Ohio's GHG Emissions Profile Update

Transcription

1 Ohio's GHG Emissions Profile Update Kevin Crist Director, Center for Air Quality 9/27/213 1

2 Current Status of Ohio in U.S. % Contribution to Total CO 2 in U.S Total CO 2 Emissions: 4 th 677 MMTCO MMTCO 2 4.5% TX CA PA OH FL IL IN Commercial: 7 th Electric Power: 2 th Transportation: 7 th Industrial: 6 th Source: Energy Information Administration (29) 2 Residential: 6 th

3 Task 1 Overview 3

4 Inventory Process Activity Data Fuel burning, material production/fed, energy consumption, population Fuel combustion Industrial processes Agriculture Livestock Point Sources E GHG = Activity EF GHG Landfill MSW Residential heating Area Sources CO 2 Emission Factors (EF) (OEPA, USEPA, CARB, EIA) CH 4, N 2 O EFs (USEPA, CARB, EIA, IPCC, OhioEPA) Industrial & commercial fuel combustion Fuel Combustion in Road Vehicles Mobile 4

5 CO 2 eq. million metric tonnes Ohio GHG Emissions by Categories % 6 % 8 % 26 % 46 % % 1 % 3 % Industrial Processes 11.1 MMT (4 %) 4 2 2% 1% Energy MMT (93 %) 1 % Total GHG = 255 million metric tones CO 2 equivalents Energy Industrial Processes Agriculture Livestock Waste 2 1 Fugitive Emissions Commercial Residential Industrial Transportation Electric Generation Metal Minerals Chemical Manure Mangement Enteric fermentation Open Burning of Waste Landfills

6 Comparison with Other Estimates Electric generation commercial Industrial Residential Transportation Ohio Texas California Pennsylvania Florida OU 28 Vulcan 22 EIA 28 Vulcan 22 EIA 28 Vulcan 22 EIA 28 Vulcan 22 EIA 28 Vulcan 22 EIA 28 Fossil Fuel Combustion Electric generation Commercial Industrial Residential Transportation

7 GHG Website: Functionality Menu Select emissions by State OR Source Categories 7

8 GHG Website: Functionality Query Engine: Data Selection Select sub categories Select ALL or each GHG gases Select maps for point sources OR county aggregates Select emission range 8

9 GHG Website: Functionality Tabular View Emission for each individual sources within selected query Summary of selected sources by categories 9

10 GHG Website: Functionality Map View Point Sources County Total / Area Sources Color scale indicates emission ranges Color indicates emission intensity of point sources viz. power plants 1

11 GHG Website: Functionality Graphical tools Emissions total for category and sub category Pie Chart Legend 11

12 Web based GHG Management Go to 12

13 GHG Website: Mobile Sources Go to 13

14 Spatial Allocation of Mobile Emissions Surrogate: Daily VMT by roadways

15 15

16 Historical GHG Emissions (MMTCO 2 ) Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electric Power Total

17 Power Plant GHG Trend Bay Shore (Lucas County) 5 Eastlake (Lake County) 1 Avon Lake (Lorain County) Conesville (Coshocton County) Cardinal (Jefferson County) 1 5 Muskingum River (Washington County) Miami Fort (Hamilton County) JM Stuart (Adams County) GJ M Gavin (Gallia County) Million Metric Tons (MMT) *CO2 Emissions Units (Y Axis) is 5

18 18

19 Carbon Pollution Standard EPA Avg for Coal: 1768 lb CO 2 /MWH) Carbon Sequestration 19

20 Fracking: Potential GHG Source Methane is a major component of this footprint, and we estimate that % of the lifetime production of a shale gas well (compared with 1.7 6% for conventional gas wells) is vented or leaked to the atmosphere from the well head, pipelines and storage facilities. R. W. Howarth et al., Clim. Change 16, (211) High leakage rates, a short methane GWP, and comparison in terms of heat content are the inappropriate bases upon which Howarth et al. ground their claim that gas could be twice as bad as coal in its greenhouse impact. Using more reasonable leakage rates and bases of comparison, shale gas has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal. L. M. Cathles et al., Clim Change 113, (212) 2

21 Fracking: Potential GHG Source Pilot Air Sampling study in Colorado G. Pétron et al., J. Geophys. Res. Volume 117, Issue D4, 27 February 212 says Pétron, but a big part of it is just raw gas that is leaking from the infrastructure. Their range of % loss, with a best guess of 4%, is slightly higher than Cornell s estimate of % for shale gas drilling and production. J. Tollefson. Nature 482, (9 February 212) However, uncertainties remain over the extent of methane leakage from these operations. For example, this study (G. Pétron et al.) relied heavily on data from mobile laboratory samples taken in summer 28, before regulations reduced emissions of volatile organic compounds to 9%, and before low bleed pneumatic devices were implemented to reduce methane emissions from the field. K.M. Sgamma. Nature 483, 47 (22 March 212) 21

22 Acknowledgement Funding Agency: Ohio Department of Development Tom Velalis, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Collaborators 22

23 Questions? 23 Thank You