CARBON FREE BOSTON Waste Technical Advisory Group July 31, 2018
MEETING GOALS Inform TAG members about overall project scope, people, process, and timeline Inform TAG members about overall model structure and proposed methodology underlying the wastewater and waste models Receive feedback from TAG members about methodology, policy instruments, data issues, etc.
OVERALL PROJECT GOAL Provide quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of alternative strategies to reduce GHG emissions that enable City to be carbon neutral by 2050 The CFB report will inform the upcoming CAP update for the City
HIGH LEVEL VIEW OF PROCESS Build Modeling Platform and Generate Scenarios Sector-specific models for buildings, transportation, energy supply, and waste Integrating module that ties together sector models Establish Close, Transparent Collaboration with Key Partners Environment Department, City of Boston, and related units Consultants Technical Advisory Groups and Social Equity Advisory Group Broader stakeholder groups (managed by City and GRC) Submit Final Carbon Free Boston Report to GRC Iterative process with multiple reviews of interim results and report drafts
CARBON FREE BOSTON ECOSYSTEM
PROJECT STAFFING Boston University Senior Personnel Dr. Cutler Cleveland, PI Dr. Peter Fox-Penner, co-pi Dr. Michael Walsh, Senior Research Scientist Dr. Suchi Gopal Consultants Cambridge Systematics (Transportation) Arup (Buildings) All Aces (Equity) City of Boston Dr. Alison Brizius, Director of Climate and Environmental Planning GRC John Cleveland and Amy Longsworth
FUNDING Barr Foundation Leventhal Foundation Kendall Foundation Hewlett Foundation Grantham Foundation Microsoft C40 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Boston Eversource National Grid Bank of America Ørsted
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INTEGRATED CITY CLIMATE MITIGATION PLANNING SQL/NoSQL
SOURCES OF GHG EMISSIONS Electricity Natural gas Transportation fuels Fuel oil Steam Waste water Total emissions in 2015 = 6.5 million metric tons CO 2 e
GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY Develop LCA methodology to characterize flows of energy, materials, and GHG emissions associated with MSW and wastewater City and MWRA data WARM tool from EPA Define BAU scenario through 2050 Impose ZWB actions and calculate effect on emissions Explore alternative management options
DEER ISLAND WWTP
WASTEWATER: FLOWS OF ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND EMISSIONS
DEER ISLAND ENERGY USE & EMISSIONS (2015) Purchased electricity (100 GWh): 34.5 kt CO 2 e Combustion of digester biogas (4.6 Mcsf): 361 t CO 2 e Incomplete methane from flaring Incomplete methane from combustion of onsite energy N 2 O from combustion of Digas Fuel Oil: TBD Denitrification/effluent emissions: ~17 kt CO 2 e Attributable to Boston waste
FUTURE CHANGES TO DEER ISLAND ENERGY & EMISSIONS Upgrade combined heat and power systems Increase onsite energy generated from digas While maintaining heat production ICLEI factors may not be applicable to deep water effluent Little mixing in summer 100 feet deep Are MWRA s Deer Island emissions a good candidate for offsets?
MSW: ALIGNMENT WITH ZERO WASTE BOSTON Similarities Quantity and composition of waste stream Current disposition and diversion of waste stream Waste policy goals and actions WARM tool technical information Differences Goals of analysis and project outputs Accounting framework
DEFINITIONS Direct Emissions: process emissions from waste decomposition and incineration fuel combustion emissions from transportation vehicles and onsite operating equipment Indirect Emissions: purchased electricity throughout the MSW management system Avoided Emissions: emission savings or storage that can be considered to cancel out emissions that would otherwise have occurred achieved through energy recovery, material recovery, nutrient recovery, and carbon storage
RESIDENTIAL WASTE DISPOSAL
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
MSW: FLOWS OF ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND EMISSIONS
2017 MSW IN BOSTON (1000 SHORT TONS) Residential ICI Total Disposal 190 684 874 Diversion 50 232 282 Single-Stream Recycling 38 72 109 Organics Composting 9 49 57 Other Diversion 4 112 115 Total Generation 240 916 1156 Sources: Residential: City of Boston, Department of Public Works ICI: Calculations made by Zero Waste Boston Note: 20% of single-stream recycling is contamination and sent to disposal = 21,900 short tons
EMISSIONS INTENSITY OF INCINERATION BY MATERIAL TYPE Intensity Material Type (tco 2 e/ short ton) Construction and Demolition 0.80 Electronics 0.38 Glass - Metal - Organics 0.04 Paper 0.04 Plastics 2.63 Tires 2.20 Sources: ISE calculations based on data from WARM
2017 DIRECT PROCESS EMISSIONS (1000 TCO 2 E) Management Strategy Residential ICI Total Incineration 114.2 386.7 501.0 Recycling - - - Compost 0.6 5.6 6.2 Total 114.9 392.3 507.2 Equal to 7.8 % of total City emissions in 2015
2017 AVOIDED EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL MSW (1000 TCO 2 E) Management Strategy Energy Recovery Material Recovery Nutrient Recovery Carbon Storage Total Incineration -67.6-9.3 - - -76.9 Recycling - -16.0 - -57.6-73.6 Compost - - - -2.1-2.1 Total -67.6-25.3 - -59.7-152.6
2017 AVOIDED EMISSIONS FROM ICI MSW (1000 TCO 2 E) Management Strategy Energy Recovery Material Recovery Nutrient Recovery Carbon Storage Total Incineration -263.8-43.0 - - -306.8 Recycling - -9.6 - -228.6-238.2 Compost - - - -18.5-18.5 Total -263.8-52.6 - -247.0-563.5
HISTORICAL TRENDS Waste Generation (short tons) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Disposal Recycling 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Per capita Waste Generation (short tons per person) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05-2000 2010 2020
BAU ASSUMPTIONS AND DESCRIPTION Current per capita waste generation is constant through 2050 Total generation varies directly with total population
PROJECTIONS OF WASTE GENERATION (DISPOSAL + RECYCLING) Waste Generation (short tons) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Disposal Recycling Disposal (Forecast) Recycling (Forecast) 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
SCENARIO ANALYSIS OF ZWB RECOMMENDATIONS Options Diversion Tons (1000 TPY) Diversion Increase (%) Organics Diversion 186 16% Reuse Collection and Facilities 22 2% Residential Collection System 28 2% Neighborhood Drop-off Centers 4 0% Zero Waste R&D 6 1% Lead by Example 7 1% City-Owned Facilities N/A N/A Reduction and Recycling Mandates 161 14% ICI Hauler and Generator Requirements and Incentives 110 10% Products and Packaging Waste Reduction 19 2% Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 10 1% Zero Waste Venues & Events 5 0% Reusables Disposal Ban 6 1% C & D Requirements 6 1% Outreach and Technical Assistance 17 1% Behavior Change Marketing 26 2% Awards and Certifications 3 0% Community Grants 9 1% Zero Waste Economic Development 13 1% Total: 638 55%
EMISSIONS FROM COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT
EMISSIONS FROM COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT Data is limited Assume collection VMT remains static Assume new collection VMT for compost Additional 20-50% of current VMT Assume post-collection VMT declines with a new city owned transfer center, reducing distance between point of collection and final disposition Assume 25% reduction in current VMT At some point in the future collection vehicles become electric When will this happen?
QUESTIONS FOR THE WASTE TAG Are the basic methodology and data sources sound? What is the best approach for BAU projections? Are there other policies or actions we should assess? What is important to communicate regarding waste flows in the context of GHG emissions? How best to contextualize the waste-ghg connection within the overall waste story? How should avoided emissions be treated?