Multi-gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol.” By J. Reilly, R. Prinn, J. Harnisch, J. Fitzmaurice, H. Jacoby, D. Kicklighter, P. Stone, A. Sokolov, and C. Wang at MIT
• Looked at all GHG: CO2, CH4 , N2O and HGWPs & sinks • Showed that the inclusion of sinks and abatement opportunities from Non- CO2 gases could reduce the cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol by 60% • In 2010, for Annex B as a whole, the benefit of a multi-gas approach would be about $38 billion/year • For the U.S. alone, the benefit would be about $25 billion/year, a 40 percent reduction in costs from a CO2 only control approach • Suggests that 100-year GWPs fail to capture important time horizon and climate-chemistry effects
Science, 29 Oct 99: “Costs of multigreenhouse gas reduction targets for the U.S.” By K. Hayhoe, A. Jain, H. Pitcher, C. MacCracken, M. Gibbs, D. Wuebbles, R. Harvey, and D. Kruger
• Looked at CH4 and CO2 reductions • Multi-gas approach to meet greenhouse gas emission targets can – increases the control options – can lower the national costs of meeting international agreements
• Based on EPA MACs, it’s estimated that for short-term targets CH4 can offset CO2 reductions and reduce U.S. costs by more than 25% relative to strategies involving CO2 alone.
