D:\106742663.doc International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 • A-2361 Laxenburg • Austria Telephone: (+43 2236) 807 • Fax: (+43 2236) 71313 E-mail: publications @iiasa.ac.at • Internet: www.iiasa.ac.at IIASA Interim Report IR-04-xx Extending the RAINS Model to Greenhouse Gases: HFC, PFC and SF6 Antti Tohka To be approved by: Markus Amann Project leader Transboundary Air Pollution project (amann@iiasa.ac.at) DRAFT 4 June 2004 Interim Reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. D:\106742663.doc ` Abstract Many of the traditional air pollutants and greenhouse gases have common sources, offering a cost-effective potential for simultaneous improvements for both traditional air pollution problems as well as climate change. A methodology has been developed to extend the RAINS integrated assessment model to explore synergies and trade-offs between the control of greenhouse gases and air pollution. With this extension, the RAINS model now allows the assessment of emission control costs for the six greenhouse gases covered under the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, CH4, N2O and the F-gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6) together with the emissions of air pollutants SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3 and PM. The extended RAINS model framework will offer a tool to systematically investigate economic and environmental synergies between greenhouse gas mitigation and air pollution control while avoiding negative side impacts. In the first phase of the study, emissions, costs and control potentials for the six greenhouse gases covered in the Kyoto Protocol are estimated and implemented in the RAINS model. This report gives the result for F-gases under the Kyoto Protocol. The results suggest that the total F-gas emissions in Europe (including the European part of Russia as well as Turkey) are estimated to be 91 Mt CO2eq. in 1995. They are expected to increase by a factor three in 2020, even with current legislation. A large number of options exist to control these emissions at costs ranging from minus 5 to over 60€/ton CO2eq. Half of the options have costs below 20€/ton CO2eq. Uncertainties in the estimates of emissions (and hence control costs) are large due to uncertainties in emission factors, the future penetration of technologies and abatement measures as well lack of data on activities in a number of countries. 1 ` Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support for their work received from the Netherlands’ Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. The author is also indebted to Martin Adams and Judith Bates (AEA-Technology, Harwell, UK), Jochen Harnisch (ECOFYS, Netherlands) and Kees Peek (RIVM) for providing comments on a draft version of the report. About the author Antti Tohka works in the Transboundary Air Pollution project of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). 2 ` Table of contents 1 2 3 4 Introduction 4 1.1 Interactions between air pollution control and greenhouse gas mitigation 4 1.2 Objective of this report 4 1.3 Structure of the report 5 Methodology 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 The RAINS methodology for air pollution 5 2.3 Emission calculation 6 2.4 Cost calculation 8 HFC, PFC and SF6 11 3.1 Introduction 11 3.2 Emission source categories 11 3.3 Emission factors and emissions of F-gases 12 Options and costs of controlling F-gases 32 4.1 Options and costs of controlling HFC emissions 32 4.2 Options and costs of controlling PFC emissions 36 4.3 Options and costs of controlling SF6 emissions 37 5 Interactions with other pollutants 38 6 Preliminary results 38 7 6.1 Emissions in the past 38 6.2 Emission projections 42 6.3 Costs 53 Conclusions 58 3 ` 1 Introduction 1.1 Interactions between air pollution control and greenhouse gas mitigation Recent scientific insights indicate that a more systematic approach for the integrated assessment of greenhouse gases and traditional pollutants might be more cost-effective. The Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation (RAINS) model has been developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) as a tool for the integrated assessment of emission control strategies for reducing the impacts of air pollution. The present version of RAINS addresses health impacts of fine particulate matter and ozone, vegetation damage from ground-level ozone as well as acidification and eutrophication. In order to meet environmental targets for these effects in the most cost-effective way, RAINS considers emission controls for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3) and fine particulate matter (PM). Considering the new insights into the linkages between air pollution and greenhouse gases, work has begun to extend the multi-pollutant/multi-effect approach that RAINS presently uses for the analysis of air pollution to include emissions of greenhouse gases. This could potentially offer a practical tool for designing national and regional strategies that respond to global and long-term climate objectives (expressed in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) while maximizing the local and short- to medium-term environmental benefits of air pollution. The emphasis of the envisaged tool is on identifying synergistic effects between the control of air pollution and the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is not proposed at this stage to extend the RAINS model towards modelling the climate system. Initial results of this work were published in Klaassen et al (2004). 1.2 Objective of this report The objective of this report is to describe the recent progress made in extending the RAINS model with the emissions and costs of controlling HFC, PFC and SF6 and to serve as a background document for the review. New in this report compared to the previous report (Klaassen et al, 2004) with respect to the Fgases are the following elements: The description of the options and costs to control F-gases has been expanded; Activity data has been adjusted according to common reporting formats (CRFs) for UNFCCC and several emission factors and sectoral global warming potentials (GWPs) have been changed to reflect new findings. Activity pathways has been modified after review meeting 4 ` 1.3 Structure of the report The report has the following structure. Chapter 2 reviews sources of HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions and options for controlling them and scenarios for controlling these. Section 3 concludes. 2 Methodology 2.1 Introduction A methodology has been developed to assess, for any exogenously supplied projection of future economic activities, the resulting emissions of greenhouse gases and conventional air pollutants, the technical potential for emission controls and the costs of such measures, as well as the interactions between the emission controls of various pollutants. This new methodology revises the existing mathematical formulation of the RAINS optimisation problem to take account of the interactions between emission control options of multiple pollutants and their effects on multiple environmental endpoints (see Klaassen et al, 2004). This section first describes the existing RAINS methodology. Subsequently, the method to calculate future emissions, in particular of F-gases is explained. Then the costing methodology is described. 2.2 The RAINS methodology for air pollution The Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation (RAINS) model developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) combines information on economic and energy development, emission control potentials and costs, atmospheric dispersion characteristics and environmental sensitivities towards air pollution (Schöpp et al., 1999). The model addresses threats to human health posed by fine particulates and groundlevel ozone as well as risk of ecosystems damage from acidification, excess nitrogen deposition (eutrophication) and exposure to elevated ambient levels of ozone. These air pollution related problems are considered in a multi-pollutant context (Figure 2.1) quantifying the contributions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), nonmethane volatile organic compounds (VOC), and primary emissions of fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10-PM2.5) particles. A detailed description of the RAINS model, on-line access to certain model parts as well as all input data to the model can be found on the Internet (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains). The RAINS model framework makes it possible to estimate, for any given energy- and agricultural scenario, the costs and environmental effects of user-specified emission control policies. Furthermore, a non-linear optimisation model has been developed to identify the costminimal combination of emission controls meeting user-supplied air quality targets, taking into account regional differences in emission control costs and atmospheric dispersion characteristics. The optimisation capability of RAINS enables the development of multipollutant, multi-effect pollution control strategies. In particular, the optimisation can be used to 5 ` search for cost-minimal balances of controls of the six pollutants (SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, primary PM2,5, primary PM10-2.5 (= PM coarse)) over the various economic sectors in all European countries that simultaneously achieve user-specified targets for human health impacts (e.g., expressed in terms of reduced life expectancy), ecosystems protection (e.g., expressed in terms of excess acid and nitrogen deposition), and maximum allowed violations of WHO guideline values for ground-level ozone. The RAINS model covers the time horizon 1990 to 2030, with time steps of 5 years. Geographically, the model covers 48 countries and regions in Europe. Five of them are sea regions, 5 are regions (4 in the European part of the Russian Federation and two in Germany) and 38 are countries. The models covers Europe from Ireland to the European part of Russia (West from the Ural) and Turkey. In a north-south perspective the model covers all countries from Norway down to Malta and Cyprus. Economic activities Emission control policies Environmental targets Agriculture NH3 control & costs NH3 emissions NH3 dispersion Energy use SO2 control & costs SO2 emissions S dispersion Critical loads f. acidification NOx control & costs NOx emissions NOx dispersion Critical loads f. eutrophication O3 formation Critical levels for ozone Transport NOx/VOC control&costs VOC emissions Solvents, fuels, industry VOC control & costs Other activities PM control & costs Secondary aerosols Primary PM emissions Primary PM dispersion O3 Population exposure PM Population exposure Emission control costs Figure 2-1: Flow of information in the RAINS model 2.3 Emission calculation The methodology adopted for the estimation of current and future greenhouse gas emissions and the available potential for emission controls follows the standard RAINS methodology. Emissions of each pollutant p are calculated as the product of the activity levels, the “uncontrolled” emission factor in absence of any emission control measures, the efficiency of emission control measures and the application rate of such measures: 6 ` Ei , p E j ,k , f i , j , f ,t A i , j ,k ef i , j ,t (1 eff t ) X i , j , f ,t Equation 2.1 j ,k ,m where i,j,t,f Ei,p A Ef Effk,p X Country, sector, abatement technology, fuel, Emissions of the specific pollutant p in country I, Activity in a given sector, “Uncontrolled” emission factor, Reduction efficiency of the abatement option k, and Actual implementation rate of the considered abatement. If no emission controls are applied, the abatement efficiency equals zero (effk,p = 0) and the application rate is one (X = 1). In that case, the emission calculation is reduced to simple multiplication of activity rate by the “uncontrolled” emission factor. For calculation of baseline, or business-as-usual estimates, the “uncontrolled” emission factor is assumed to be constant over time but activity levels may change as a result of exogenous, autonomous developments. E.g. a higher number of cars using mobile air conditioning or an increase in primary aluminium production will result in higher activity level. In case, average emission factors changes over time because of autonomous (policy independent) changes such as changes in the volume of refrigerant used per refrigerator, this, when needed, can be modelled in RAINS by including different type of appliances (different activities) with different emission factors. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the emission factors for the various F-gases, as well as the fact that it is not clear whether these changes in emission factor are an anticipation of expected policies or not, this option has not been implemented in the current version of RAINS. Baseline includes also abatement measures implemented before 1999 and autonomous improvement of gas insulated switchgears. A particular characteristic of a large fraction of the HFC emissions is that they result both from the releases of HFC during the lifetime of the appliance such as refrigerators (the lifetime emissions as well as from the scrappage of the applicance at the end of lifetime (the end-of-life emissions). RAINS treats these emissions as the result of two different activities. Lifetime emissions result from the stock of appliances at a certain point in time. The end-of-lifetime emissions are a result from the appliances that are scrapped at a certain point in time. The scrapped appliances are a same as the use in new equipment equipment’s lifetime ago The so-called Current Legislation (CLE) scenario starts from the emission factors and activity levels assumed in the baseline, to then include implementation of abatement measures that is expected to result from legislation (be it national or international) in place until the end of 2003. This implies that proposals for national or EU-wide legislation (such as the F-gas regulation, proposed by the European Commission) are not included in the CLE-scenario. The current legislation scenario for the three groups of F-gases includes the following pieces of legislation: The Directive on end-of-life vehicles 2000/53/EC 7 ` The Directive on Waste from electric and electrical equipment 2002/96/EC National legislation, if any In some countries end of life recollection of HFCs is already “accidentally” in use in some sectors, because of Regulation (EC)No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (29.6.2000). This hasn’t been taken into account on CLE- scenario. 2.4 Cost calculation 2.4.1 General approach The cost evaluation in the RAINS model attempts to quantify the values to society of the resources diverted in order to reduce emissions in Europe (Klimont et al., 2002). In practice, these values are approximated by estimating costs at the production level rather than at the level of consumer prices. Therefore, any mark-ups charged over production costs by manufacturers or dealers do not represent actual resource use and are ignored. Any taxes added to production costs are similarly ignored as subsidies as they are transfers and not resource costs. A central assumption in the RAINS cost calculation is the existence of a free market for (abatement) equipment throughout Europe that is accessible to all countries at the same conditions. Thus, the capital investments for a certain technology can be specified as being independent of the country. Simultaneously, the calculation routine takes into account several country-specific parameters that characterise the situation in a given region. For instance, these parameters may include average operating hours, fuel prices, capacity/vehicles utilization rates and emission factors. The expenditures for emission controls are differentiated into investments, fixed operating costs, and variable operating costs. From these three components RAINS calculates annual costs per unit of activity level. Subsequently, these costs are expressed per ton of pollutant abated. Some of the parameters are considered common to all countries. These include technologyspecific data, such as removal efficiencies, unit investment costs, fixed operating and maintenance costs, as well as parameters used for calculating variable cost components such as the extra demand for labour, energy, and materials. Country-specific parameters characterise the type of capacity operated in a given country and its operation regime. These parameters include the average size of installations in a given sector, operating hours, annual fuel consumption and mileage for vehicles. In addition, the 8 ` prices for labour, electricity, fuel and other materials as well as cost of waste disposal also belong to that category. Although based on the same principles, the methodologies for calculating costs for individual sectors need to reflect the relevant differences, e.g., in terms of capital investments. 2.4.1.1 Investments For industrial process sources investments are related to the activity unit of a given process. For the majority of processes these are annual tons produced. For refineries the investment function is related to one ton of raw oil input to the refinery. The investment function and annualised investments are given by the following two equations: I = ci f (1 r ) Equation 2.2 (1 + q )lt q I =I (1 + q )lt - 1 Equation 2.3 an 2.4.1.2 Operating costs The operating costs are calculated with formulas similar to those used for stationary combustion. However, since the activity unit is different, the formulas have a slightly different form: OM fix =I f Equation 2.4 OM var = l cl + e ce+ eff d cd Equation 2.5 The coefficients l , e, and d relate to one ton of product; eff is the emission factor for the specific pollutant. 2.4.1.3 Unit reduction costs Unit costs per ton of product This cost is calculated from the following formula: fix var an cton = I + OM OM Equation 2.6 Unit costs per ton of pollutant removed As for combustion sources, one can calculate costs per unit of emission removed: c pk = cton / ( eff ) Equation 2.7 The most important factors leading to differences among countries in unit abatement costs are: different annual (energy) use of the equipment, electricity price (for example in southern countries air condition equipments are used more than in northern), different unabated emission factors and HFC- compounds used in countries. These three factors are not taken into 9 ` account in cost calculations presented in chapter 6.3.1. Utilization hours, refrigerant blends and emission factors are assumed to constant. Electricity use is neglected, because uncertainty of this is large and no detailed data on working hours of different appliances on country level is available. Unabated sector specific emission factors are estimated with help of the IPPCguidelines and review meeting on draft of this report. Uncertainty of used refrigerants inside sectors is also large, so the average values or the most probable blend is used when calculating GWP on specific sector. No autonomous improvement was assumed, except for refrigerated transport sector. 10 ` 3 HFCs, PFCs and SF6 3.1 Introduction The man-made greenhouse gases hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) are usually summarised under the title F-gases. These F-gases account for approximately one percent of the direct radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, but business as usual scenarios suggest a rapid increase in their importance. Harnisch and Hendriks (2000), for example, estimated that in the year 2010 F-gases could account for around 3 percent of the EU-15’s greenhouse gas emissions because they are increasingly used in air conditioning, refrigeration, foam and aerosol applications as substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs and HCFCs), which are banned by the Montreal Protocol. This chapter first describes the emission source categories, then the emission factors and methodology used for estimating the current and future emissions of the group of F-gases. Subsequently, it gives an overview of the options and cost to control these emissions. Finally, some initial results are shown. 3.2 Emission source categories Sources, magnitudes and projections of future F-gas emissions differ significantly between countries and studies , mainly due to structural differences and the timing of the substitution of ozone depleting substances. According to the EDGAR inventory (RIVM/TNO, 2004; Olivier, 2002), two-thirds of the global HFC emissions in 1995 (126 Mt CO2eq.) resulted from the production of HCFC-22. The remainder resulted from various usages of HFCs. Around 70 percent of global PFC emissions (99 Mt CO2eq) came from primary aluminium production. The rest resulted from the usage of PFC. Some two-thirds of global SF6 emissions (144 Mt CO2eq) resulted from the manufacturing of electric equipment, equipment use in utilities and other electrical equipment use. The rest came from a variety of sources such as the production of magnesium. First global estimates for future SF6 and PFC were made in the nineties (Victor and MacDonald, 1999). The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al, 2002) included updated estimates for HFC, PFC and SF6 indicating that, in the worst case (the B2 scenario), global PFC and SF6 emission might increase by 45 to 70 percent in 2020 compared to 1990. These global estimates, however can not deny the fact that the uncertainty in individual national estimates is significant. Data available from UNFCCC databases (UNFCCC, 2004) give total Annex I emissions 1995 HFC (124 Mt CO2eq), PFCs (78 Mt CO2eq) and SF6 (100 Mt CO2eq). For the year 1995, however only 60 percent of the countries submitted data. Some countries have provided inventories in the common reporting format (CRF) with great details also on the sector-specific split. Most European countries, however, have not provided this information in sufficient detail, so that it is difficult to conclude about the importance of individual sources for the European emissions. Bearing this in mind, Table 3.1 summarises the 11 ` most important anthropogenic activities in Europe that lead to emissions of F-gases and indicates their importance of European level. Country specific importance of certain sector, especially HCFC-22 production, aerosol use (including metered dose inhalers), primary aluminium production and category SF6 others (including emissions from soundproof windows and special tyres) can be much different. Table 3.1: Estimated importance of the sources of HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions 1995 and 2020 in Europe according the own estimates presented in this work. HCFC-22 production Industrial refrigeration Commercial refrigeration (supermarkets, etc.) Transport refrigeration Stationary air-conditioning Small hermetic refrigerators Mobile air-conditioning Aerosols (including metered dose inhalers) One component foam Other foams Manufacturing and distribution of HFCs Other use of HFC Primary aluminium production Semiconductor industry, PFC use in CVD and etching High (and mid) voltage switches Magnesium processing Manufacturing and distribution of SF6 Other use of SF6 1: >10% of total emissions 1995 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2020 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2: 6-10% of total emission 3: <6% of total emissions 3.3 Emission factors and emissions of F-gases 3.3.1 HFC emissions During the 1990s, many sectors that formerly used CFC gases changed rapidly to applications employing HFCs to comply with the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent amendments demanding a phase out of ozone depleting substances (ODS). The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Tier 2: Advanced Methodology for Estimating Emissions) (Houghton et al., 1997a and 1997b) introduce two different methods to estimate emissions: a “bottom-up” and a “top-down” approach. The 12 ` recommended method depends on the quality of the statistics and data available. In the “bottom-up” approach, the emissions of each individual HFC and PFC chemical are calculated based on equipment numbers or detailed use data. Alternatively, in the “top-down” approach emissions are estimated based on the levels of consumption and the emission characteristics of various processes and equipment, taking current service and recovery practices into account. For the RAINS model, the “top-down” approach offers sufficient detail. Activities that emit HFC have been divided into 12 different sectors. Six of these are related to refrigeration and air conditioning. In the remainder, each of these sectors will be discussed. 3.3.1.1 HCFC-22 production HCFC-22 is a gas used in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems, in foam manufacturing as a blend component of blowing agents, and in the manufacturing of synthetic polymers. Because it is an ozone depleting substance, most developed countries are phasing out HCFC22 from most end-uses with the exception of the use as chemical feedstock. The production of HCFC-22 involves the reaction of chloroform (CHCl3) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) using antimony pentachloride (SbCl5) as a catalyst. This process generates HFC23 as a by-product, but the amount varies depending on plant-specific conditions and the amount of HCFC-22 produced. HFC-23 has a global warming potential (GWP) of 11,700 over a 100-year time horizon, so its potential impact on climate change is significant. With the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, HCFC consumption is gradually eliminated, with reductions from the 1986 base-year levels of 35 percent, 65 percent, and 90 percent in 2004, 2010, and 2015, respectively. Final HCFC consumption phase-out will occur in 2020 (2040 for developing countries). To calculate HFC emissions, RAINS applies emission factors related to the volume of HCFC22 production. Activity data are based on reported production levels for historic years (Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000; AEAT, 2003; Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999; Kokorin and Nakhutin 2000) and UNEP’s phase out schedule for CFC and HCFC products for future years (UNEP, 1997). The emission factor is presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2: Calculation of HFC emissions from HCFC production in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources HCFC-22 HCFC-22 production HCFC-22 production Tons per year Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000; AEAT, 2003; Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999; Kokorin and Nakhutin 2000 Emission factors Sector Emission control Emission factor [t HFC-23/ t HCFC-22 produced] 13 GWP Emission factor (100 year) [t CO2eq/ t HCFC-22 produced] ` HCFC-22 Data sources No control 0.02 11,700 Harnisch and Hendriks (2000), AEAT (2003) 2,340 3.3.1.2 Cooling and stationary air conditioning For the RAINS calculations, this sector is divided into five sub-sectors, distinguishing cooling for domestic, commercial, industrial and transport purposes as well as stationary airconditioning. Some sectors, which make only minor contributions to total emissions such as artificial ice rinks, professional kitchens refrigeration machines and some smaller air conditioning equipment, are included in the category “Other use of HFC”. For cooling purposes, different refrigerants were used in the past. CFC-12 (R-12) was used for a temperature range from 0°C to +10°C, the CFC/HCFC blend R-502 for low temperatures between -25°C and -10°C. HCFC-22 (R-22), the quantitatively most important refrigerant, was used for medium temperatures and for the majority of air-conditioning systems. Because of the phase-out of ozone depleting substances, CFCs and HCFCs are replaced, mainly with the different HFC compounds described in Table 3.3. The phase-out schedule depends on the country’s status in the Montreal Protocol. Countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Montreal protocol (later in the text article 5 countries or special countries) are entitled to a grace period before phase-out measures have to be implemented. For developed countries the target years for stabilizing consumption levels are 1989 for CFCs and 1996 for HCFCs. These countries have to completely phase out CFC in 1996 and HFC in 2030. Developing countries have to stabilise their consumption of CFCs in 1990 and HFCs in 2016 and have to stop using CFCs in 2010 and HCFCs in 2040. Table 3.3: Calculation of HFC emissions from cooling and stationary air conditioning in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources DOM COMM IND Domestic small hermetic refrigerators Commercial refrigeration Industrial refrigeration, including food and agricultural TRA_REF Refrigarated transport AIRCON Stationary air conditioning using water chilling Stock of HFC used as refrigerant (a function of new equipment over time and scrapped equipment). HFC tons/year Annual emission inventories of the Parties submitted to the UNFCCC (http://unfccc.int/program/mis/ghg/submis2003.html), Harnisch and Hendriks (2000) Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001). Activity data for the year 2000 have been compiled from various sources (Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000; AEAT, 2003; Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999; Common Reporting Formats and National Communications to the UNFCCC), assuming an average charge per installation as 14 ` listed in Table 3.5. Estimates of the average charge size are based on Houghton et al. (1997b), Pedersen (1998) and Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001). The year 2000 was calibrated as the reference year for EU-25 for HFC and activity levels in all other years are calculated by using growth rates described later in table 3.10. Saturation year of the sector depends of average equipment lifetime. For commercial refrigeration saturation year is 2005 and stationary air conditioning and industrial refrigeration 2010. Because short equipment lifetime of refrigerated transport, no saturation year was assumed, but autonomous improvement of equipment stabilises growth rate after 2000. In domestic sector activity growth is a function of number of households. After saturation year market growth for HFC use does not depend anymore on CFC phase out. Between years 2000 and saturation year there is grey area, where economic indicators can’t reflect activity change, this is why steady yearly consumption of refrigerants in new equipment is assumed. For the future, the growth rates and market penetration of cooling and air conditioning as listed in Table 3.4 have been assumed. The growth rates are based on activity forecasts with the PRIMES model for the relevant sector (EC, 2003b, p 59-60). For stationary air conditioning, the growth pertains to the newly installed amount of refrigerant. These Europe-wide default data could be refined by country-specific estimates, if relevant information becomes available. Average market growth is taken from European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030 (i.e. the gross value added) of commercial and industrial sectors for the EU-15 (EC, 2003, p.132). The activity pathway for domestic sector is linked to amount of households. Table 3.4: Average market growth of HFC use in new equipment in percent per year in EU-25. RAINS sector 1995-1999 DOM Sales statistics or HH* COMM country specific IND country specific TRA_REF country specific AIRCON country specific 2000-2010** HH 0 - 2.4 0 0 0 2010-2020*** HH 2.4 2.4 0 2.4 2020-2030*** HH 2.2 2.2 0 2.2 *HH: calculated from the number of households, assuming that every households purchases (on average) 0.105 small hermetic units per year in EU15 and 0.1 elsewhere. **average market growth of use in a new equipment ***average market growth of of refrigerant bank after saturation year The activity levels in this approach consist of the so-called refrigerant bank or stock. This bank describes the average annual stock of refrigerants for a particular application as a function of the (past) sales of refrigerant and the scrapping rate of the application. Because of the complex nature of refrigerant banks, three stages during the life cycle of a refrigerant are distinguished for the calculation of emissions: (i) during installation/manufacture, (ii) during the lifetime of the product and (iii) at the end of life. Losses during manufacturing and installation are negligible compared to other losses. In almost all refrigerant/air-conditioning sectors, equipment must be annually refilled with new refrigerant, causing significant emissions, 15 ` typically around 15 percent of the charge per year. HFC emissions thus are determined by the losses of refrigerant during the various stages of the life cycle. The above implies that in RAINS the emissions in these sectors are the sum of the emissions during the lifetime and the emissions at the end-of-life of the equipment when the equipment is scrapped. The lifetime emissions are a function of the stock (or bank) of HFC in the stock of appliances (be it refrigerators or cars with air conditioning). Basically the emissions are a fraction (or a fixed percentage) of the average stock of HFCs in the appliances causing the emissions. The end-of-life emissions depend on the number of appliances being scrapped in that specific year and the emissions (the HFCs release) when each appliance is scrapped. The number of appliances scrapped depends on the lifetime of the appliances and the growth of the stock in the past. Table 3.5 summarizes the losses of refrigerants during the life cycle as percent of the total charge. The table can be used to calculate the emission factors (EF) for each sector. For the domestic sector the emission factor during product life is very low as it is hermetically sealed and does not require refilling during its lifetime. . Table 3.5 Assumed losses in specified refrigerant sectors during the life cycle for the different sub-sectors (bank and scrap). Activity EF during product life (per year) (bank)(fraction of charge) EF at decommissioning no control (scrapped)(fraction of charge) Mean lifetime of equipment (years) Average GWP of refrigerant Average refrigerant charge [kg HFC/unit] DOM COMM TRA_REF Tons HFC Tons HFC Tons HFC 0.01 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 15 10 yrs 7 yrs 15 yrs 15 yrs 1300 2726 2000 2600 1670 0.1 30/3001 6 80 60g/m3* *average charge of refrigerant per cooled m3 Example of calculating lifetime loses of industrial refrigerator: Size of the charge 80kg 1 30 for small and 300 for big refrigerators. 16 IND Tons HFC AIRCON Tons HFC ` Yearly emission lifetime (15 years)*charge size (80kg)*lifetime emission factor(0.15)+size of the charge (80kg)*end of life emission factor (1)= 15*80*0.15+80+1= 180(kg)+80(kg)=260kg Average lifetime emissions of industrial refrigerator are 260kg. Database uses sum of the total amount of refrigerant so average sizes are presented here just for illustrative purposes. Activity in database is not as equipment but as tons of (sector specific) HFC refrigerant. Up to the saturation year the growth of the bank of HFC is mainly determined by the phasing out of CFC which results in rapid increase in the use of HFC. After the saturation year, the growth depends on the assumed increased in the economic activity. For example in Belgium the HFC-stock in the commercial sector increases from 8 tons HFC in 1995 to 176 in 2000 and up to 731 tons in 2010 and 937 tons in 2020.2 Basically in all countries the growth rates are country specific, but uniform activity pathways can be expected because five year intervals in RAINS. 2 Details can be found in the spreadsheet on activity data. 17 ` Table 3.6: Equations for activity and bank calculations used for in spreadsheets for the commercial sector. Change of refrigerant use and size of the bank, reference year use 100 ton of HFCs 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 ton of HFCs 1000 Use normal Use special Bank normal Bank special 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 3-1 Change of refrigerant use and size of the bank in commercial sector COMM (saturation year 2005). Use special and bank special curves describes development in countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Montreal protocol. Error! Reference source not found. 18 ` Use and bank size growth,reference year use 100 ton of HFCs 700 600 ton of HFCs 500 400 Use Bank 300 200 100 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 3-2 Change of refrigerant use and size of the bank in refrigerated transport sector. No difference was made between article 5 countries and other, because the short lifetime of the equipment and limited amount of manufacturers. Use and bank size change, reference year use 100 ton of HFCs 2500 2000 ton of HFCs 1500 Use normal Use special Bank normal Bank special 1000 500 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 3-3 Change of refrigerant use and size of the bank in industrial sector (saturation year 2010). 19 ` Use special and bank special curves describes development in countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Montreal protocol. Use and bank size change, reference year use 100 ton of HFCs 2500 ton of HFCs 2000 1500 Use normal Use special Bank normal Bank special 1000 500 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure XX Change of refrigerant use and size of the bank in stationary air conditioning sector (saturation year 2010). Use of HFCs in domestic sector is a function of the number of households, the number of fridges per household, the share of HFC-based fridges and the HFC-charge per fridge Typical for this sector is the fact that the refrigerant is not replaced during the lifetime. To correct for the impact of this on the HFC-bank a correction is included. Emissions are calculated only from the end of life source in this sector, because very minimal leakage during the lifetime. It is important to distinguish the differences in the global warming potentials (GWP) of the refrigerants used in different sectors. The GWP depends on two issues. The first is the policy choice of the GWP in particular the time horizon (20 years, 100 years or any other) and the reference study used (the IPCC Second (SAR) or Third Assessment Report (TAR)). The second issue is that the in the refrigeration sector the average GWP depends on the mix of fluids (refrigerants) used since that sector uses refrigerants with different GWP. Regarding the first issue, the UNFCCC has agreed to use the 100year GWP of the SAR for accounting greenhouse gas and the Kyoto Protocol targets. Because of these issues RAINS allows using different GWP for its analysis. For this report we use the values of SAR for the whole time horizon. Table 3.7 lists sector specific GWPs presented in the literature or in CRFs. Table 3.8 shows the resulting HFC emission factors for stationary cooling and air conditioning.. 20 ` Table 3.7 Examples for different sector specific global warming potentials from literature. Germany CRF (SAR/ TAR) COMM TRA_RE F IND AIRCON France CRF* (SAR/ TAR) Spain CRF* (SAR /TAR) Harnich and Hendricks 2000 2472/2748 3214/3720 2442/2702 2700 1995/2187 2059/2258 - 2700 2660/2921 1470/1564 3107/3589 1456/1545 - 2200 2600 EMF-21 2726 2771 2310/2590 Oinonen and Soimakallio 2001 3195 2605/2867 3260 2171 1673 2047/2291 1541/1677 2490 1878 AEAT 2003 *2003 submissions, **GWP of the refrigerants in new equipment in year 2010 Table 3.8: Calculation of HFC emission factors from cooling and stationary air conditioning (no control). Sector (subsector) emission type DOM COMM_B COMM_S TRA_REFB TRA_REFS IND_B IND_S AIRCON_B AIRCON_S Scrap (end of life) Bank (lifetime) Scrap (end of life) Bank(lifetime) Scrap (end of life) Bank Scrap (end of life) Bank Scrap (end of life) Emission GWP factor (100 years) [t HFC/year/ t bank/use] 1 1300 0.2 2726 1 2726 0.2 2000 1 2000 0.15 2490 1 2490 0.1 1627 1 1627 Source (if more than one gas) EMF-21 EMF-21 own* own* own** own** EMF-21 EMF-21 Emission factor [t CO2eq/year/ t sub activity] 1300 545 2726 400 2000 390 2600 163 1627 *composition of blend in refrigerated transport sector HFC-134a/R-404a/R-410a (61%/34.5%/0.05%) ** composition of blend in refrigerated industrial sector HFC-134a/R-404a/R-407C (30%/59%/10%) 3.3.1.3 Mobile air conditioning Emissions from mobile air conditioning have been in the centre of EU legislative attention because of the growing share of cars with air-conditioning and the high life-cycle emissions of mobile air conditioners and the EC has a proposed a regulation to counterbalance this growth.3 3 CEC (2003) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of certain fluorinated greenhouse gases. Commission of the European Communities, COM(2003)492 final. 21 ` As for stationary sources, the major emissions are caused by leakage and losses during the replacement of the refrigerant during the lifetime of the vehicle and at the end of the vehicle’s life. Table 3.9: Calculation of HFC emissions from mobile air conditioning in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate MAC Mobile air conditioning Total sum of HFC refrigerants in vehicle stock Unit Data sources Ton of HFC RAINS databases on vehicle numbers, Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001) and AEAT (2003) for the market share of air-conditioned cars In the past, the share of air-conditioned cars was lower in Europe than in Japan and the United States. Currently, 50-75 percent of all new vehicles sold in Europe have air-conditioning; compared to almost 100 percent in the US and Japan, and the share is expected to sharply increase in Europe (Oinonen and Soimakallio, 2001; AEAT, 2003). The EC (2003) even suggest that the share of MAC in the vehicle stock might increase to 70% in 2010 and 90% in 2020. Estimates on the future penetration for Fennoscandia, i.e., Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, are based on Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), while for the other EU countries the projections of AEAT (2003) for the UK have been used. Other estimates (EC, 2003, p 6) suggest a share of MAC in the vehicle stock of 70% in 2010 and 90% in 2020 so some uncertainty exist here. In case of non-EU 25 countries, former USSR and European countries under article 5 in Montreal protocol (slower CFC- phase out schedule) assumptions are presented in Table 3.10. It is unlikely that forecast for UK would represent all non-Nordic Europe in representative way, but differences between countries will affect less to estimations than inaccurate vintage data of vehicle stock. The total bank of refrigerant is calculated from the number of vehicles (total stock). The yearly use of refrigerant is calculated using the average lifetime of vehicle and the total vehicle stock. The equation used for the use of refrigerant in new vehicles is Use year _ i 1 0.67 * * Penetration year _ i * stock year _ i 12 1000 The use of HFC is a function of the number of light-duty vehicles (stock), the penetration of HFC-based air conditioners, the average charge of HFC per car (in tons/car.) and the lifetime (12 years). 0.67 is the average charge of refrigerant in air conditioning system in kg/vehicle. Estimations are based on assumptions described in Table 3.10. After the year 2000 activity data (car stock) are based on RAINS activity data on light duty vehicles. 1995 vehicle stock data is based on ACEA data. If these were not available Auto oil or Eurostat data have been used (EC, 1999; Eurostat 2003). If none of those references had country specific information RAINS energy data was used for calculating the vehicle stock. 22 ` Table 3.10: Assumed market share (%) of HFC-134a air-conditioners in new cars and their average charge Fenno-Scandia Rest of EU-25+ Switzerland Russia and former USSR Article 5 countries Average charge size [kg] Equipment lifetime [years] 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 5 38 50 50 50 50 50 50 15 50 70 75 75 75 75 75 0 5 15 50 50 50 50 50 0 5 15 50 50 50 50 50 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Figure 3-4 shows penetration of HFC air conditioners as fraction of the total vehicle stock in the baseline scenario. The functions are calculated activity data of RAINS and key assumptions presented in Table 3.10. The function assumes that air condition systems are refilled in case of leakage and HFC use 12 years ago is decommissioned from the bank. 23 ` Penetration rate of HFC mobile air conditioning in vehicle stock 80 % % of the stock with AC 70 % 60 % EU-25 (Middle and South+ Switzerland 50 % EU-25 (Nordic) inc. Norway 40 % 30 % Other European contries 20 % Countries under special agreement + FSU 10 % 0% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 3-4 Penetration of HFC-134a based mobile air condition in Europe in light duty vehicles 1990-2030 (countries under special agreement are the article 4 countries under the Montreal Protocol) The average charge assumed is 0.67 kg/vehicle. Lifetime emissions for mobile air conditioning equipment are assumed to be 10 percent of the banked amount per year and 100 percent at the end of the life in the no-control case. Table 3.11 shows the resulting emission factors. A detailed study on the annual rate of emissions for passenger car air-conditioning systems up to seven years old vehicles was published by German federal environment office (Schwarz 2001). It gave average annual emissions for three different types of cars of 8.2% of the charge. The emission rates depend on the age of the vehicle and it is impossible to predict if the rate of loss will continue to rise linearly as the aging process proceeds (Schwarz 2001). A more recent study by Schwarz and Harnisch (2003), gives a leakage rate of 6.9% per year and states that “climatic conditions seem not to influence much to the leakage rate”. Other studies (Oinonen and Soimakallio, 2001) show significantly higher emission (20%/year). In order to model this, we have divided this sector to 2 sub-sectors, which are MAC_BANK and MAC_USE. The average lifetime emission factor, assuming a lifetime of 12 years, would be 1.914 ton CO 2eq per year. This is in line with estimates from the CEC (2003, p 17) that suggest estimates of 1.7 to 2.34 ton per year.Table 3.11: Calculation of HFC emission factors from mobile air conditioning Sector Abatement measure Emission factor [t HFC-134/year/vehicle] 24 GWP Emission factor [t CO2 eq./year/activity] ` MAC_BANK no control 0.1 1300 130 MAC_SCRAP no control 1 1300 1300 3.3.1.4 Aerosols HFC emissions from aerosols are mainly released from aerosol propellant cans and metered dose inhalers that are used for medical purposes such as asthma inhalers. In these applications HFC is used as propellant so that it vaporises immediately. RAINS uses the amount of emissions itself as the activity (unit: HFC emissions ton/year). Emission estimates and activity forecasts are based on the national communications to the UNFCCC as well as on Harnisch and Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001). We have assumed that annual growth of aerosols using HFCs follows average growth of EU-25’s GDP. Table 3.12: Calculation of HFC emissions from aerosol use in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources AERO Aerosol use HFC emissions as reported to UNFCCC HFC tons/year Common reporting formats and National communications to UNFCCC, Harnisch and Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003), Poulsen (2001) Emission factors Sector Emission control Aerosol use No control Emission factor [t HFC/t HFC emitted] 1.0 GWP 1,300 Emission factor [t CO2eq/t HFC emitted] 1,300 3.3.1.5 Polyurethane one component foam (OC) The main application of polyurethane (PU) one component foam is to fill cavities and joints when installing inner fixtures in housing construction. Because OC foams come in pressurised canisters and cylinders, they are also called aerosol foams. OC blowing agents are typically gaseous, as they function as a blowing agent and as a propellant for the foam. They volatilise upon application, except for small residues, which remain for at most one year in the hardened foam (Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999). 25 ` Table 3.13 Calculation of HFC emissions from one component foam (OC) in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources OC Polyurethane one component foam HFC emissions from OC as reported to UNFCCC HFC tons/year Common reporting formats and National communications to UNFCCC, Harnisch and Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003), Poulsen (2001) Emission factors Sector Emission control Aerosol use No control Emission factor [t HFC/ t HFC used] 1.0 GWP 1,300 Emission factor [t CO2eq/ t HFC emitted] 1,300 Because there are country-specific variations in the composition of HFC blend inside the can, emissions (expressed in tons HFC/year) rather than can production were used as activity. The full volume of HFC inside the can was assumed to vaporise immediately. Emission estimates and activity forecasts are based on common reporting formats and the national communications to UNFCCC as well as on Harnisch and Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003). We have assumed that annual growth of aerosols using HFCs follows average growth of EU-25 average GDP growth. The CRF category used for activity data source was hard foam more specifically HFC-134a and HFC-152a compounds with product emission factor 1. For the newly acceded EU countries, CFC substitution was estimated to start five years later. 3.3.1.6 Other foams This sector includes about ten different polyurethane foam types (PU appliances, PU/PIR/Phen laminates, PU disc panel, PU cont panel, PU blocks, PU spray, PU pipe in pipe, XPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS). It is difficult to estimate product life emissions and lifetime of the foam product. End of life emissions depend greatly on the end of life treatment. If the product is land filled the emission factor depends greatly of properties of plastic. If the product is recycled the emission factor can be 1 if recycling process doesn’t incinerate or collect fugitive emissions. If the product is incinerated, the emission factor is close to zero (depending on incineration temperature). RAINS uses emissions itself as the activity (unit: HFC emissions ton/year). Emission estimates are based on the national communications to the UNFCCC. The average growth for the whole sector is assumed from average of more detailed studies (Schwarz and Leizewitz 1999 and AEAT 2003). This estimates take into account the assumed average market growth of this sector, the ratio between hydrocarbons and HFCs in foam cells, differences in product life times (from 15-50 years) and differences in production, lifetime and disposal emissions. Estimations for filling data gaps were done by using emissions/gross domestic production in year 2000. Later emission estimations were made according detailed emission studies (Schwarz and Leizewitz 1999 and AEAT 2003). 26 ` Table 3.14: Calculation of HFC emissions from other foams in RAINS RAINS sectors OF Other polyurethane foams Activity rate HFC emissions from other foams and XPS foam as reported to UNFCCC Unit HFC tons/year Data sources Common reporting formats and national communications to UNFCCC Sector Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [t HFC/ [t CO2eq/ t HFC emitted] t HFC used] Other foams No control 1.0 815 815 3.3.1.7 Other HFC emission sources This sector includes all other emission sources of HFC that are not described above. These include fire extinguishers, solvents, some air conditioning and refrigerator applications, HFC manufacturing emissions and so forth. RAINS uses as activity variables for this sector HFC emissions. Both past and future emissions of this sector are based on the national communications and projections to UNFCCC as well as on Harnisch and Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001). Table 3.15: Calculation of other HFC emissions in RAINS RAINS sectors HFC_OTHER Other HFC applications Activity rate HFC emissions from different applications ton/year Unit HFC tons/year Data sources Common reporting formats and national communications to UNFCCC Sector Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [t HFC/t HFC [t CO2eq/t HFC reported] used] Other HFC No control 1 1,300 1,300 emissions 3.3.2 PFC emissions Two important sectors emit PFC (CF4 and C2F8): primary aluminium production and the semiconductor industry. 3.3.2.1 Primary aluminium production Primary aluminium production has been identified as a major anthropogenic source of emissions of two perfluorocarbon compounds (PFC): tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The two PFCs, CF4 and C2F6, have greenhouse gas warming potentials of 6,500 respectively 9,200 times (for a 100-year time horizon) that of CO2. During 27 ` normal operating conditions, an electrolytic cell used to produce aluminium does not generate measurable amounts of PFC. PFC is only produced during brief upset conditions known as "anode effects". These conditions occur when the level of aluminium oxide drops too low and the electrolytic bath itself begins to undergo electrolysis. Since the aluminium oxide level in the electrolytic bath cannot be directly measured, surrogates such as cell electrical resistance or voltage are most often used in modern facilities to ensure that the aluminium in the electrolytic bath is maintained at the correct level. The activity variable used to calculate emissions from this source is the volume of aluminium production. Activity data are based on UN statistics and data on the production technologies from the aluminium industry website (http://www.aluminium.net/smelters) and are, together with projections, already part of the existing RAINS database. Emission factors depend on the production technology (Table 3.16) and on a number of site-specific conditions. The International Aluminium Institute (IAI, 2002) published lower emission factors than the ones shown in the table, indicating that considerable variations exist even between smelters using the same technology. That study covers all smelters in the EU-25, but neither provides sitespecific nor country-specific emission factors, so that the values in Table 3.16 are used for RAINS. Table 3.16: Calculation of PFC emissions from aluminium production in RAINS RAINS sectors PR_ALUM Aluminium production Activity rate Primary aluminium production Unit Ton primary aluminium produced per year Data sources RAINS databases Emission factors Technology Emission factor [kg CF4eq./ton Al] Point feeder prebake PFPB 0.06 Centre worked prebake CWPB 0.4 Side worked prebake SWPB 1.9 Vertical stud Söderberg VSS 0.7 Horizontal stud Söderberg HSS 0.7 Source: Harnisch and Hendricks 2000 With data from the Aluminium Industry website (http://www.aluminium.net/smelters) on the shares of the different aluminium production technologies in the European countries and the technology specific emission factors above country-specific emission factors have been calculated. Table 3.17: The share (%) of different primary aluminium production technologies in Europe (countries, which are not mentioned, do not have primary aluminium production). Source: http://www.aluminium.net/smelters, Peek (2004)) REGION Bosnia Herzigovina France 1995 1995 1995 1995 2000 2000 2000 PFPB SWPB CWPB VSS/HSS PFPB SWPB VSS/HSS 0 0 0 100 0 0 79 21 79 21 28 ` Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands4 Norway Poland Romania Russia (Karelia and Kola Peninsula) Russia (remaining parts in Europe) Republic of Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine Serbia Montenegro United Kingdom Turkey 31 100 20 50 88 100 12 100 100 0 100 100 36 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 55 45 75 25 100 4 100 50 50 100 100 100 54 25 100 100 100 96 64 45 75 100 100 96 4 100 For modelling purposes activity PR_ALUM was divided into three sub activities: ALUM_PFPB, ALUM_WPB and ALUM_SS. 3.3.2.2 Semiconductor industry, PFC use in CVD and etching The semiconductor industry uses HFC-23, CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, SF6 and NF3 in two production processes: plasma etching thin films (etch) and plasma cleaning chemical vapour deposition (CVD) tool chambers. Because in many cases the amount of PFC use would directly indicate the production rate of the company, this information is confidential. RAINS uses as activity variables for this sector the volume of PFC emissions. Data is derived from national communications to the UNFCCC as well as Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001), US EPA (2001b). The European semiconductor manufacturers have committed themselves to a 10% reduction relative to the 1995 base year. This results from the voluntary agreement of the World Semiconductor Council, which covers 90 percent of the global production of semiconductors (USDOS, 1999). This agreement hasn't been taken into account in this report's baseline assumptions. Statistics do not indicate, that the 95 level would be reached. This would mean around 90% reduction from 2010 base line. Table 3.18: Calculation of PFC emissions from the semiconductor industry RAINS 29 ` RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources PFC_SEMICOND PFC use in semiconductor industry PFC emissions Tons/year National communications to the UNFCCC as well as on Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001). Sector Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [t PFC/t PFC [t CO2eq/t HFC reported] used] PFC_SEMICOND No control 1 6,500 6,500 3.3.3 SF6 Emissions SF6 emissions arise from high and mid voltage switches, magnesium production and casting and a variety of other applications using SF6. 3.3.3.1 High and mid voltage switches SF6 is a manufactured gas, used mainly as an electrical insulator in the transmission and distribution equipment of electric systems. The use of SF6 in electrical transmission and distribution equipment slowly increased between 1970’s and the mid-1990’s, with new SF6 equipment gradually replacing older oil and compressed air systems. Suitable alternatives to SF6 do not exist for these applications as oil and compressed air systems suffer from safety and reliability problems (AEAT, 2003). Most of the SF6 is stored in gas-insulated switchgears for high and mid-voltage electric networks. The emission of SF6 depends on the age of the gas insulated switchgear (GIS), (since older models leak more than newer ones), the size of the transmission network as well as recycling practices of “old” SF6. Although specialised methods for the estimation of SF6 emissions from electrical equipment have been developed (Schaefer et al., 2002), implementation of these methods would need significant information on transmission network length and the age and size of utilities, which is not readily available at the European scale. Therefore, RAINS uses as activity variables for this sector the amount of SF6 emissions. Emission factors rates have been taken from the common reporting formats and national communications to the UNFCCC and from other country reports from the German Federal Environmental Agency (Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999), VTT Energy (Finland) (Oinonen and Soimakallio, 2001), AEAT (AEAT, 2003) and Poulsen (2001). In case countries did not report their emissions, US-EPA (US EPA, 2001b) or own estimations are used. It is important to note that at least in some East-European countries other insulation gases/methods are still used (see the 3th National communication of Latvia to the UNFCCC and Kokorin and Nakuthin, 2000). 30 ` Table 3.19: Calculation of SF6 emissions from the high and mid voltage switches RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources Sector GIS GIS SF6 use in high and mid voltage switches SF6 emission from switches Tons/year Common reporting formats and national communications to the UNFCCC, Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001) Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [t SF6/t SF6 [t CO2eq/t SF6 reported] used] No control 1 23,900 23,900 3.3.3.2 Magnesium production and magnesium casting Casting and production of primary and secondary magnesium are well known sources of atmospheric emissions of SF6. SF6 is used as a shielding gas in magnesium foundries to protect the molten magnesium from re-oxidizing whilst it is running to best casting ingots. Activity data on the past volumes of processed magnesium is taken from the World Mineral Statistics (Taylor et al., 2003), UN statistics and the national communications to UNFCCC. Use of SF 6 in these processes is assumed to stay stable. The emission factor of 1 kg SF6/ton of processed metal is based on the average emission factors published in Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999) and Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001). Table 3.20: Calculation of SF6 emissions from magnesium production and casting in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources Sector PR_MAGN PR_MAGN Magnesium production and casting Magnesium processed Tons/year National communications to the UNFCCC as well as Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001) Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [kg SF6/t magnesium [t CO2eq/t HFC processed] used] No control 1 23,900 23,900 31 ` 3.3.3.3 Other sources for SF6 emissions Some European countries used significant amounts of SF6 in tires and soundproof windows. Some countries use SF6 also in the semiconductor industry. Some sport equipment manufacturers also use SF6 in tennis balls and sport shoes, but this use is relatively small and emissions are hard to forecast and the industry in question has agreed to reduce the use of SF6 over time (Harnisch &Schwarz, 2003, p.23). RAINS uses as activity variables for this sector the amount of SF6 emissions as reported by countries to UNFCCC. Emissions from these other sources are taken from common reporting formats and the national communications to the UNFCCC or from other national reports (Schwarz and Leisewitz, 1999; Oinonen and Soimakallio, 2001; AEAT, 2003; Poulsen, 2001 “Other sources” is divided to to sectors windows (WIND) and other SF6 emissions (SF6_other). In some countries use of SF6 in soundproof windows leads significant end of life emissions in the future, but because long lifetime of window (25-50 years) only countries’ own emission forecasts are used. It seems like these emissions are problem only for a few European countries, which have documented their emission estimates relatively well. Emissions from tyres and windows in the baseline follow the prediction made by Harnisch & Schwarz (2003) or country specific forecast from National Communications. Remaing SF6 emissions are assumed to stay constant over time in the baseline scenario. Table 3.21 Calculation of SF6 emissions from other sources in RAINS RAINS sectors Activity rate Unit Data sources Sector WIND SF6_OTHER SF6_OTHER Other sources of SF6 emissions Reported emissions of SF6 Tons/year Common reporting formats and national communications to the UNFCCC, Harnisch&Schwarz (2003), Schwarz and Leisewitz (1999), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001), AEAT (2003) and Poulsen (2001) Emission control Emission factor GWP Emission factor [t HFC/t HFC [t CO2eq/t HFC reported] used] 1 23,900 23,900 No control 1 23,900 23,900 4 Options and costs of controlling F-gases 4.1 Options and costs of controlling HFC emissions Table 4.1 presents the abatement options for reducing HFC emissions that have been identified for this study. All data are based on current technology. The potential application (for the year 2020) assumes that the measures start to be implemented in 2004 (except mobile air conditioning 2007). Depending on the lifetime of the equipment at hand the potential 32 ` application for 2010 and 2015 will be lower depending the turn over of current stock to ne equipment. If some countries already implanted these measures these extend to which the implementation takes place is taken into account in the CLE scenario. In that case the remaining potential for additional measures (on top of the existing legislation) is smaller. Thermal oxidation (i.e., the process of oxidizing HFC-23 to CO2, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and water) is a demonstrated technology for the destruction of halogenated organic compounds. Good practice means improved components, leak prevention (maintenance) and end of life recollection of the refrigerant. Process modification includes changes of the process type from ordinary to secondary loop systems and in some cases alternative refrigerants. Secondary loop systems pump cold brine solutions through a second set of loops away from the refrigeration equipment and into areas to be cooled. These systems require a significantly lower refrigerant charge, have lower leak rates, and can allow the use of flammable or toxic refrigerants. The primary disadvantage of the secondary loop system is a loss of energy efficiency (US EPA, 2001a).The major alternative refrigerant for mobile air conditioning and refrigerated transport is pressurized CO2, for one component foam alternative blowing agent would mean changing R-134a partly to R-152a or to hydrocarbons. In the foams- sector the alternative for XPS would be CO2. For mobile air conditioning the CO2 system is closed and not yet commercially available. For refrigerated transport the CO2 system is open (and so refilled after every journey) and a commercial technique. 33 ` Table 4.1: Abatement options for HFC emissions, estimated penetration (potential application in 2020) and the technically feasible emission reduction for each option. Maximum technical potential (%) Removal efficiency (%) Source Activity, unit Abatement measure HCFC-22 production HCFC-22 production, ton Post combustion 100 95 Industrial refrigeration Refrigerant bank, ton Good practice 100 64 End of life refrigerant, ton Good practice Process modifications 80 100 Good practice 100 57 Process modifications 80 100 Refrigerant use, ton HFCs Good practice 100 40 Refrigerant use, ton HFCs Alternatives 50 100 Refrigerant use, ton HFCs Process modifications 100 100 Good practice 100 36 Recollection 100 90 Alternatives 100 100 Alternatives 100 100 Good practice 100 76 Commercial refrigeration Transport refrigeration Stationary air conditioning Small hermetic refrigerators Mobile air conditioning Refrigerant use, ton HFCs Number of households Refrigerant bank, ton HFCs One component foam Emissions as t HFCs Alternatives 94 Other foams Emissions as t HFCs Alternatives 15 100 Aerosols Emissions as t HFCs Alternatives 0,08 100 34 85 ` Table 4.2: Costs of HFC reduction options Sector Technology PR_HCFC22 Post combustion IND Good practice Process modifications COMM Good practice Process modifications TRA_REF Good practice Process AIRCON modifications Good practice DOM* Recollection Alternatives MAC Alternatives Good practice OC Alternatives OF Alternatives Investment Electricity Fixed O&M Changing O&M (€/tonn of use (% Costs costs HFC) increase) (€/activity/year) (€/activity/year) 15,000 0 2000 2,000 3,333 0 5000 0 3000 51,192 3 4163 10,000 0 100,000 15 12,500 0 80,000 20 8,333 150,000 166,667 50 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5000 3000 5000 3000 3000 0 0 0 1.24 0.4 4.9 0 2250 4000 0 0 0 0 0 0 *for the domestic costs are presented per HFC ton used not per househol Source: (Devotta et al. 2004, Harnisch and Schwarz 2001, Harnisch and Hendriks 2000; Heijnes et al. 1999; Jyrkonen 2004, US EPA 2001a; Oinonen and Soimakallio 2001; Pedersen 1998 and Kaapola 1989). If there was a significant difference between the costs estimates of different sources, the most recent data were used. In the preliminary cost estimates, the average cost for energy is estimated to be 5 cents per kWh. The average use of energy per ton of HFC in conventional systems is based on the utilization period of maximum loads described in Kaapola (2001) and Pedersen (1998). Table 4.3 Assumptions for average electricity use per ton of HFC. Sector Average energy use per MWh/tHFC COMM 2000 IND 2300 AIRCON 430* *stationary air conditioning have significant differences depending on climate 35 ` Any indirect emissions resulting from extra energy consumption were not taken into account in emission or cost calculations. 4.2 Options and costs of controlling PFC emissions 4.2.1 Primary aluminium production The reduction of the frequency and duration of anode effects has dual benefits. It reduces PFC emissions and optimises process efficiency. Costs for process improvements are presented in Table 4.4. The annualised investment costs are average estimates; investment costs vary depending on technical aspects and the life time of the plant. This is why calculating average investment costs for Europe as a whole can be misleading, because of large variations in the age and the type of production capacity. Investment costs were taken from Harnisch et al. (1998) and O&M costs were based on Harnisch and Hendricks (2000). Average lifetime for smelters after improvement was assumed to be 20 years. Note that in a large number of countries technology conversions took place already in the past. The shares of future technologies are generally assumed to stay the same, since the activity levels (and hence capacity) are not expected to change in Europe. Table 4.4: Specific costs for conversion and retrofitting of smelter capacity (Harnisch et al., 1995, Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000). Interest rate used 4%, process lifetime used is 20 years. Fixed O&M costs Abatement measure Removal efficiency (%) Investment costs [€/t aluminium] [€/t aluminium/year]) Average costs (€/t CO2 eq.) VSS to PFPB conversion 92 2,200 0 39.0 VSS retrofitting 26 250 -10 -2.0 SWPB to PFPB conversion 97 5300 -75 -3.0 SWPB retrofitting 26 592 0* -4.9 *retrofitting improves process but here 20euro/activity transaction costs are assumed. Investment costs are given here per installed ton of annual capacity and it is assumed that capacity is the same as production/activity. Investment cost very greatly in the literature and some cases they would lead to negative abatement costs. Anyhow improvements have been probably made already before technical reference year of this report (1999), so the higher cost are chosen, because improvements to the rest of the existing plants are most likeable more difficult and expensive to make. 36 ` 4.2.2 Semiconductor manufacture In the absence of detailed information on activity data for PFC use in the semiconductor industry, it was assumed that limiting PFC use and increasing NF3 use in chemical vapour deposition (CVD) chambers could lead to a 99% percent reduction on that source (CVD) compared to baseline of PFC emission in this sector from 2010 onwards and CVD chamber cleaning use covers approximately 60 percent of total PFC use/emissions in year 2010 (Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000). This is in agreement with the process line age structure estimates done in Harnisch et al. (2000). The European semiconductor manufacturers have committed themselves to a 10% reduction relative to the 1995 base year. It is estimated that additional investment costs for NF3 use would be € 70,000 per chamber (Harnisch et al., 2000), resulting in average annual costs between € 156,000–169,000/ton CF4 used (Harnisch and Hendriks, 2000; Oinonen and Soimakallio, 2001). The potential application for this abatement option is estimated to cover the total CVD part of this sector (maximum technical applicability in semiconductor sector 60%). The cost of 169.000euro/ ton of CF4 is used here. 4.3 Options and costs of controlling SF6 emissions Table 4.5 presents the main options for reducing SF6 emissions. Good practice for high and mid voltage switchgears (GIS) means leakage reduction and recycling of recollected SF 6 from end of life switchgear. Alternatives for magnesium production and casting means change from SF6 to SO2, and alternatives in sector “SF6 other” means a phase-out of SF6 for tires and sound proof windows. Table 4.5: Abatement options for SF6 emissions High and mid voltage switches Magnesium production and casting Windows SF6 Other Abatement technology Good practice Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Application potential (2020) 100 Country-specific 60% 100 %* Removal efficiency % 84 100 100 100 *application potential depends greatly on “stored” SF in windows and tennis balls. In here we assume, that that stock doesn’t exist anymore in year 6 2020. Use of SF in semiconductor manufacturing is relatively small and doesn’t affect on future emission. 6 The average annual costs of good practice measures like leakage reduction, regular checking routines of switches and end of life recollection of SF6 are estimated at € 19,000/ton of SF6 abated. Changing SF6 to SO2 is estimated to cost on average € 7,170/used SF6 ton abated. Average cost for replacing SF6 use in magnesium production and casting is 12.5 euro/tonn of SF6. Alternatives for, tires and soundproof windows have negative costs (Harnisch and Schwarz 2003), but to be on the conservative .4.18 euro/tonn of SF6 (= 0.1 euro/CO2 eq) costs 37 ` are assumed for RAINS. These costs are based on Harnisch and Hendriks (2000), Oinonen and Soimakallio (2001) and Harnisch and Schwarz, 2003). 5 Interactions with other pollutants Direct interactions with other pollutants exist for a number of activities that emit fluorinated gases (see Table 5.1). The use of alternative refrigerants may lead to an increased electricity use in some sectors (COMM, IND and AIRCO). Regarding HFC emissions mobile air conditioning not only increases HFC emissions but it also increase fuel consumption, thereby increasing other emissions. Primary aluminium production is also a source of particulate matter emissions and changing the technology will also affect PM emissions (Klimont et al 2002).. Abatement options that affect PFC emissions also affect CO2 (Houghton et al. 1997). The infrastructure of electricity distributing network depends for example does depend also structure of country’s energy conversion system. This affects to amount and size of gas insulated switchgears. Table 5.1: Interactions between fluorinated gases and other GHGes and traditional air pollutants. Emision HFC activity Refrigeration &SAC CO2 x Mobile Airconditioning x Foam x PFC Primary Aluminium production x SF6 Switches x SO2 x NOX x PM x x x x x x x x x Increased electricity use Increased fuel use Change in insulation properties Decrease through process improvement Infrastructure of network 6 Preliminary results 6.1 Emissions in the past 6.1.1 RAINS estimates Table 6.1 shows the RAINS estimate for 1995 for Europe as a whole including the European part of Russia (up to the Ural). Although country-specific data have been collected for the most important sectors where activity data are published (HCFC-22 production, primary aluminum production and magnesium production) very little is known about HFC use in non EU-countries. Therefore estimates for these countries are more uncertain. The exception is 38 ` HCFC-22 use, for which data are generally good. Table 6.1 F-gas emissions in 1995 in Europe in MtCO2eq. HFCs PFCs SF6 SUM Albania 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Austria 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.8 Belarus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Belgium 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 Bosnia-H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Bulgaria 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Croatia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cyprus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Czech Republic 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Denmark 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Estonia 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 France 1.3 1.1 1.2 3.6 Germany 8.0 2.4 0.5 10.9 Greece 0.8 0.1 6.0 6.8 Hungary 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Ireland 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Italy 5.5 0.1 0.1 5.6 Latvia 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Lithuania 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Luxembourg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Macedonia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Malta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Netherlands 5.8 1.7 0.0 7.5 Norway 0.1 2.1 0.9 3.1 Poland 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Portugal 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 Rumania 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Russia-Kaliningrad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Russia Kola-Karelia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Russia-Remaininga 12.0 11.0 4.9 27.9 Russia St Petersburg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serbia-M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Slovakia 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Slovenia 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 Spain 4.9 3.2 0.2 8.3 Sweden 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 Switzerland 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 Turkey 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 Ukraine 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.5 United Kingdom 5.6 0.3 0.9 6.7 Europe 47.9 24.0 19.5 91.4 Thereof: EU-25 35.2 10.1 11.5 56.8 Thereof: Other Europe 12.8 13.9 8.0 34.6 a The estimates pertain to the whole part of Russia included in RAINS. 39 ` 6.1.2 Comparison with UNFCC and other estimates Table 6.2 compares the RAINS estimates for the EU25 for 1995 with the official UNFCC submissions and calculations from ECOFYS. To the extent that national data are available and comparable, the preliminary RAINS estimates show reasonable agreement with national data, although in some cases major discrepancies occur. These can be chiefly traced back to differences in HCFC-22 activity data and in emission factors, especially for sectors that use Fgases with high GWP such as GIS and primary aluminium production. 40 ` Table 6.2: Emission estimates for HFC, PFC and SF6 for 1995 [Mt eq] HFCs PFCs SF6 RAINS UNFCCC ECOFYS RAINS UNFCCC ECOFYS RAINS UNFCCC ECOFYS Austria 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.1 Belgium 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 n.a. 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 Cyprus 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.2 n.a. Denmark 0.2 0.2 n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Estonia 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Finland 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 France 1.0 1.3 7.3 1.7 1.3 1.5 2.2 2.3 1.9 Germany 6.0 6.4 14.2 0.7 1.8 1.5 5.8 6.2 1.4 Greece 3.8 3.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hungary 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Ireland 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Italy 4.0 0.7 6.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 Latvia 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Lithuania 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Luxembourg 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Malta 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Netherlands 5.1 6.0 6.3 0.1 1.9 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 Poland 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 0.8 n.a. 0.0 0.0 n.a. Portugal 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slovakia 0.8 0.0 n.a. 0.0 0.1 n.a. 0.0 0.0 n.a. Slovenia 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. Spain 4.0 4.6 5.4 0.1 0.8 n.a. 0.1 0.1 0.2 Sweden 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 UK 8.1 15.2 8.9 0.1 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 Source: UNFCCC national submissions (http://unfccc.int), Blok et al. (2001) For other European countries no reference data was available. 41 ` F-gas emissions in Europe 1995 Total emissions 89 MT CO2 eq. 4% 4% Refrigeration and air conditioning 1% HCFC-22 production 8% Foams Aerosols 4% Other HFC 3% 46% Primary aluminium production Semiconductor industry Magnessium processing GIS 27% Windows 1% 1% 1% Other SF6 Figure 6-1: Distribution of F-gas emissions in Europe in 1995 over the different sources. 6.2 Emission projections 6.2.1 Emissions by country 42 ` To test the RAINS methodology, two scenarios were created: a baseline without any legislation on the control of F-gases (and therefore without any explicit abatement of emissions) and the current legislation scenario. Both the baseline (BLS) and current legislation (CLE) take into account autonomous changes in technology for new investments (while assuming frozen technology for existing installations) such as improvement in gas insulated switchgears. Baseline also include some country specific parameters taken from National Inventory Reports and National communications if measures are evaluated to be autonomous. This kind of measures is for example good practise in GIS handling, banning certain SF 6 products or similar measures, which have small or “negative” abatement costs. In some cases with more complex emission sources (windows, foams), emission forecasts in expert reports (such as AEAT 2003, Schwarz and Leisewitz 1999) are used. The current legislation scenario (CLE) includes the expected impact of the end of life collection of HFC refrigerants obligated by Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles (EU, 2002) and the Directive 2002/96/EC on waste from electric and electronic equipment (EU, 2003). These will reduce emissions, as they will require the extraction and proper disposal of HFCs in mobile air conditioning, and in refrigerators and air conditioning units respectively. Table 6.3shows the baseline estimates for the F-gases for the Europe for the year 2010 and Error! Reference source not found.gives the projections of these emissions for 2020. Estimates for the impact of current legislation on the development of these emissions are given in Table 6.5.Table 6.3: HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions in the baseline in 2010 (Mt CO2eq). Baseline 2010 Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland HFCs 0.0 2.5 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.2 0.9 12.6 23.0 2.7 0.5 0.9 10.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.2 1.3 2.1 PFCs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 4.2 6.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.6 0.1 SF6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 43 SUM 0.1 3.1 0.5 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.2 1.1 18.9 33.0 3.0 0.6 1.2 12.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 12.5 4.7 2.3 ` Portugal Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe 1.2 0.5 13.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 12.8 1.7 2.3 1.1 0.5 14.3 120.3 99.9 20.4 0.2 0.1 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 40.1 21.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 13.0 9.1 3.9 1.4 0.6 31.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 17.2 2.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 15.3 173.4 130.4 43.0 Table 6.4 HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions in the baseline in 2020 (Mt CO2eq). Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia Spain HFCs 0.1 3.8 1.0 3.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.4 1.9 0.4 1.7 20.2 35.2 1.0 1.0 1.6 17.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 8.8 2.1 4.3 2.1 1.3 12.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 18.9 PFCs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 4.2 6.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 3.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.0 44 SF6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 SUM 0.1 4.4 1.0 3.7 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.5 2.2 0.4 1.9 26.5 45.3 1.1 1.1 1.9 19.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 13.2 6.2 4.4 2.3 1.4 33.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 25.3 ` Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe 3.0 4.1 5.3 1.5 23.7 181.7 152.5 29.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 47.5 24.9 22.6 45 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 13.2 9.3 3.9 3.6 4.2 5.7 2.5 24.7 242.4 186.6 55.7 ` Table 6.5: HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions with current legislation in 2020 (XX Idem 2010) (Mt CO2eq). Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe HFCs 0.1 3.1 1.0 2.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.3 1.2 14.7 24.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 12.9 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 7.3 2.1 3.0 1.6 1.3 12.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 14.1 2.3 4.1 5.3 1.5 17.6 141.4 112.2 29.3 46 PFCs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 4.2 6.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 3.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 47.5 24.9 22.6 SF6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 13.2 9.3 3.9 SUM 0.1 3.7 1.0 2.8 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.7 0.3 1.5 21.1 34.5 0.9 0.9 1.5 14.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 11.8 6.2 3.2 1.8 1.4 33.2 0.3 0.5 1.2 20.4 2.8 4.2 5.7 2.5 18.6 202.1 146.3 55.7 ` Emission f-gases 200 180 as Mt CO2 eq. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1995 (BSL) 1995 (CLE) 2010 (BSL) EU-25 2010 (CLE) 2020 (BSL) 2020 (CLE) Other Europe Figure 6-2: Expected development of F-gas emissions in Europe in 2020 for the baseline and CLE scenarios (PLACEHOLDER while 2010 emissions for the CLE scenario do not yet reflect legislation). Figure 6-2 depicts the development of future F-gases in 2010 and 2020. Without any legislation these emissions would have increased by a factor 2 to 3 in 2010 and a factor 4 in the EU-25. In the rest of Europe these emissions would grow by a factor 2 to 3. Due to the existing legislation emissions in the EU-25 will be lower in 2020 but still significantly higher (around 115 MtCO2eq. in 2020) making in more challenging for the EU-25 to continue meeting it’s Kyoto commitment beyond 2010. Even with current legislation in place the EU-25 is likely to face increasing F-gas emissions also in 2010. 6.2.2 Future emissions by sector The level and distribution of the F-gas emissions in 2010 and 2020 for the baseline and CLE scenario are presented in Figure 6-3. The following abbreviations are used: GIS includes SF6 emissions from electrical equipment, foams include one component foam and foam sectors, REF and SAC include all refrigeration and stationary air conditioning sectors, other HFC include aerosols, distribution and installing emissions and the category other sectors. Clearly, emissions drop in the mobile air conditioning because of the reduction in end-of-life resulting from the end-of-life vehicle Directive. The electronic waste directive is expected to reduce the emissions of refrigerators and stationary air conditioning. 47 ` 2% 4% 2% 18% 6% 17% 12% 2% 8% 6% 1% 5% 1% 4% 2% Commercial refrigeration Refrigarated transport Foams HCFC-22 production Semiconductor industry Windows 11% Industrial refrigeration Domestic refrigeration One component foams Other HFC Magnessium processing Other SF6 Stationary air conditioning Mobile air conditioning Aerosols Primary aluminium production GIS Figure 6-3: Distribution of F-gas emissions over various sectors in the Europe in 2020 with current legislation. Total emissions 205 Mt CO2 eq. (CLE scenario). Tables Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. and Table present projected emissions in different applications in EU-30 in years 2010 and 2020 in baseline CLE scenarios. Table 6.6 Projected HFCs emissions in different applications in EU-30 in 2020 (as MT Co2 eq.) in CLE. Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands COMM IND STAT TRA_REF DOM MAC OF OC AERO 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 5.0 8.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 2.2 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.4 2.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.3 4.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 48 HFC_OTH 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCFC22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ` Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland UK Turkey 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.2 0.7 1.2 5.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.4 1.0 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.4 0.3 0.8 3.3 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Table 6.7 Projected PFCs and SF6 emissions in different applications in EU-30 in 2020 (as MT Co2 eq.) in CLE. Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland UK Turkey ALUM_PR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SEMICOND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 3.9 4.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 MAGN 49 GIS WIND SF_OTH 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 ` MFR Maximum feasible reduction means maximum technical reduction which can be achieved. In this report it means maximum technical reduction, which can be achieved with abatement measures distinguished in model. Maximum feasible reduction doesn’t take cost efficiency into account, although because f-gases are part of larger completeness GRAINS web model only those abatement measures that have been estimated to be on same level of cost efficiencies of other green house gas abatement measures has been included. On top of that some relatively cost efficient abatement options in foam (OF) sector has been left out because of complexness of using those in modeling work. However the most important measures have been included. Table 6.8Table 6.9 present emissions forecast for maximum feasible reduction (MFR) scenario in years 2010 and 2020. Tables include also baseline emissions on that ceratin year and baseline emissions in base year 1995. Table 6.8 Projected HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions in different applications in EU-30 in 2010 (as MT Co2 eq.) in Maximum feasible reduction scenario. MFR Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal HFCs 0.0 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.7 9.1 14.7 1.8 0.3 0.6 7.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.9 1.6 0.8 PFCs SF6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.4 4.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.6 0.1 0.2 SUM 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.8 11.6 22.0 2.1 0.5 0.9 8.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.9 3.6 1.7 1.0 SUM (baseline) SUM (1995) 0.1 3.1 0.5 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.2 1.1 18.9 33.0 3.0 0.6 1.2 12.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 12.5 4.7 2.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 5.9 14.7 3.9 0.1 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.0 0.2 0.1 ` Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe 0.3 13.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 10.1 1.2 2.3 1.1 0.5 14.3 95.3 76.0 19.3 0.1 15.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 31.5 12.8 18.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 4.9 4.0 0.9 0.4 28.9 0.1 0.2 0.9 11.4 1.5 2.4 1.4 1.5 15.3 131.7 92.8 38.9 0.6 31.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 17.2 2.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 15.3 173.4 130.4 43.0 0.1 26.8 0.0 0.1 0.7 7.4 0.5 3.6 0.3 1.4 9.2 92.1 56.8 35.3 Table 6.9 Projected HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions in different applications in EU-30 in 2020 (as MT Co2 eq.) in Maximum feasible reduction scenario. BAS Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia HFCs 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 5.4 5.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 7.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 PFCs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.0 4.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 18.4 0.0 0.1 0.9 SF6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 51 SUM 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 7.5 11.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 3.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 26.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 SUM (baseline) 0.1 4.4 1.0 3.7 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.5 2.2 0.4 1.9 26.5 45.3 1.1 1.1 1.9 19.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 13.2 6.2 4.4 2.3 1.4 33.2 0.3 0.6 1.3 SUM 0.0 (1995) 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 5.9 14.7 3.9 0.1 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 26.8 0.0 0.1 0.7 ` Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe 4.3 0.7 4.1 5.3 1.5 23.7 72.5 52.8 19.7 1.7 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 35.9 13.4 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 3.6 2.6 0.9 6.0 1.1 4.2 5.7 2.5 24.7 112.0 68.8 43.1 25.3 3.6 4.2 5.7 2.5 24.7 242.4 186.6 55.7 7.4 0.5 3.6 0.3 1.4 9.2 92.1 56.8 35.3 As from table Table 6.8 can be observed, even the MFR measures are not enough if EU-15 parties want to meet 1995 emission level in 2010. Table 6.10 presents so called ultimate maximum feasible reduction (UMFR) where transition to alternative refrigerants do not take into account lifetime expectancy of HFCs or SF6 using products, which would mean that applicability of abatement measure would be 100% in 2005. Sometimes this happens also in real life, for example some countries speeded up ODS phase out by replacing equipment which haven’t been reached their end of life stage. Other example is different technological shifts to alternative refrigerants even this shift would mean extra costs and it would not be driven by laws or agreements. UMFR measure in cost optimizing/modeling perspective is not realistic. Table 6.10 Projected HFCs, PFCs and SF6 emissions in different applications in EU-30 in 2020 (as MT Co2 eq.) in Maximum feasible reduction scenario. Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia-H Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway SUM SUM HFCs PFCs SF6 SUM (baseline) (1995) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.1 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.1 4.1 2.4 0.1 6.6 18.9 5.9 4.0 4.7 0.1 8.9 33.0 14.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 3.0 3.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.1 2.8 1.2 0.1 4.0 12.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.0 0.5 0.1 7.6 12.5 7.0 0.5 2.6 0.0 3.1 4.7 3.0 52 ` Poland Portugal Rumania Russia Serbia-M Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe Thereof: EU-25 Thereof: Other Europe 0.4 0.3 0.1 12.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.6 0.5 2.3 1.1 0.5 14.3 59.2 42.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 15.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 31.5 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 2.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 27.9 0.0 0.1 0.8 6.8 0.8 2.4 1.4 1.5 15.3 92.8 56.0 2.3 1.4 0.6 31.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 17.2 2.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 15.3 173.4 130.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 26.8 0.0 0.1 0.7 7.4 0.5 3.6 0.3 1.4 9.2 92.1 56.8 17.2 18.7 0.9 36.9 43.0 35.3 6.3 Costs 6.3.1 Average costs per ton CO2eq. abatement A number of relatively cheap options exist to control the emissions of F-gases. The average costs presented in Table 6.11 are indicative only since they depend, in reality, to a certain degree, on the production technologies, handling practise and other miscellaneous details used in a specific country. Marginal costs relate the extra costs for an additional measure to the extra abatement of that measure (compared to the abatement of the less effective option). 53 ` Table 6.11: Overview of options to control F-gas emissions and their costs. Sector Control option description Magnesium processing Soundproof windows Other SF6 emissions HCFC22 production One component foam Aerosols Primary aluminium production SO2 cover gas Alternatives Alternatives Incineration Alternative propellants Alternative propellants SWPB retrofit Average annual costs [€2000/t CO2eq] Marginal Costs [€2000/t CO2eq] 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 1 1,4 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 1 1,4 Refrigerated transport Alternative refrigerant Primary aluminium production SWPB to PFPB conversion 2 2,8 2 3,3 Gas insulated switchgears Good practice Foams Alternative blowing agents Primary aluminium production VSS retrofitting 3,6 4,9 7,1 3,6 4,9 7,1 Domestic refrigeration Industrial refrigeration Domestic refrigeration Commercial refrigeration Industrial refrigeration Mobile air conditioning Commercial refrigeration Mobile air conditioning Semiconductor manufacturing 14,6 15,1 15,1 18,1 21,3 22,7 24,6 25,6 26 14,6 15,1 21,3 18,1 32,1 22,7 31,7 30,6 26 Primary aluminium production VSS to PFPB conversion 39,3 55,7 Air conditioning Air conditioning 43,1 55,1 43,1 64,2 Recollection Good practice Alternative refrigerant Good practice Alternative refrigerant Good practice Alternative refrigerant Alternative refrigerants Alternatives Good practice Process modifications 6.3.2 Costs per country for CLE and MFR Table 6.12 describes abated emission and average costs of emission reduction in current legislation and maximum feasible scenarios. In case of current legislation, average cost for refrigerant and air conditioning sectors. In MRF scenario costs used were average costs not marginal costs. 54 ` Table 6.12 Country specific emission abatements and average costs in current legistlation and maximum feasible reduction scenarios Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Abatement CLE Costs Meuro, Abatement MFR Costs Meuro, (as Mt CO2 eq.) CLE (as CO2 eq.) MFR 0.7 15.7 3.3 45.9 0.9 19.5 2.8 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 8.4 0.0 1.0 0.1 2.9 0.4 8.8 1.2 25.5 Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg 0.5 0.1 0.5 5.5 10.7 1.1 0.2 0.4 4.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 10.7 2.1 10.2 118.0 230.5 37.4 5.1 9.3 99.6 2.1 3.4 2.1 1.5 0.4 1.4 19.0 33.7 3.6 0.9 1.3 14.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 31.5 6.4 29.7 336.0 635.9 125.0 18.0 27.8 292.2 6.4 10.4 6.3 Malta Netherlands 0.0 1.4 0.4 31.5 0.1 8.1 1.3 102.6 Norway Poland Portugal Rumania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 27.9 14.0 0.0 2.5 1.8 139.0 16.8 0.0 2.3 3.8 1.8 1.1 0.5 0.3 15.1 2.4 3.3 30.4 81.4 45.1 21.7 9.4 6.8 428.1 49.7 67.4 UK Turkey Total 6.1 0.0 41.2 125.6 0.0 934.9 19.5 4.9 148.5 384.8 131.7 3025.7 55 ` 6.3.3 Cost functions per country For each emission scenario GAINS creates a so-called emission reduction cost curve. Such cost curves define - for each country and year - the potential for further emission reductions beyond a selected initial level of control and provide the minimum costs of achieving such reductions. Cost curves are compiled by ranking available emission control options for various emission sources according to their cost-effectiveness and combining them with the potential for emission reductions determined by the properties of sources and abatement technologies. Based on the calculated unit cost, the cost curve is constructed first for every sector and then for the whole region (country), employing the principle that technologies characterized by higher costs and lower reduction efficiencies are considered as not cost-efficient and are excluded from further analysis. The marginal costs (costs of abated f-gas emissions by a given control technology) are calculated for each sector. The remaining abatement options are finally ordered according to increasing marginal costs to form the cost curve for the country being considered. RAINS computes two types of cost curves: - The ‘total cost’ curve displays total annual costs of achieving certain emission levels in a country. These curves are piece-wise linear, with the slopes for individual segments determined by the costs of applying the various technologies. - The ‘marginal cost’ curve is a step-function, indicating the marginal costs (i.e., the costs for reducing the last unit of emissions) at various reduction levels. The cost curve can be displayed in GAINS in tabular or graphical form. Each curve concerns a selected country (or region of a country), emission scenario and year. The table includes technical abbreviation of the sector, control technology, marginal costs (in €/ton pollutant removed), remaining emissions (i.e., initial emission less cumulative emissions removed, in kt), and total cumulative control costs in million €/year. There are also columns shoving how much current legislation will reduce emissions and what are the costs of current legislation. Examples of cost curves for France are presented in table XX. By comparing the emissions given for this option in the column “Remaining emissions” with the preceding value. The "Total Redcost" column displays cumulative costs. This means that for any emission level a cost value in this column represents total costs incurred to achieve this level of emissions. Redcost CLE indicates costs of current legislation. A graphical representation of Table Xx is presented in Figure XX. The remaining emissions of F-gas emissions are on the x-axis and marginal costs per ton CO2 eq are on the y-axis. The highest emission value is called the initial emissions and the lowest level is often referred to as maximum feasible reduction (MFR). TECH_ ABB Abatement Abated_ Abated Abated measure CLE Mt Co2 eq after CLE PR_MAGN SO2 cover gas Mt CO2 eq 0 Remaining Remaining Mt Co2 eq after CLE Mt Co2 eq Redcost Total redcost_ton CLE Redcost CO2eq Meuro Meuro Euro 1,1 1,1 25 20 0,1 0,1 WIND Alternatives 0 0 0 25 20 0,1 0,1 SF6_OTH Alternatives 0 0,2 0,2 25 20 0,1 0,1 56 ` HCFC22 Incineration 0 0,1 0,1 25 20 OC Alternative propellants 0 0,4 0,4 25 19 0,3 0,5 0,4 PR_ALUM SWPB retrofit TRA_REF 0,2 Alternative refrigerant 0 0,3 0,3 25 19 0,1 0,3 0,1 24 19 0,8 0,2 1,4 2,0 1,4 PR_ALUM SWPB to PFPB conversion 0 GIS Good practice 0 0,6 0,6 22 16 OF Alternative blowing agents 0 0 0 22 16 PR_ALUM VSS retrofitting 1,8 1,8 22 17 3,3 7,3 9,5 3,6 4,9 9,5 0 0 0 22 16 9,5 7,1 DOM Recollection 0,2 0,2 0 22 16 2,9 12,4 14,6 IND Good practice 0,7 1,9 1,2 20 15 10,6 41,1 15,1 COMM Good practice 2,6 3,8 1,2 16 14 47,1 109,9 18,1 DOM Alternative refrigerant 0 0,1 0,1 16 14 MAC Good practice SEMI COND MAC Alternatives 21,3 112,0 1,2 2,6 1,4 13 13 0 0,2 0,2 13 12 27,2 22,7 26,0 176,2 COMM IND AIRCON Alternative refrigerants 0 Alternative refrigerant 0 Alternative refrigerant 0 0,9 0,9 12 11 30,6 203,8 2,3 2,3 10 9 31,7 276,7 2,3 2,3 8 7 32,1 350,5 Good practice 0,6 0,7 0,1 7 7 PR_ALUM VSS to PFPB conversion 0 0 0 7 7 AIRCON 0 1,3 1,3 6 6 26,2 43,1 55,7 64,2 464,3 5,4 21,1 15,6 114,2 France 2020 F-gases Mt CO2 eq baseline scenario 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 380,9 380,9 Process modifications Total Cost (Euro2000/ton C02eq abated) 171,0 5 10 15 20 Increm ental em issions reduction Mt CO2 eq 57 25 30 464,3 ` 7 Conclusions A methodology has been developed to estimate emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 and the possibilities and cost for reducing these emissions. Emission factors and activity data were identified for the most relevant sectors emitting F-gases. Because of lack of reported activity data for many countries the uncertainty surrounding the estimates is large. The results for Europe (in RAINS) suggest that: total emissions of the group of F- gases in the EU25 might grow by a factor three between 1995 and 2020 in spite of existing legislation, making it more challenging for the EU to meet its Kyoto commitment after 2010; in the rest of Europe (including the European part of Russia as well as Turkey) these emissions might triple from 1995 to 2020; the most important sector emitting F-gases in 2020 are air conditioning and refrigerator sectors, followed by the aluminium industry; 23 control options to control the group of F-gases and their costs were identified. The results indicate that the average costs per ton CO2 abated of these options ranges from 0,1 to 55 €/tCO2eq. Over half of the options have costs below 20 €/tCO2eq (the expected permit price under the PRIMES climate policy scenario). The major uncertainties affecting the above results are: uncertainties in emission factors especially for mobile and stationary air conditioning uncertainties in the future penetration of MAC and use of HFC based refrigerants in cooling sectors. large difference in some sectoral GWP values between counties. lack of data on actual activity levels in a large number of countries. 58 ` References AEAT (2003) Emissions and projections of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 for the UK and Constituent Countries, Draft Final Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and rural Affairs, ED50090 Draft F, AEATechnology, Culham (UK). Devotta S., Asthana S., Joshi R. (2004) Challenges in recovery and recycling of refrigerants from Indian refrigeration and air-conditioning service sector, Atmospheric Environment, 38: 845-854. EC (1999) Auto-Oil II Study. CEC, Brussels. EC (2000) Regulation (EC)No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer 29.6.2000 EC (2003)Consultation paper: how to considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions fue to mobile air conditioners. European Commission, DGEnvironment, February 2003, Brussels. EC (2003b) European energy and transport: Trends to 2030. European Commission, KO-AC-02001-EN-C, ISBN 92-894-4444-4, Luxembourg. EU (2002) Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles, Official Journal L 269, 21/10/2000, p 0034-0043. EU (2003) Directive 2002/96/EC on waste on electric and electronic equipment of 17 January 2003, Official Journal L37, 13/02/2003, p. 24-37. Eurostat (2001), EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical pocketbook, European Commission, 195p, Belgium. EUROSTAT (2003) Energy and transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2003, European Communities, Brussels. Harnisch, J, I. Sue Wing, H.D. Jacoby, R.G. Prinn (1998); Primary Aluminum Production: Climate Policy, Emissions and Costs; MIT-Joint Program on the Science andPolicy of Global Change Report Series, Report No. 44. 18p. (Revised version). Harnisch, J., and Hendriks, C., (2000) Economic Evaluation of Emission Reductions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in Europe, Special Report. Ecofys, Utrecht.. Harnisch, J. and Schwarz, W. (2003) Costs and the impact on emissions of potential regulatory framework for reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (B4-3040/2002/336380/MAR/E1), Final Report, Ecofys and OkoRecherche, Utrecht.. Heijnes, H., van Brummelen M., Blok K. (1999), Reduction of the emissions of HFC’s, PFC’s and SF6 in the European Union, Final Report, Ecofys, Utrecht. Houghton, T., L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Tréanton, I. Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs and B.A. Callander (eds.)(1997a). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 2: Workbook. Paris, IPCC/OECD/IEA. Houghton, T., L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Tréanton, I. Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs and B.A. Callander (eds.).(1997b). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 3: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual. Paris, IPCC/OECD/IEA. 59 ` Jyrkkonen M. (2004), Suora kaytto kuljetusjaahdytyksessa (Direct use in refrigerated transport), presentation in seminar: Hiilidioksidi jaahdytyslaitoksissa (CO2 in refrigeration units), 10.2.2004. Helsinki, Finland. Kaapola, E. (1989) Pienkylmalaitoksen kayttajaopas (Guide for using refrigerator devices). Kylmatuki, Helsinki. (in Finnish). Klaassen, G., M. Amann, C. Berglund, J. Cofala, L. Höglund-Isaksson, C. Heyes, R. Mechler, A. Tohka, W. Schöpp and W. Winiwarter. IR-04-015, IIASA, Laxenburg. Klimont Z., Cofala J., Berto I., Amann M., Heyes C., Gyarfas F., Modelling Particulate Emissions in Europe, IR-02-076, IIASA, Laxenburg. Kokorin A. and Nakhutin A. (2000) Inventory of non-CO2 GHG and firs estimates of emissions of New Gases in Russia, In: van Ham J., A. Baede, R. Guicherit, L.A. Meyer and R. Ybema(eds.) Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding, control options and policy aspects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p.217-222. Nakićenović, N., J. Alcamo, Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., et al., 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Oinonen T. and Soimakallio S. (2001) HFC- ja PFC- yhdisteiden sekä SF6:n päästöjen tekniset vähentämiskeinot ja niiden kustannukset Suomessa (HFC and PFC compounds and SF6 emission reduction options and costs in Finland), VTT tiedotteita 2099 (in Finnish). Olivier, J. (2002). Part III: Greenhouse gas emissions. In: "CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 1971-2000", 2002 Edition, pp. III.1-III.31. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. Pedersen P. (1998). Substitutes for Potent Greenhouse Gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6), Danish Technological Institute, Denmark. Peek, K. (2004) Personal communication. June 24th, RIVM, Bilthoven. Poulsen T. (2001) Ozone depleting substances and the greenhouse gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6, Danish consumption and emissions 2001, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen Denmark. RIVM/TNO (2004) EDGAR 3.3. RIVM/TNO, Bilthoven. Schaefer, D.O. Bartos, S., Blackman, J. 2002, Estimating SF6 Emissions from Electrical Equipment and Magnesium Production and Processing in the U.S., In: van Ham J., A. Baede, R. Guicherit and J Williams-Jacobse (eds.) Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding, control options and policy aspects.Millpress, Rotterdam. p.207212,. Schwarz W. (2001) Emission of Refrigerant R-134a from Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems, Annual Rate of Emission from Passenger-Car Air-Conditioning Systems up to Seven Years Old. Study conducted for the German Federal Environment Office, 51p. Schwarz W. and A. Leisewitz (1999) Emissions and Reduction Potentials of Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride in Germany. Report for the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA, Berlin). Schwarz W. and Harnisch J, (2003) Establishing the Leakage Rates of Mobile Air Conditioners, Final report prepared for the European Commission. 60 ` Taylor L. E. Hillier J. A., Mills A. J. White R., Naden J., Bartlett E. L. (2003) World Mineral Statistics 1997-2001 Europe, Production, Exports, Imports, British Geological Survey, Keyworth (UK). USDOS (1999) U.S. Voluntary PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for . Ways and means of limitng HFC, PFCs and SF6 pursuant decision 13/CP.4. 16 July 1999. Department of State, Office of Global Change. USEPA (2001a) US High GWP gas emissions 1990-2010: Inventories, projections and opportunities for reductions June 2001. USEPA EPA 000-F-97-000, Washington. USEPA (2001b) Non- CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Developed Countries: 1990-2010, USEPA EPA 430-R-01-007, Washington. UNEP (1997) Update of the Handbook from the international treaties for the protection of the ozone layer, The Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. Victor D., MacDonald G. (1999), A Model for Estimating Future Emissions of Sulphur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons, Climatic Change 42: 633-662. 61