Managing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in Wastewater Treatment Plants

Transcription

1 Managing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in Wastewater Treatment Plants Kentson Yan Daryl McCartney, Ph.D., P.Eng. Joel Nodelman, P.Eng. Western Canada Water 2013 Conference Sept , 2013 Edmonton, Alberta Pre-Conference Workshop September 17,

2 Today s Outline Introductions & Objectives Three lectures 1. GHG Inventory & Carbon Trading and Markets 2. GHG Life Cycle Assessment Models 3. Biosolids Management Case Study Class Exercise Summary 2

3 Co-authors Acknowledgements Dr. Daryl McCartney (Prof., University of Alberta & Executive Director, EWMCE) Mr. Joel Nodelman (President, Nodelcorp) City of Edmonton Alan Mangory (Drainage Services) Christian Felske (Waste Management Services) EWMCE 3

4 Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence (EWMCE) Technology Development Testing Verification EWMCE Education and Training Training Technical Seminars Applied Research Solid Waste Wastewater Research 4

5 A little about me Kentson Yan Research Engineering Intern, EWMCE B.Eng. Ryerson University M.Sc. University of Alberta (in progress) Born and raised in Toronto, ON. 5

6 Why me? Area Carbon Accounting in Solid Waste M.Sc. Thesis GHG Biosolids Management an industry-sponsored seminar presentation; a peer-reviewed conference manuscript & presentation; an invited presentation to Tsinghua University, China; 3 industrial reports (on carbon credits): L&YW study for the Province of Alberta Biosolids Management for the City of Edmonton HSADF for the City of Edmonton and University of Alberta 6

7 Class Introduction Name Title Affiliation/Organization 7

8 Objectives of this Workshop Topics I d like to share 1. GHG significance in W/WW & Biosolids 2. Carbon accounting Offset Credits Levels of GHG reporting 3. Tools in carbon accounting 8

9 Lecture 1 GHG Inventory & Carbon Trading and Markets Outline GHG Inventory Global Canadian Carbon Trading and Carbon Markets Carbon Credits / Offset Credits Common Terminology Carbon Markets 9

10 Global GHG Emissions Annual Anthropogenic In 2004, Source: IPCC

11 Global GHG Emissions by Country (in 2009) Source: Boden et al

12 Source: UNFCCC

13 Canadian Emissions ( ) Source: Environment Canada

14 Canadian GHG Emissions by Sector (in 2011) Total Emission = 702 Mt CO 2 e Waste 3% Agriculture 8% Industrial Processes 8% Energy 81% Stationary Combustion 45% Transport 28% Fugitive 8% Source: Environment Canada

15 Source: USEPA

16 GHG Emission (Mt CO 2 e) Canadian GHG Emissions Waste Sector Waste Incineration 10 5 Wastewater Handling Solid Waste Disposal on Land Year Source: Environment Canada

17 National Climate Change Initiatives Environment Canada Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program Any facility over 50,000 tonnes CO 2 e annually must report Canada developed several non-binding, voluntary frameworks 17

18 Climate Change Initiatives cont. Provincial Western Climate Initiative (WCI) BC, MB, ON, & QC full members YT, SK, & NS are observed members Along US states and Mexican states collaboration of independent jurisdictions working together to identify, evaluate, and implement trading policies to tackle climate change at a regional level 18

19 Alberta Climate Change Initiatives cont. Passed Climate Change and Emissions Management (CCEM) Act Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) Regulated facility (> 100,000 tonne CO 2 e/yr) reduce by 12% If over, 3 compliance mechanisms (financial-based) Compliance mechanisms (per tonne CO 2 e) Technology funds = $15 Emission performance credits (EPC) = ~$12 Offset credits = ~$12 Alberta Offset System 19

20 Carbon Credits Also known as offset credits Reduction in GHG emissions Carbon credits = baseline emissions project emissions 20

21 Example of Carbon Credit Baseline Condition = Carbon Credit Edmonton Toronto Project Condition 21

22 Class Discussion Provide an example of potential GHG reductions within your facility Hint: 1. Baseline condition (current practice) 2. Project condition (future practice) 22

23 Carbon Cycle Terminology Source Sink Reservoir Biogenic Process 23

24 Terminology Upstream emission occurring upstream of the project/activity Direct emission during the project Process emissions Equipment emissions Indirect emission consequence of the project Fossil fuel production Carbon sequestration Downstream emission occurring downstream of the project/activity 24

25 Types of Emissions Scope 1, 2, & 3 Scope 1 Direct emission from operations Commonly reported in W/WW E.g. on-site fossil fuel combustion (stationary and mobile) Scope 2 Indirect emissions from purchased energy sources Usually, largest in W/WW Energy-intensive processes (e.g. aeration, pumps) Scope 3 All indirect emissions from sources not owned Varies in W/WW E.g. chemical production & distribution, waste disposal 25

26 Carbon Credits Also known as offset credits Reduction in GHG emissions Carbon credits = baseline emissions project emissions Reduced GHG emissions that typically would not occur under conventional, standard, or typical conditions Reductions beyond business as usual conditions 26

27 Example of Carbon Credit less emissions (same practice) = Emission Performance Credits* Edmonton Calgary Toronto BUSINESS AS USUAL change in practice *term from Alberta Environment - may not be used/known universally = Carbon Credit 27

28 Carbon Credit Unit metric tonne carbon dioxide equivalence Expressed in multiple forms: tonne CO 2 e; t CO2e; Mg CO 2-e ; MTCE; Related to global warming potential (GWP) GWP atmospheric impact with respect to a reference gas over a specified time Greenhouse Gas 20 yrs 100 yrs 500 yrs Carbon dioxide, CO Methane, CH Nitrous oxide, N 2 O Source: IPCC

29 Carbon Credit Unit IPCC published Assessment Reports (AR): GWP Values 100-year period AR (1990) SAR (1995) TAR (2001) AR4 (2007) Carbon dioxide, CO Methane, CH Nitrous oxide, N 2 O Source: IPCC

30 Carbon Credit Creation Process 30

31 Key Players in the Carbon Market 31

32 Common Trading System Criteria 32

33 Alberta Offset System Eligibility Criteria Criterion Description Geographic Boundary Additional Real, Demonstrable, & Quantifiable Verifiable Ownership Project located in Alberta Incremental to regulatory requirements, Incremental to business as usual and industry common practices Project demonstrates a net GHG reduction Quantified according to generally accepted methodologies Verifiable by an independent third party review (i.e. sufficient regulatory quality records) Paper trail confirming ownership Counted once Government Approved Protocol Reductions are unique and can only be counted once Government approved quantification method (e.g. Quantification Protocol) Source: Alberta Environment

34 Class Discussion Would your Example be eligible for carbon credits? 34

35 Carbon Markets Alberta Offset System The European Exchange International trading in Kyoto instruments: Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) Projects Joint Implementation (JI) Projects California Climate Action Registry Chicago Climate Exchange 35

36 Area of Risk in a Typical Offset System Risk Regulatory Description Will the regulator change the rules or disqualify offsets? Delivery Will the project underperform or fail completely? Verification Will the verifier discount or disqualify offsets? Market Will public perception undermine the value of the offset? 36

37 Factors Affecting Offset Price 37

38 Lecture 2 GHG LCA Models Outline Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Terminology Key Concepts Levels of GHG Reporting GHG Models: Water Wastewater Biosolids 38

39 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Also known as life-cycle analysis and cradle-to-grave analysis Tool used to determine environmental impacts with respect to the entire product s life Provides a holistic perspective Identifies all impacts; sources and sinks; etc 39

40 LCA Framework Stages of an LCA (ISO 14040:2006(E)) Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Interpretation Direct applications: - Product development and improvement - Strategic planning. - Public policy making. - Marketing. - Other. Impact assessment 40

41 Term Functional Unit Emission Factor (or energy factor) System Boundaries Definitions (Sundqvist 2004) Description Basis for quantitative calculations Several units, each one representing an essential utility that is produced from waste; e.g.: - Treatment of a specific amount of waste - Dry tonnes of biosolids per year - Volume of wastewater per year Presented in relation to an input or output parameter: - Per weight of product - Related to energy content Examples: - Tonnes CO 2 e per tonnes of biosolids processed - MJ (or litres of diesel oil) per kg of transported product and per km transport distance Defines the system studied; to avoid ambiguous Can be: - Geographic boundaries, e.g. with a municipality - Time boundaries, e.g. waste generated per year - Functional boundaries, e.g. waste that can be used for 41 biological treatment

42 Levels of GHG Reporting TIER 1 Global; Protocol IPCC; World Resources Institute; World Business Council for Sustainable Development; ISO TIER 2 National; Regional; Model Environment Canada; Carbon Markets (e.g. Alberta Offset System) TIER 3 Facility-specific Industry association standards; research papers; site- or plant-specific 42

43 Levels of GHG Reporting cont. Tier 1 Global; Protocol World Resources Institute World Business Council for Sustainable Development ISO series; quantify, monitor, report, & verify GHG 1 Organization-level 2 Project-level (e.g. facility) 3 Validation and/or verification IPCC 43

44 Levels of GHG Reporting cont. Tier 2 National; Regional; Model IPCC (2006) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories Volume 5 Waste Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal Chapter 6 WW Treatment and Discharge Environment Canada (2013) National Inventory Report : GHG Sources & Sinks in Canada Chapter 8 Waste Carbon Trading Markets Alberta Offset System - Anaerobic Treatment of WW Projects* Clean Development Mechanisms - Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment 44

45 Levels of GHG Reporting Tier 3 Site-specific Use site-specific parameters from Tier 2 models Smoke stack approach Continuous monitoring Engineering measurements 45

46 Water and Wastewater GHG Models Water UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) - Methodologies for Estimating Operational Emissions Wastewater Carbon Heat Energy Analysis Plant Evaluation Tool (CHEApet) Bridle model 46

47 Biosolids Management GHG Models Four known Models 1. Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM) 2. Organic Waste Research (ORWARE) 3. Gould et al. 4. G E S TABoues 47

48 1. Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM) Canadian model GHG emissions specific to biosolids management practices in Canada Adopted by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Developed by Sylvis (2009) Based on various research studies and nine (9) Canadian municipal programs 48

49 2. Organic Waste Recycling (ORWARE) Swedish model Jointly developed by: The Royal Institute of Technology, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Swedish Institute of Agricultural & Environmental Engineering, and Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences Focuses on GHG emissions and other environmental impacts Sub-model for sewage sludge 49

50 American model 3. Gould et al. Gould et al. (2008) developed their own GHG model, specifically in biosolids management Based on: various literature; IPCC guidelines; Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM); and other GHG quantifying tools Uses US-specific data e.g. upstream electricity emission factor 50

51 4. G E S TABoues French model Developed by Pradel and Reverdy (2012) GHG tool for biosolids management Based loosely on the BEAM 51

52 Danish model EASEWASTE Currently in development, to include biosolids management Extension of current model for municipal solid waste Developed at the Technical University of Denmark Model predicts GHG emissions and other environmental impacts 52

53 Comparison of GHG Biosolids Management Models Criteria BEAM ORWARE Gould et al. G E S TABoues Country of Origin Canada Sweden United States France Availability for Review Full model (version 1.3) Very limited Limited Limited Greenhouse Gas CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O GWP Value (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O) 1, 21, 310 1, 21, 310 1, 23, 296 1, 25, 298 Biogenic Emissions Excluded Unknown Excluded Excluded Functional Unit Dry tonnes of biosolids Unknown Dry tonnes of biosolids Per-capita equivalent 53

54 Comparison of GHG Biosolids Management Models Criteria BEAM Gould et al. G E S TABoues Sludge Treatment Thickening Digestion Dewatering Stabilization Reuse and Disposal Options Composting Incineration Lagoon Storage Land Application Landfill Disposal X X 54

55 Comparison of GHG Biosolids Management Models Criteria BEAM Gould et al. G E S TABoues Offsets and Avoided Emissions Carbon seq. in land application Carbon seq. in landfill disposal Commercial Fertilizer Other Emissions Infrastructure construction & demolition X X 55

56 GHG Model All models are developed within the framework of LCA, but differ in: Objectives Intended users Governing policy Resulting in all models to have different: Scope Level of detail Methodological issues 56

57 Biosolids Management Studies Nutrient vs. Energy Recovery Favours Nutrient Suh and Rousseaux (2002) Lundin et al. (2004) Hospido et al. (2005) Gould et al. (2008) Pasqualino et al. (2009) Brown et al. (2010) Favours Energy Bridle and Skyrpski-Mantele (2000) Brown and Leonard (2004) Houillon and Jolliet (2005) Tarantini et al. (2007) Peters and Rowley (2009) Beecher et al. (2010) 57

58 Outline Lecture 3 Case Study Biosolids Management Objective & Background Identify Baseline & Project Conditions GHG Analysis Establish Calculation Method GHG Calculations Gaps/Limitations 58

59 Objective of Study Estimate GHG offsets from changes in biosolids management practices at Clover Bar (Edmonton Waste Management Centre) 59

60 City of Edmonton Clover Bar (Edmonton, AB) WWTPs (anaerobically digested sludge) Land Application Lagoons (gravity thicken) Composting Lagoon Storage 60

61 Identify Baseline Condition Land Application: 6,000 Shallow Lagoon Transportation Land Application 30,000 Composting: 15,000 WWTPs Deep Lagoon Centrifuge Composting Transportation Land Applied Lagoon Storage: 9,000 Deep Lagoon Unit: dry tonnes (DT) = Mg (dry) of biosolids 61

62 Identify Baseline Condition Estimate GHG offsets from changes in biosolids management practices Review: Offset Credit Reduced GHG emissions that typically would not occur under conventional, standard, or typical conditions 62

63 Identify Baseline Condition Land Application: 6,000 Shallow Lagoon Transportation Land Application 30,000 Composting: 15,000 WWTPs Deep Lagoon Centrifuge Composting Transportation Land Applied Lagoon Storage: 9,000 Deep Lagoon Unit: dry tonnes (DT) = Mg (dry) of biosolids 63

64 Identify Project Conditions Proposed by Drainage Services, City of Edmonton 1. Land Application 2. Composting 3. Biosolids Cake Storage 4. Thermal Energy 5. Landfill Disposal 64

65 Summary of Emissions Baseline and Project Condition Condition Biosolids Mass M (dry tonnes, DT) Factor (tonnes CO 2 e/dt) GHG Emission (tonnes CO 2 e) BL) Lagoon Storage 9,000 P1) Land Application 9,000 P2) Composting 9,000 P3) Biosolids Cake Storage 9,000 P4) Thermal Energy 9,000 P5) Landfill Disposal 9,000 65

66 Calculation Methodology Modified ISO Identify sources and sinks (SS) LCA tool 2. Select quantification methodology BEAM 3. Collect activity data case study 4. Select or develop emission factor various 5. Calculate each SS emission # Determine total emission #5 7. Calculate offset credit Offset credits = baseline emissions project emissions 66

67 General LCA in Biosolids Management Upstream SS s During Project Biosolids Generation Collection and Transportation Fuel Delivery Fuel Extraction/Processing Chemical Production and Transportation Off Site Material Processing Electricity Usage Transportation of Equipment Building Equipment Upstream SS s Before Project Development of Site Construction on Site Testing of Equipment Biosolids Transportation On Site SS s During Project Processing and Treatment Downstream SS s During Project Biosolids Utilization Feedstock Handling Residue Handling Residue Disposal Downstream SS s After Project Site Decommissioning Carbon Sequestration 67

68 Significant Sources and Sinks (SS) Upstream SS s During Project Fuel Extraction/Processing Chemical Production and Transportation Upstream SS s Before Project On Site SS s During Project Electricity Usage Downstream SS s After Project Processing and Treatment Downstream SS s During Project Biosolids Utilization Carbon Sequestration 68

69 Significant Sources and Sinks (SS) WWTP A. Storage and Processing B. Transportation C. Beneficial enduse / Disposal For Lagoon Storage (Baseline Condition): 1. Deep Lagoon (>2 m) 69

70 Summary of Emissions Baseline Condition Sources and Sinks Biosolids Mass M (dry tonnes, DT) Factor (tonnes CO 2 e/dt) GHG Emission (tonnes CO 2 e) Deep lagoon 9,000 TOTAL 70

71 Steps 2, 3 & 4 2) Quantification Methodology Biosolids Emission Assessment Model (BEAM) adopted by CCME 3) Activity Data Analytical reports Consulting reports Information from City of Edmonton (e.g. operators) 4) Emission Factors Default/typical values from BEAM National or provincial values 71

72 Deep Lagoon (depth > 2m) E deep = E electricity + E methane = M x 0.27 E electricity = 0 (no electricity used) E methane = M x BOD 5 x %R x MEF x %days x GWP CH4 tonnes CO 2 e/yr Symbol Description Value (ref./notes) M Biosolids mass -- BOD 5 Conversion coefficient to BOD 5 from mass = *29.7% (analytical report) x 100% (assumed) %R % of typical BOD removal 90% (BEAM) MEF Methane emission factor 0.40 kg CH 4 /kg BOD 5 (BEAM) %days % of days in a year, where the temperature is above 15 C 12% in AB. (BEAM) GWP CH4 Global warming potential of methane 21 (IPCC) *BOD 5 value not measured only information is TOC (total organic carbon) 72

73 Summary of Emissions Baseline and Project Condition Condition Biosolids Mass M (dry tonnes, DT) Factor (tonnes CO 2 e/dt) GHG Emission (tonnes CO 2 e) BL) Lagoon 9, ,430 P1) Land Application 9,000 P2) Composting 9,000 P3) Biosolids Cake Storage 9,000 P4) Thermal Energy 9,000 P5) Landfill Disposal 9,000 73

74 Calculation Methodology Modified ISO Identify sources and sinks (SS) 2. Select quantification methodology 3. Collect activity data 4. Select or develop emission factor 5. Calculate each SS emission 6. Determine total emission Repeat for each Project Condition 7. Calculate offset credit Offset credits = baseline emissions project emissions 74

75 Summary of Emissions Baseline and Project Condition Condition Biosolids Mass M (dry tonnes, DT) Factor (tonnes CO 2 e/dt) GHG Emission (tonnes CO 2 e) BL) Lagoon 9, ,430 P1) Land Application 9, ,170 P2) Composting 9, ,870 P3) Biosolids Cake Storage 9, ,790 P4) Thermal Energy 9, ,500 P5) Landfill Disposal 9, ,860 75

76 Calculation Methodology Modified ISO Identify sources and sinks (SS) 2. Select quantification methodology 3. Collect activity data 4. Select or develop emission factor 5. Calculate each SS emission 6. Determine total emission 7. Calculate offset credit Offset credits = baseline emissions project emissions 76

77 Offset Credits (tonnes CO 2 e) Potential Offset Credits (baseline = lagoon storage) 5, ,000-10,000-15,000-20,000 P1) Land Application P2) Composting P3) Biosolids Cake Storage P4) Thermal Energy P5) Landfill Disposal 77

78 Gaps in Calculations Emissions/removals excluded: Removals from carbon sequestration via plants Offsets from commercial fertilizers Offsets from cement replacement in thermal energy (combustion) 78

79 Uncertainty with Baseline Emission E deep = E electricity + E methane = M x 0.27 E electricity = 0 (no electricity used) E methane = M x BOD 5 x %R x MEF x %days x GWP CH4 tonnes CO 2 e/yr Symbol Description Value (ref./notes) M Biosolids mass -- BOD 5 Conversion coefficient to BOD 5 from mass = 29.7% (analytical report) x 100% (assumed) %R % of typical BOD removal 90% (BEAM) MEF Methane emission factor 0.40 kg CH 4 /kg BOD 5 (BEAM) %days BOD 5 (Biological Oxygen Demand at 5 days) % of days in a year, where the temperature is above 15 C TOC (Total Organic Carbon) 12% in AB. (BEAM) GWP CH4 Global warming potential of methane 21 (IPCC) BOD 5 / TOC = 50% to 200% (Metcalf and Eddy 2003) Baseline emissions could be 50% less or 200% more Conservative approach? 50%, no credits? 79

80 Next Steps Verify GHG estimates On-site measurements Generally accepted method? Additional studies (or sensitivity analysis) BOD 5 for lagoon Site-specific data Check with Carbon Market criterion E.g. Alberta Offset System 80

81 Alberta Offset System Eligibility Criteria Criterion Description Geographic Boundary Additional Real, Demonstrable, & Quantifiable Verifiable Ownership Project located in Alberta Incremental to regulatory requirements, Incremental to business as usual and industry common practices Project demonstrates a net GHG reduction Quantified according to generally accepted methodologies Verifiable by an independent third party review (i.e. sufficient regulatory quality records) Paper trail confirming ownership Counted once Government Approved Protocol Reductions are unique and can only be counted once Government approved quantification method (e.g. Quantification Protocol) Source: Alberta Environment

82 Today s Outline Introductions & Objectives Three lectures 1. GHG Inventory & Carbon Trading and Markets 2. GHG Life Cycle Assessment Models 3. Biosolids Management Case Study Class Exercise Summary 82

83 Objectives of this Workshop Topics I d like to share 1. GHG significance in W/WW & Biosolids 2. Carbon accounting Offset Credits Levels of GHG reporting 3. Tools in carbon accounting 83

84 GHG Emission (Mt CO 2 e) Canadian GHG Emissions Waste Sector Waste Incineration 10 5 Wastewater Handling Solid Waste Disposal on Land Year Source: Environment Canada

85 Source: USEPA

86 Example of Carbon Credit less emissions (same practice) = Emission Performance Credits* Edmonton Calgary Toronto BUSINESS AS USUAL change in practice *term from Alberta Environment - may not be used/known universally = Carbon Credit 86

87 Levels of GHG Reporting TIER 1 Global; Protocol IPCC; World Resources Institute; World Business Council for Sustainable Development; ISO TIER 2 National; Regional; Model Environment Canada; Carbon Markets (e.g. Alberta Offset System) TIER 3 Facility-specific Industry association standards; research papers; site- or plant-specific 87

88 Uncertainty with Baseline Emission E deep = E electricity + E methane = M x 0.27 E electricity = 0 (no electricity used) E methane = M x BOD 5 x %R x MEF x %days x GWP CH4 tonnes CO 2 e/yr Symbol Description Value (ref./notes) M Biosolids mass -- BOD 5 Conversion coefficient to BOD 5 from mass = 29.7% (analytical report) x 100% (assumed) %R % of typical BOD removal 90% (BEAM) MEF Methane emission factor 0.40 kg CH 4 /kg BOD 5 (BEAM) %days BOD 5 (Biological Oxygen Demand at 5 days) % of days in a year, where the temperature is above 15 C TOC (Total Organic Carbon) 12% in AB. (BEAM) GWP CH4 Global warming potential of methane 21 (IPCC) BOD 5 / TOC = 50% to 200% (Metcalf and Eddy 2003) Baseline emissions could be 50% less or 200% more Conservative approach? 50%, no credits? 88

89 GHG Model All models are developed within the framework of LCA, but differ in: Objectives Intended users Governing policy Resulting in all models to have different: Scope Level of detail Methodological issues 89

90 Thank You! Kentson Yan Research Engineer Intern Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence Edmonton, Alberta Tel: Contact Kentson for references etc. if needed 90