Asserting Carbon Offsets from Landfill Gas Flaring at Reginas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Asserting Carbon Offsets from Landfill Gas Flaring at Regina’s Landfill Site Presented at SEIMA Lunch Meeting Regina, Saskatchewan December 7, 2010 By: Paresh Thanawala, P.Eng; QEP pthanawa@regina.ca T: (306) 777-7493 1

Objectives • Explain LFG Collection & Flaring Project • Other LFG Experience • Regulatory Aspects of Credits/Offsets • Validation/Verification Steps • Emission Assertion – Approach • Conclusion 2

Fleet Street Landfill 3

PROJECT SCOPE Phase 1 (North Hill) Main Components: • 27 vertical gas wells • Gas collection headers • Condensate removal sump and tank • Blower building • Instrumentation and Control Room • Flare header, flame arrestor and candlestick flare System Commissioned in July 2008 4

Gas Wells & Collection System 5

Flare & Blower Building 6

Typical Quantity and Quality • 250 – 350 acfm Compound Mol % • HHV 16 – 18 MJ/m 3 CH 4 50 • Up to 1.5 MW potential CO 2 40 N 2 9 O 2 0.5 H 2 O Trace H 2 S Trace Siloxanes Trace 7

LFG UTILIZATION IN CANADA Number of Sites Surveyed by Environment Canada, January 2009 Number of Sites Surveyed by Environment Canada, January 2009 Year Power (P) Heating (H) CPH Year Utilization (U) Flaring (F) U & F 2006 17 9 0 2006 26 44 12 2007 29 50 15 2007 17 10 2 Number of Landfills Capturing LFG in Canada 70 60 50 Landfill 40 30 20 10 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 Year 8

Experience of Selected Landfills Western Canada Cogeneration (Electricity + Waste heat). 4 x 1.7 MW Cat Engines. Waste Vancouver heat for greenhouse heating Prince George Gas recovery system. No power or heat recovery Generate electricity (kW TBC) + Waste heat utilization. Micro-turbines. Kelowna (Glenmore) Export power Victoria 1.6 MW Cat engine Edmonton (Clover Bar) 3 x 1.6 MW Cat engines Calgary (Shepard) Gas recovery/clean up - 400 kW engine Calgary East 70 kW micro-turbine. Expand to install 1 -2 MW engines Open flare. MB to buy LFG credits. Discussing “design – build – operate – Brandon, MB finance” scheme for LFG energy use with IGR 9

Carbon Offsets/Credits Value of GHG emission reduction as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 E) in tonnes Value of GHG emission reduction as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO E) in tonnes 2 CER Certified emission reductions, CDM, Kyoto ERU Emission reduction unit, JI, Kyoto VER Verified emission reductions, Voluntary GHG CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O GWP 1 21 310 CO 2 E 1*CO 2 + 21*CH 4 + 310*N 2 O 10

Regulatory Framework Framework Key Highlights Website Draft Offset System Documents (summer 2009). Finalization delayed – awaiting US directive. Administer under CEPA. Must achieve real, http://www.ec.gc.ca/creditscompensatoires- Federal incremental, quantifiable, verifiable and unique reductions of offsets/default.asp?lang=En&n=92CA76F4-1 greenhouse gases LFG not regulated and hence eligible. Bill 126. Target 20% reduction by 2020. Registry for offsets. Adopt/merge with AB. Reduction http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/english/FirstRead/ SK Targets for regulated emitters. Climate R&D Corp. Expect regulated 2009/Bill-126.pdf frame work in place by 2010 Bill 18 - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Cap & Trade Act 2008. Partner BC with WCI. Registry, trading, verification as of 2010. Compliance unit http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/3rd_read/gov18-3.htm tracking system Climate Change Central. Offset registry in place. Trade within AB AB only. LFE > 100,000 t CO 2 E to meet targets or pay to carbon fund. http://carbonoffsetsolutions.climatechangecentral.com/ Quantification protocols in place and under development. Bill 15 - the climate change and Emissions Reduction Act. MB will MB http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-2/b015e.php buy out credits from LFG operators. Launched Cap & Trade Program in 2008. Partners are: Arizona, Western Climate California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/ Initiative Manitoba, BC, ON and Quebec. AB and SK oppose the scheme (cash grab) Montreal Carbon Created in 2006. CO 2 E futures contracts. Joint venture between CCX www.m-x.ca Exchange (MCeX) and MCeX. Chicago Climate Voluntary Cap & Trade System. Sell surplus allowances or purchase http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821 Exchange (CCX) carbon financial instrument (CFI) 11

Project Validation • Eligibility [real, additional, quantifiable, verifiable, unique] • Description/Quantification methods • Assertion [relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency, conservativeness] • Monitoring • Document so 3 rd party can verify • Follow ISO 14064(2)(3) Generally occurs once, before registration 12

Verification • Systematic, independent and documented process to confirm assertion of credits • “Reasonable” (high level) or “Limited” (low level) assurance • Occurs after emission reductions have occurred • Usually once a year • Validated project/documentation must be in place • 3 rd party, knowledgeable of industry, no conflict • Follow ISO 14064 (3) guidance 13

Project Registration • After project is validated • “License” for creating carbon credits • Can occur as part of verification COR LFG Project: SK or Federal System 14

REGISTRATION OF PROJECT Project Validates the project. Applies to the Project Authority to Proponent register GHG reduction report Reviews the project and registers the Project Project Authority Document REPORTING & VERIFICATION OF REDUCTIONS Project Implements the Project Proponent Asserts/reports the GHG reductions in the Reduction/Removal Report Engages verifier to verify the assertion/claim Verifier Conducts verification Submits Verification Report to Project Authority ISSUANCE OF OFFSET CREDITS Certifies all conditions for credit issuance have Project Authority been satisfied Issues instructions to deposit offset credits in 15 account in the tracking system

Verification Triangle Intended User Assurance y t i l i b a t n u o c c A GHG Statement Responsible Independence Validator/ Party Verifier 16

Schematic of Flare & Monitoring System 17

Data Management 18

Asserting LFG Offsets • CO 2 E Offsets = CO 2 E Baseline – CO 2 E Project • CO 2 E Offsets = 21(mass of methane in LFG that is destroyed in the flare) • MR = (Q LFG )(C CH4 )( t)( ρ CH4 )( η )(1 tonne/1,000 kg) )/(35.31 ft 3 /m 3 ) MR = Mass of methane reductions (tonnes CH 4 /day) Q LFG = Average flow of LFG collected (sft 3 /min) @ 1 atmosphere and 0 °C C CH4 = Mol fraction of CH 4 in LFG t = Net operational period (min/day) ρ CH4 = Density of methane (kg/m 3 ) = 0.6557 @ 1 atmosphere and 25 °C η = Methane destruction efficiency of flare (80%) Calculated Offsets: 2008 12,268 t CO 2 E 2009 17,038 t CO 2 E 19

About DRE and CE Destruction & Removal η (DRE) DRE = 100* (Wt. of Compound in – Wt. of Compound Out)/(Wt. of Compound in) DRE indicates how well a specific compound is destroyed during combustion _______________________________________________________________ Combustion η = 100* (Mass Rate of Carbon in fuel converted to CO 2 )/(Mass Rate of Carbon in Fuel) CE is a measure of how much carbon is converted to CO 2 20

Default DREs for Open Flares Jurisdiction/Organization Default DRE (%) Alberta 25 California 50 - 96 UNFCC 50 US EPA 40CFR60.18 85 – 97 (93 default) 21

Flare Testing: DRE of CH 4 CH 4 + 2O 2 = CO 2 + 2H 2 O •Grab samples at various points •Testing by Maxxam Analytics, Nov, 2009 •Follow Alberta Stack Sampling Code/ •US EPA Methods 22

Impact of Wind on Flare Efficiency Ref: Efficiency Measurements of Flares in a Cross Flow, by M.R. Johnson, O. Zastavniuk, D.J. Wilson and L.W. Kostiuk, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Presented at Combustion Canada 1999, Calgary Alberta, May 26, 1999 23

DRE of Methane • Flare gas testing in November 2009 indicated average DRE of 86%. • Flame color – blue or colorless (mostly) • HHV ~ 16 MJ/m 3 indicating good combustion • Flare velocity and design comply with 40 CFR60.18 which recommends a minimum DRE of 93% (for compliant flares) • Auto pilot ignition • KO Pot to remove water. No free liquids or hydrocarbons carried to the flare – which may impair combustion • Wind guard to minimize wind impacts and loss of DRE • O/M procedures in place • 3% reduction allowed due to possible wind impacts • Additional 3% reduction allowed to add conservativeness • 80% DRE assumed for offsets calculations 24

Anticipated Price of Carbon • AB – Trades between $12/t - $15/t • SK – Expect AB trend. +$15/t anticipated (once offset framework in place) • BC – Pacific Carbon Trust proposed to buy @ $25/t • FED – LFE to comply if cost of reduction < $15/t • CCX – • MCEx – $2.00 settlement price for March 2011 contract • Voluntary – ($3/t - $8/t) 25

Federal Price Projection 70 60 50 40 $/tonne 30 20 10 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Marginal Emissions Price Ref: Don McCabe, Soil Conservation Council of Canada, October 2008 26