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