workshop on ods bank management (oewg-30) geneva, switzerland monday 14 june 2010 timing, size and...
TRANSCRIPT
Workshop on ODS Bank Management (OEWG-30)
Geneva, Switzerland
Monday 14 June 2010
Timing, Size and Cost of ODS Bank Management Opportunities
Paul Ashford and Lambert Kuijpers(Co-chairs of Task Force on Decision XX/7)
• The majority of ODS reaching the waste stream in the period between now and 2030 will be from ‘other refrigerant’ sources (e.g. commercial refrigeration and SAC)
• Recovery and destruction of (bulk) refrigerants is the most cost-effective means of mitigating ODS bank emissions
• CFCs will be significantly more cost effective than HCFCs in climate terms (US$ per tonne of CO2-eq. saved) because of their greater GWP
Key factors to consider………
• How many CFCs reaching the waste stream varies by refrigeration sub-sector and by region, but will typically be exhausted in maximum 5-10 years
• HCFCs already represent a high percentage of waste flows in some sectors
• HCFCs (mainly HCFC-22) face additional barriers to recovery and destruction: • HCFCs are still being produced in most regions
• There is parallel demand for recycling
• HCFCs are excluded from most ODS destruction protocols/ methodologies
Key factors to consider……(2)
• As with Decision XX/7 Report – the presentation focuses on low and medium effort measures
• Concentrated on ODS only and, in particular, Art. 5 analysis of ODS bank management opportunities
• Identifies key opportunities by sector, and particularly compares ‘other refrigerants’ (e.g. commercial refrigeration) with ‘appliances and foams’
• Deals with aspects of 2010-2030 time series, including annual tonnages arriving at waste stream by ODS type, climate impacts/mitigation opportunities, costs and cost effectiveness
Information provided in this presentation
Decision XX/7:- A5 ‘Other Refrigerant’
Flows remain Dominant for Low/Medium Effort ODS
Amounts to be Processed by Region and Degree of Effort'ODS Only - Combined Low & Medium Effort'
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Am
ou
nts
ava
ilab
le f
or
pro
cess
ing
(to
nn
es/y
r) Total Appliance &Foams - Developed
Total Appliance &Foams - Developing
Other Refrigerant -Developed
Other Refrigerant -Developing
Commercial – 70%Stationary A/C – 27%Other – 3%
Average Cost Effectiveness of Climate Savings
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cost Effectiveness ($ per tonne CO2 saved)
To
tal P
ote
nti
al S
avin
g (
Mto
nn
es C
O2
save
d)
CFC
HCFC
Potential for Recovery vs. Cost Effectiveness
‘Other Refrigerants’ Article 5 Countries (2010-2030)
HCFC in Commercial Refrigeration
Dense
Sparse
CFC in Commercial Refrigeration
Commercial Refrigeration Flows (Art.5) (metric tonnes)
Volume of Available Waste Streams in Developing Countries Commercial Refrigeration (ODS only)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Vo
lum
e o
f A
nn
ua
l W
as
te A
ris
ing
(to
nn
es
)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Commercial Refrigeration Flows (Art.5) (CO2-eq. tonnes)
Climate Impact of Waste Streams in Developing Countries Commercial Refrigeration (ODS only)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Clim
ate
Imp
act
of
An
nu
al W
aste
Ari
sin
g
(Mto
nn
es C
O2-
eq.)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Commercial Refrigeration Costs (Art.5) (US$ million/yr)
Funding Requirements for Waste Streams in Developing Countries Commercial Refrigeration (ODS only)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Fu
nd
ing
Req
uir
emen
ts (
$ m
illio
n)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Domestic Appliances Flows (Art.5) (metric tonnes/yr)
Volume of Available Waste Streams in Developing Countries Domestic Refrigeration (Refrigerant and Blowing Agent)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Vo
lum
e o
f A
nn
ua
l W
as
te A
ris
ing
(to
nn
es
)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Domestic Appliances Flows (Art.5) (CO2-eq. tonnes)
Climate Impact of Waste Streams in Developing Countries Domestic Refrigeration (Refrigerant and Blowing Agent)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Cli
ma
te I
mp
ac
t o
f A
nn
ua
l W
as
te A
ris
ing
(M
ton
ne
s C
O2-
eq
.)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Domestic Appliances Costs (Art.5) (US$ million/yr)
Funding Requirements for Waste Streams in Developing Countries Domestic Refrigeration (Refrigerant and Blowing Agent)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Fu
nd
ing
Re
qu
ire
me
nts
($
mil
lio
n)
CFC - Densely Populated Areas
HCFC - Densely Populated Areas
CFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
HCFC - Sparsely Populated Areas
Average Cost Effectiveness of Climate Savings
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cost Effectiveness ($ per tonne CO2 saved)
To
tal P
ote
nti
al S
avin
g (
Mto
nn
es C
O2
save
d)
CFC
HCFC
Potential for Recovery vs. Cost Effectiveness
The Impact of Dealing with Appliances (2010-2030)
Refrigerant only
Refrigerant & CFC FoamHCFC Foam in Appliances
• CFC recovery of both refrigerant and blowing agent is cost-effective
• Estimated availability of CFCs in waste stream until 2020
• Climate benefit of continuing to recover HCFCs is considerably lower than most other ODS banks
• Cost-effectiveness of HCFC recovery is also poor • Likely that ODS recovery from appliances will only
be profitable up until 2020. • Main options are likely to focus on CFC refrigerants
or low cost foam recovery facilities• Co-funding for other purposes may make more
holistic on-going recovery more plausible
Key Messages relating to Appliances
• In most sectors, it is clear that the ratio of CFC to HCFC -containing equipment varies with time
• Actual costs of recovery and destruction are assumed to stay constant irrespective of the refrigerant type
• However, the cost effectiveness in terms of climate (US$ per tonne of CO2-eq. saved) will be greater for CFCs because of their high GWP
• Although it would be possible to focus only on one type of refrigerant (e.g. CFCs), this would mean potentially ignoring large quantities of other ODS
• Treating the sector holistically involves a shift in cost effectiveness as the CFC component declines
Implications of a ‘sector-by sector’ approach
Costs Effectiveness Trends by Sector (US$ per tonne of CO2-saved)
Trends in Cost Effectiveness of ODS Bank Recovery
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Co
st
pe
r to
nn
e C
O2
sa
ve
d (
$)
Dom. Refrigerant - Dense
Dom. Refrigerant - Sparse
Commercial - Dense
Commercial - Sparse
Transport - Combined
SAC - Dense
SAC - Sparse
Dom. Appliance - Dense
Dom. Appliance - Sparse
• For CFCs:
• Is it worth investing in infrastructure for 5-10 years of recovery?
• Would it be appropriate to focus on CFCs alone in areas other than appliances?
• What would be the cut-off point for funding based on cost per tonne of CO2-saved?
• and
Questions to consider………
• For HCFCs:
• On which basis would recovery/destruction be preferred to recovery/recycling?
• What kind of business model would be used to drive recovery for destruction?
• How would the barriers of ‘produce-to-destroy’ and lack of methodologies be overcome?
• What are the future attitudes likely to be towards “international” destruction?
Questions to consider………2
Questions of clarification?