Eliminating Methane Emissions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Central African Republic Overview of Bilateral, Regional, Multilateral, and Global Programs Overview of U.S
Meeting the Fast Start Commitment U.S. Climate Finance in Fiscal Year 2011 Central African Republic Overview of Bilateral, Regional, Multilateral, and Global Programs Overview of U.S. Fast Start Climate Financing in Fiscal Years 2010 & 2011 n December 2009, President Obama and contribution to fast start financing will also leaders from around the world came include funding from FY 2012. together in Copenhagen at the 15th Consistent with President Obama’s Global IConference of the Parties to the United Nations Development Policy, we are using the full range Framework Convention on Climate Change of mechanisms – bilateral, multilateral, and (UNFCCC) to chart a new course in the global private – to ensure that our climate finance is effort to tackle climate change. The resulting efficient, effective, and innovative; based on Copenhagen Accord reflected - for the first country-owned plans; and focused on achieving time in an international outcome - measurable, measurable results. We are focusing our bilateral reportable and verifiable mitigation targets and efforts on those countries and regions where actions by all major economies, and set out we have a comparative advantage and are new institutions and approaches for adaptation, coordinating closely with other donors. U.S. fast technology and finance. start finance is provided to developing countries The finance outcomes in Copenhagen included through a variety of channels, including: a collective commitment by developed countries Q Congressionally appropriated climate to provide resources to developing countries finance: grant-based assistance through approaching $30 billion in the period 2010- the Global Climate Change Initiative – a 2012. The elements that leaders endorsed in the whole-of-government effort to promote low Copenhagen Accord, including this “fast start” emission, climate resilient economic growth finance commitment, were carried forward in around the world – and additional grant- decisions of the 16th Conference of the Parties in based assistance that delivers significant Cancun in December 2010. -
Sanctions Intelligence Update
July 17, 2014 SANCTIONS INTELLIGENCE UPDATE GENNADY TIMCHENKO & VOLGA GROUP adapting BUSINESS FOLLOWING U.S. & Canadian sanctions Overview In March and April, the US government sanctioned Russian businessman Gennady Timchenko, his Luxembourg-registered holding company Volga Group, and ten related subsidiaries. Timchenko was identified as a “member of the Russian leadership’s inner circle,” whose involvement in the energy sector was “directly linked to [President] Putin.” To date, Canada has sanctioned Timchenko, Volga Group, and nine Volga Group subsidiaries. The European Union has not acted against Timchenko or Volga Group. Since the announcement of US and Canadian sanctions, Timchenko and Volga Group- controlled firms have announced new projects in Asia, Europe, and Syria with reported financing from Chinese and Russian banks, including institutions sanctioned by the US on July 16. Financial institutions engaged in global business should consider the implications for AML and sanctions risk management. Timchenko’s post-sanctionS business ventures in China In late April 2014, President Putin appointed Gennady Timchenko to lead the Russia-China Business Council (RCBC), a body created in 2004 to expand partnerships between the two countries. Timchenko told reporters after President Putin’s RCBC announcement: “You know what Putin said? He introduced me by As head of RCBC, Timchenko is advancing Volga Group interests in saying Mr. Timchenko is the head of our business council. In other China. words – it is my words here – he is our main man for China.” • In late May 2014, Volga Group is constructing a terminal for announced a joint-venture with coal and iron ore shipments in the state-owned China Harbour Russia’s Far East. -
Methane Emissions from Landfills
Methane Emissions from Landfills Haokai Zhao Advisors: Prof. Nickolas J. Themelis Prof. A.C. (Thanos) Bourtsalas Prof. Wade R. McGillis Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science Columbia University January, 2019 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. in Earth and Environmental Engineering Research co-sponsored by Methane Emissions from Landfills H. Zhao Executive Summary Methane, one of the main greenhouse gases (GHGs), has been assessed to have 28 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, methane is generated as a product of the anaerobic degradation of organic waste. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) estimated that, in 2016, landfill methane emissions in the U.S. were approximately 107.7 million tons carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2 e). And globally, it was estimated that methane emissions from landfilling of solid waste were 794.0 million tons of CO2 e in 2005. At both the U.S. and the global levels, landfilling was the third largest source of methane emissions, after enteric fermentation and natural gas & oil systems. A broad range of topics about methane emissions from landfill are covered in this report, including the gas-generating processes in landfill, the theories about modeling landfill gas generation and emission, the developed models and the current estimates of landfill emissions, as well as the calculation and analysis on several aspects: 1) theoretical maximum methane generation per ton of MSW and actual methane emission per ton of MSW; 2) climate zone statistics about landfill gas generation model parameter, landfill methane generation, emission and recovery; 3) the time series of global landfill methane emissions with regional analysis and per capita analysis. -
LNG Plant Cost Reduction 2014–18
October 2018 LNG Plant Cost Reduction 2014–18 OIES PAPER: NG137 Brian Songhurst Research Associate, OIES The contents of this paper are the author’s sole responsibility. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies or any of its members. Copyright © 2018 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Registered Charity, No. 286084) This publication may be reproduced in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN: 978-1-78467-120-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26889/9781784671204 i LNG Plant Cost Reduction 2014–18 – October 2018 Acknowledgements My thanks to fellow OIES colleague Claudio-Steuer for his contributions during the drafting of this paper. My thanks also to the following industry colleagues for their review and comments on the draft: Toby Chancellor-Weale, Chair, IChemE Oil and Natural Gas Special Interest Group (SONG) Chris Spilsbury, LNG Specialists Ltd John Rushbrook, Consultant ii LNG Plant Cost Reduction 2014–18 – October 2018 Preface In his recent papers for OIES on the future of gas in Europe and the global energy economy, Jonathan Stern identified affordability as a key factor in determining whether gas would play a major role in Non-OECD countries. As the majority of traded gas will be LNG, the key question is therefore whether the cost of developing new liquefaction projects can be low enough to allow the gas to be competitive when it reaches the end consumer. -
Greenhouse Gas Inventory South Africa
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY SOUTH 1990 TO AFRICA 2000 COMPILATION UNDER THE NATIONAL UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) INVENTORY REPORT MAY 2009 Greenhouse gas inventory South Africa PREFACE This report is the result of work commissioned by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) to develop the 2000 national inventory of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for South Africa. Information on energy and industrial processes was prepared by the Energy Research Centre (ERC) of the University of Cape Town, while information on agriculture, land use changes, forestry and waste was provided by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). This report is published by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa. An electronic version of the report, along with the Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables, is available on the website of DEAT: http://www.saaqis.org.za/. Information from this report may be reproduced, provided the source is acknowledged. AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS General responsibility: Stanford Mwakasonda (ERC), Rina Taviv (CSIR), Peter Lukey (DEAT) Jongikhaya Witi (DEAT),argot Richardson (DEAT), Tsietsi Mahema (DEAT), Ajay Trikam (ERC). Individual chapters: Summary Stanford Mwakasonda Chapter 1 Stanford Mwakasonda, Stephen Davies (Section 1.5) Chapter 2 Stanford Mwakasonda Chapter 3. Stanford Mwakasonda, Thapelo Letete, Philip Lloyd (section 3.2.1) Chapter 4 Stanford Mwakasonda, Thapelo Letete, Mondli Guma Chapter 5 Rina Taviv, Heidi van Deventer, Bongani Majeke, Sally Archibald Chapter 6 Ndeke Musee Report reviews: Harald Winkler, Marna van der Merwe, Bob Scholes Report compilation: Stanford Mwakasonda, Ajay Trikam Language editor: Robert Berold Quality assurance: TBA i Greenhouse gas inventory South Africa SUMMARY SOUTH AFRICA’S GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES In August 1997 the Republic of South Africa joined the majority of countries in the international community in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). -
Characterizing Methane (CH4) Emissions in Urban Environments (Paris) Sara Defratyka
Characterizing methane (CH4) emissions in urban environments (Paris) Sara Defratyka To cite this version: Sara Defratyka. Characterizing methane (CH4) emissions in urban environments (Paris). Other. Université Paris-Saclay, 2021. English. NNT : 2021UPASJ002. tel-03230140 HAL Id: tel-03230140 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03230140 Submitted on 19 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Characterization of CH4 emissions in urban environments (Paris) Caractérisation des émissions de CH4 en milieu urbain (Paris) Thèse de doctorat de l'université Paris-Saclay École doctorale n° 129 Sciences de l’environnement d’Ile-de-France (SEIF) Spécialité de doctorat: météorologie, océanographie, physique de l’environnement Unité de recherche : Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, CEA, UVSQ, Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l’environnement Référent : Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines Thèse présentée et soutenue à Paris-Saclay, le 19/01/2021, par Sara DEFRATYKA Composition du Jury Valéry CATOIRE Professeur des universités, -
A Full Greenhouse Gases Budget of Africa: Synthesis, Uncertainties, and Vulnerabilities
Biogeosciences, 11, 381–407, 2014 Open Access www.biogeosciences.net/11/381/2014/ doi:10.5194/bg-11-381-2014 Biogeosciences © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. A full greenhouse gases budget of Africa: synthesis, uncertainties, and vulnerabilities R. Valentini1,2, A. Arneth3, A. Bombelli2, S. Castaldi2,4, R. Cazzolla Gatti1, F. Chevallier5, P. Ciais5, E. Grieco2, J. Hartmann6, M. Henry7, R. A. Houghton8, M. Jung9, W. L. Kutsch10, Y. Malhi11, E. Mayorga12, L. Merbold13, G. Murray-Tortarolo15, D. Papale1, P. Peylin5, B. Poulter5, P. A. Raymond14, M. Santini2, S. Sitch15, G. Vaglio Laurin2,16, G. R. van der Werf17, C. A. Williams18, and R. J. Scholes19 1Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest systems (DIBAF), University of Tuscia, via S. Camillo de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy 2Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC), Via Augusto Imperatore 16, 73100 Lecce, Italy 3Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research, Kreuzeckbahn Str. 19, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany 4Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Biologiche e Farmaceutiche (DISTABIF), Seconda Università di Napoli, via Vivaldi 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy 5LSCE, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, L’Orme des Merisiers, Bat 701, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 6Institute for Biogeochemistry and Marine Chemistry, 20146, Hamburg, Germany 7FAO, Forestry Department, UN-REDD Programme, Viale delle terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy 8Woods Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, MA 02540, -
Yamal Lng: Meeting the Challenges of Natural Gas Liquefaction in the Arctic
YAMAL LNG: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION IN THE ARCTIC Christopher Ott1, Igor Chasnyk2, Sander Kaart2, Christian Bladanet3, Benoit Laflotte3, Guillaume Le-Ridant3, Benoit Delva3, and Oriano Zucchi4 1 3 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Yamgaz (TechnipFMC) 2 4 JSC Yamal LNG Baker Hughes, a GE Company The Yamal liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility is an integrated project located north of the arctic circle on the Yamal Peninsula in northern Russia. The project consists of three LNG trains that produce a total of 16.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), along with substantial infrastructure that includes extensive living accommodations, power generation utilities, an ice-free deep-water sea port, and an international airport. The geo-political context, project finance and the extraordinary human endeavor of a project of this size in the arctic were challenges rarely seen in the past. As this is the northern-most operating LNG facility in the world, this paper will cover the achievements of the project, including developing the largest Air Products AP-C3MR™ LNG Process train, constructing a highly modularized project in a harsh environment and successfully loading the first cargo during the polar winter night. This paper focuses on technological features that had to be carefully managed, for example: - Successfully implementing a new high availability, maximum capacity, parallel C3/MR compressor arrangement that required extensive collaboration between the main contractor, compressor supplier, plant operator, and process licensor to achieve the 5.5 mtpa capacity per train - Ethane and propane refrigerant make-up could be produced early due to the turbo-expander based NGL recovery unit - The commissioning and defrosting, under conditions where water exists only as a solid, also required adapting the warm climate methodology - Managing hydrates - Air cooling, in an environment with a very large winter-to-summer range (-40°C to +10°C) The paper will conclude by describing the successful operation and performance test of all three Yamal LNG trains. -
Methane Emissions in the United States: Sources, Solutions & Opportunities for Reductions
Methane Emissions in the United States: Sources, Solutions & Opportunities for Reductions May 23, 2019 Presentation Overview • U.S. methane emissions & sources • Why methane matters • Methane mitigation by emission source • Spotlight on Renewable Natural Gas • Helpful tools and resources 2 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017 3 2017 U.S. Methane Emissions, by Source Other Coal Mining 38.3 MMTCO2e 55.7 MMTCO2e Coal Mining 8% Wastewater Treatment 14.2 MMTCO2e Oil and Natural Gas Systems 31% Landfills 107.7 MMTCO2e Oil and Natural Total Methane Gas Systems Agriculture 36% Emissions 203.3 MMTCO2e 656.3 MMTCO2e Waste 19% Enteric Fermentation Other 6% 175.4 MMTCO2e Manure Management 61.7 MMTCO2e Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017 4 Why Methane Matters Positive Outcomes of Capturing and Using Methane Methane Emissions Better air and water quality Trap 28 times more Methane Mitigation heat than carbon dioxide over 100 years Improved human health Opportunity to capture Contribute to ground- and convert methane Increased worker safety level ozone pollution to useful energy Enhanced energy security Create industrial safety problem Economic growth Reduced odors 5 Methane Mitigation by Emission Source • Coal Mines • Oil and Natural Gas Systems • Agriculture (Manure Management and Enteric Fermentation) • Waste (Wastewater Treatment and Landfills) 6 8% 55.7 MMTCO2e Coal Mines Total 656.3 Methane is released from MMTCO2e coal and surrounding rock ▪ Coal strata due to mining activities. In abandoned mines and surface mines, methane might also escape to the atmosphere through natural fissures or other diffuse sources. -
Global Trends of Methane Emissions and Their Impacts on Ozone Concentrations
Global trends of methane emissions and their impacts on ozone concentrations Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., Dentener, F. 2018 EUR 29394 EN This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information Name: R. Van Dingenen Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra, ITALY Email: [email protected] JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC113210 EUR 29394 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-96550-0 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/820175 Print ISBN 978-92-79-96551-7 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/73788 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Commission, 2018 © European Union, 2018 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised, provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. -
Shipping LNG from a Remote Arctic Plant
Shipping LNG from a Remote Arctic Plant Frederic Hannon LNG Shipping Project Manager TOTAL – Gas, Renewables & Power Division YAMAL LNG, a Pilot Project in the Arctic – Some Key Features Shareholders 9.9% 20.0% 50.1% Source: Public information 20.0% ● LNG Plant located in Sabetta, North-East Wells 208 directional and horizontal of the Yamal Peninsula, Russia Capacity 3 x 5.5 MMtpa + 1 x 0,94 MMtpa LNG, 1.2 MMtpa Condensates ● Arctic conditions (Temperatures -52°C / 3 months of polar night) Capex 27 G$ (Yamal LNG) ● Ice free port: 5 months Trains 1,2,3 started ( nameplate 16,5 Mmtpa) T4 pilot under Construction Status ● South Tambey Gas-Condensate Field: construction exploration and development license until 15 ARC7 LNG Carriers, 11 Conventional LNGCs , 2 ARC7 2045 Shipping Condensate tankers Trans-shipment capacity in Zeebrugge and Ship-to-Ship Transfers ● Reservoirs: 1000- 3500 m deep LNG Deliveries Asia, Europe ● Proved & Probable Reserves : 926 billion cubic meters of natural gas An Integrated Project : • Presidential decree on October 10th, 2010 • Final Investment Decision on December 13th, 2013 with Pioneering Solutions in field of logistics and transportation schemes : The Shipping Scheme for the Export of LNG Westbound : annual ice Eastbound : pluri-annual ice Average ice extension : 830 Nmiles / 2,900 Average ice extension 2,100 Nm / 4,900 Nm – 7/9 days Nm – 14/16 days Year Round Northern Sea Route Route Sabetta 16,5 mtpa LNG / Trans-shipment # 220 cargoes Terminal /year Summer Route TRANSHIPMENT : SHIP – STORAGE - SHIP Winter -
Government Support to Upstream Oil & Gas in Russia
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TO UPSTREAM OIL & GAS IN RUSSIA HOW SUBSIDIES INFLUENCE THE YAMAL LNG AND PRIRAZLOMNOE PROJECTS Page i Government Support to Upstream Oil & Gas in Russia How Subsidies Influence the Yamal LNG and Prirazlomnoe Projects GENEVA-OSLO-MOSCOW JULY 2014 Lars Petter Lunden and Daniel Fjaertoft, Sigra Group PUBLISHED IN PARTNERSHIP BY: www.globalsubsidies.org GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TO UPSTREAM OIL & GAS IN RUSSIA HOW SUBSIDIES INFLUENCE THE YAMAL LNG AND PRIRAZLOMNOE PROJECTS Page ii Government Support to Upstream Oil & Gas in Russia How Subsidies Influence the Yamal LNG and Prirazlomnoe Projects Lars Petter Lunden and Daniel Fjaertoft, Sigra Group Geneva-Oslo-Moscow, July 2014 © 2014 The International Institute for Sustainable Development/WWF Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been commissioned by the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) thanks to the generous support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. The report has been prepared by Lars Petter Lunden and Daniel Fjaertoft, Sigra Group, in coordination with Ivetta Gerasimchuk, PhD in Economics, and Lucy Kitson, IISD-GSI. WWF-Russia has provided communications and outreach support for the report. This report has been peer-reviewed by: • Mikhail Babenko, PhD in Economics, Oil & Gas Officer, WWF Global Arctic Programme • James Henderson, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies •