Presentation article Ramiran June 2013 "Emission Reductions of Greenhouse Gas emissions and domestic waste composting in less advanced countries. Why new assessment tools are requested." Gaïa Ludington - Georges Morizot - Baptiste Flipo - Jocelyne Delarue. Gevalor

1. Emissions reductions of GHG and domestic
waste composting in less advanced countries.
Why new assessment tools are requested.
Presented by Gaïa Ludington
Gevalor
1

2. Outline
2
1. Waste management - Least Developed Countries (LDCs) – Composting
2. Composting and GHG emissions
3. Emission reductions calculation
4. CDM method analysis
5. Baseline – Project – Emission Reduction
6. Emission reductions calculation
7. Conservativness of methodology
8. Kinetics
9. Main recent methodological evolutions (1)
10. Main recent methodological evolutions (2)
11. Difficult investment
12. Drawbacks but not advantages
13. What we’d like to propose
14. Conclusion

3. Waste management - Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) – Composting
• LDC’s : around 40% waste collection
• Role of municipalities but little financial resources
• Importance of informal sector
• Average 70% organic matter
 compost : holistic approach
• Reduces residual volumes to landfill
• Reduces polution risks
• Reduces GHG emissions
• Creates jobs (notably for waste pickers)
• Favours sustainable agriculture and adaptation to climate
change
3

4. Composting and GHG emissions
Source : Satoshi Sugimoto JICA expert team
4

5. Emission reductions calculation
according to UNFCCC methodology
• Project emissions :
Compost
PEy = PEy,power + PEy,comp +
PEy,runoff + PEy,res waste
5
ER = BE - PE

6. CDM method analysis
• Ten years calculation
• Climat : rain > 1000mm/year. T° : >20°C
• Calculation data:
– Local values (climate)
– Monitored values (SWDS management – waste quantity)
– Default values (decay rate – fraction of DOC)
6

7. Baseline – Project – Emission
Reduction
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Baseline emission for a same quantity of waste composted every year
BE
7

8. Baseline – Project – Emission
Reduction
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Baseline and project emissions for a same quantity of waste composted every year
BE PE
8

9. Baseline – Project – Emission
Reduction
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Emissions reductions for a same quantity of waste composted every year
BE PE
9

10. Emission reductions calculation
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X ton composted during year one
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X ton composted every year
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X ton composted
during year 5
X ton composted
during year 10

11. Conservativness of
methodology
• Kinetics
• Default values
• Constant evolutions
• Has been criticized
 scientific justification ?
11

12. Kinetics
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12
X ton composted every year- calculation of ER on the year of treatment

13. Main recent methodological
evolutions (1)
• Global uncertainty factor : from 10% to 20%
• Nitrous oxide emissions in project emissions but not
in baseline
• Monitoring CH4 and N2O very complicated – default
values very high
13

14. Main recent methodological
evolutions (2)
25000 tons organic waste
treated in the year of
calculation. Calculation
version 10.
25000tons organic waste
treated in the year of
calculation. Calculation
version 11.
Year 1 1675TCO2eq reduction emission -1125 TCO2eq reduction emission
Total (10 years) 53500TCO2eq reduction emission 25500 TCO2eq reduction emission
14

15. Difficult investment
15

16. Drawbacks but not advantages
• Methane and nitrous
oxide emissions
• Leachates from
composting
• Emission from
anaerobic storage
• Social impact ?
– Job creation
– informal workers (re)
insertion
• Climate change ?
– Agronomic parameters ?
– Soil parameters ?
• Longer life for landfills
• Less costs for
municipalities
16

17. What we’d like to propose
Life cycle analysis
• CERF (compost emissions reduction factor) =
Csb + (Wb + Eb +Fb +Hb)*C -Te + Pe + Fe
With
• CSb = Emission reductions associated with the increased carbon storage in soil
(MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)
• Wb = Emission reductions due to decreased water use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)
• Eb = Emission reduction associated with decreased soil erosion (MTCO2E/ton of
compost)
• Fb = Factor to account for the reduced fertilizer use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)
• Hb = Factor to account for the reduced herbicide use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)
• C = Conversion factor used to convert from tons of compost to tons of feedstock
• Te = Transportation emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)
• Pe = Process emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)
• Fe = Fugitive emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)
Developed by Cal EPA
17

18. What we’d like to propose
Social impacts
• Job creation
• informal workers (re) insertion
some standards already take them into
consideration
18

19. Conclusion
Combine solid waste disposal site emissions
(according UNFCCC methodology) and
agricultural use of compost emissions reduction
(LCA) for a better approach.
 Take in consideration social impacts
• No matter carbon finance, selling compost is
essential for financial sustainability and is also
a challenge in itself.
19

20. Thank You
Questions ?
gaia.ludington@gevalor.org
www.gevalor.org
20