Energy sales targets: An alternative to White Certificate schemes

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...

As part of the Net Zero Carbon Water Cycle Program (NZCWCP) for Victoria state in Australia, we have sought to understand the potential to reduce household energy consumption and related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by influencing water use. Digital metering data disaggregated into 57 million discrete water usage events across 105 households at a resolution of 10 millilitres at 10 second intervals from June 2017 to March 2020, from a previous Yarra Valley Water (Melbourne, Australia) study, was analysed, together with the dynamic relationship between the multiple energy sources (natural gas, grid electricity, solar) used to heat water for showers in each hour of the day. Water-related energy (WRE) use, including water desalination and treatment, pumping, heating, wastewater collection and treatment, comprised 12.6% of Australia’s primary energy use in 2019. Water heating (by natural gas and electricity) comprised the largest component of WRE use for across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Furthermore, 69% of Victoria’s total water usage was by residential customers in 2020-2021. WRE GHG emissions were around 3.8% of Victoria’s total GHG emissions in 2018. Showers (~50% of residential WRE), system losses (~27% of residential WRE), and clothes washers (~9% of residential WRE) are the three largest components of WRE consumption. The main objective of this work is the creation of industry-accessible tools to improve knowledge and management options from the understanding of reductions in cost and GHG emissions from household showering WRE use. Potential options considered, to reduce water and energy use, as well as associated GHG emissions and customer utility bills, include (a) behaviour management such as water and energy pricing to change time of use behaviours, and (b) the adoption of efficient shower head improvements. Shower WRE and GHG emissions were found able to be strongly impacted by small changes in daily routines. GHG emissions reduction from showering could be reduced up to 20 (in summer) - 22% (in winter) by shifting demand time of showering or replacing residential showerheads. Extrapolated to state and Australian scales, reductions in water usage could be up to 14 GL (Victoria) and 144 GL (Australia), and reductions in GHG emissions 1,600 ktCO2eq (Victoria) and 17,300 ktCO2eq (Australia). It provides fundamental new information which could inform a suite of new management options to impact water-related energy from showers, and related GHG emissions and customer water and energy cost.

Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory expanded the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model and incorporated the fuel economy and electricity use of alternative fuel/vehicle systems simulated by the Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT) to conduct a well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The WTW results were separately calculated for the blended charge-depleting (CD) and charge-sustaining (CS) modes of PHEV operation and then combined by using a weighting factor that represented the CD vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) share. As indicated by PSAT simulations of the CD operation, grid electricity accounted for a share of the vehicle's total energy use, ranging from 6% for a PHEV 10 to 24% for a PHEV 40, based on CD VMT shares of 23% and 63%, respectively. In addition to the PHEV's fuel economy and type of on-board fuel, the marginal electricity generation mix used to charge the vehicle impacted the WTW results, especially GHG emissions. Three North American Electric Reliability Corporation regions (4, 6, and 13) were selected for this analysis, because they encompassed large metropolitan areas (Illinois, New York, and California, respectively) and provided a significant variation of marginal generation mixes. The WTW results were also reported for the U.S. generation mix and renewable electricity to examine cases of average and clean mixes, respectively. For an all-electric range (AER) between 10 mi and 40 mi, PHEVs that employed petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel), a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85), and hydrogen were shown to offer a 40-60%, 70-90%, and more than 90% reduction in petroleum energy use and a 30-60%, 40-80%, and 10-100% reduction in GHG emissions, respectively, relative to an internal combustion engine vehicle that used gasoline. The spread of WTW GHG emissions among the different fuel production technologies and grid generation mixes was wider than the spread of petroleum energy use, mainly due to the diverse fuel production technologies and feedstock sources for the fuels considered in this analysis. The PHEVs offered reductions in petroleum energy use as compared with regular hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). More petroleum energy savings were realized as the AER increased, except when the marginal grid mix was dominated by oil-fired power generation. Similarly, more GHG emissions reductions were realized at higher AERs, except when the marginal grid generation mix was dominated by oil or coal. Electricity from renewable sources realized the largest reductions in petroleum energy use and GHG emissions for all PHEVs as the AER increased. The PHEVs that employ biomass-based fuels (e.g., biomass-E85 and -hydrogen) may not realize GHG emissions benefits over regular HEVs if the marginal generation mix is dominated by fossil sources. Uncertainties are associated with the adopted PHEV fuel consumption and marginal generation mix simulation results, which impact the WTW results and require further research. More disaggregate marginal generation data within control areas (where the actual dispatching occurs) and an improved dispatch modeling are needed to accurately assess the impact of PHEV electrification. The market penetration of the PHEVs, their total electric load, and their role as complements rather than replacements of regular HEVs are also uncertain. The effects of the number of daily charges, the time of charging, and the charging capacity have not been evaluated in this study. A more robust analysis of the VMT share of the CD operation is also needed.

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in the electricity sector: Implications of increasing renewable energy penetration in Ghana's electricity generation mix

In persuasion of global commitment of the country on reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission, India’s ‘National Mission on Sustainable Habitat’ has included promotion of energy efficiency in residential and commercial sector and has envisaged that energy use in buildings varies significantly across income groups, building construction typology, climate and several other factors. Though substantial energy savings can be achieved in the housing sector through implementation of various carbon mitigation options, it was stated that the incremental cost of implementing energy efficient measures is estimated to vary between 3 and 5% for residential houses. The challenge before the engineers, architects and other professionals associated with building construction sector is to find out appropriate technologies that will ensure reduction of GHG emission without increasing cost of construction. As majority of construction in government sector will come from construction of small residential house belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) as part of government’s commitment to provide housing for all by 2020, assessment of GHG reduction potential of various cost-effective construction technologies is very essential to provide guidance to the stakeholders. This paper has surveyed various prevalent construction technologies in different parts of the country, analyzed the cost and embodied GHG emission for construction of the building envelope by collecting data through extensive search of literature and information obtained from construction sites. It has been found that there is ample scope of adoption of location-specific, cost-effective and eco-friendly construction technologies for construction of houses for EWS which are capable of reduction of GHG emission without any increase in cost of construction. The technologies can meet the commitment of the country at international level on reduction of GHG emission without any extra burden to state exchequer.

This monograph is concerned with different aspects of green house gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. The first part summarizes the total amount of GHG emissions and analyses them regarding their composition. A differentiation is made between the emissions which are already linked to agriculture (source group agriculture: digestion , manure-management and agricultural soils ) within the National Report on GHG Emissions and those which can be counted primarily in addition to agriculture ( energy and land use and land use change ). Depending on which database is used, agriculture is participating in emitting green house gases with 6.3% or 11.1% of total German GHG emissions in 2004. This means that agriculture is an important polluter. The development of GHG emissions in agriculture compared to the year 1990 is -18.5% for the source group agriculture. This means that the source group has reduced more emissions than the average (-17.5%) over all domains published within the National Report. Regarding the sources energy and land use and land use change in addition emission reduction is -16.4% in the same period and thus worse than the average. Moreover, realized emission reductions are predominantly based on structural changes, less on systematical measures. This fact raises the question how agriculture can make a contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions in future particularly with regard to higher aims in climate politics.For this reason the second part of the monograph identifies capacities for the reduction of GHG emissions by using available agricultural biomass for energetic purposes. Due to the heterogeneity of biomass and the variety of its possible products, a lot of technical processes concerning the conversion of biomass into energy exist in practice. Since all of them have different emission factors the derivation of realistic reduction capacities is a nontrivial problem. This work restricts the problem by combining existing biomass with those technologies which provide largest benefit concerning the reduction of GHG emissions. Thereby it is possible to evaluate the maximum contribution of GHG reductions from biomass usage in agriculture in Germany, which aggregates up to 50,341 Gg CO2-equivalent. This means that 78.3% of the emissions from the source group agriculture in 2004 could be compensated if biomass was used within those technologies which produce the largest benefit. In this regards the subsidy of energy crops in biogas plants based on the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (renewable energy law) in Germany should be reviewed because there they do not produce the largest benefit. Energy crops should be applied to replace solid fuels instead. Since in practice several biogas plants are already using energy crops as input material without having an option for alternatives, the question raises how this fact can be improved for the future regarding climate protection.Therefore the third part of this monograph analyses the possible emission reductions of different technologies for converting biogas into energy. Objects of investigation are existing technologies like block heat and power plants or direct gas feeding into public gas distribution system as well as future technologies like the application of biogas in different types of fuel cells. Although direct gas feeding has a better ratio concerning the conversion of primary to secondary energy the GHG reduction capacity is much less compared to technologies of cogeneration. The reason for this is that the production of electricity has much more effect on GHG emissions than the production of heat. This is to be seen when comparing the emission factors of certain reference systems used in this part like condensing boilers running with natural gas (253 gCO2/kWhheat), gas steam power plants (432 gCO2/kWhel) and the average emissions factor of German power production (653 gCO2/kWhel). The more electricity is produced by a conversion technology based on biogas, the higher is its GHG reduction capacity. Direct gas feeding is not the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection considering that only 13% of the natural gas in Germany is used for electric purposes and considering that replacing natural gas by biogas means that the part of fossil fuels with lowest emissions is replaced. Direct gas feeding is not even then the most efficient way of using biogas if there is a consumer at the other end of the public gas distribution system who theoretically uses the injected biogas for running cogeneration systems. The conditioning of biogas in order to feed public distribution combined with additional heat source for running the fermenter of the biogas plant is worse for efficiency. Considering ecological standpoints local heat and power production next to the fermenter is the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection. This can only be improved by using more efficient systems like fuel cells instead of existing block heat and power plants.

Harmonizing the quantification of CCS GHG emission reductions through oil and natural gas industry project guidelines

For all its cachet, you might think that hybrid drivetrain technology is inherently green. But only 13 of 34 hybrid vehicles assessed achieve better than a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and just 3 exceed a 40% reduction, according to an evaluation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).1 Moreover, reductions in GHG emissions do not necessarily correlate with reductions in other toxic emissions. Like any engine output–improving technology, hybrid technology can boost both fuel efficiency and power—but the more you boost one, the less you can boost the other. That dichotomy spurred the UCS to develop its “hybrid scorecard,” which rates each hybrid according to how well it lives up to its promise of reducing air pollution.2 All the vehicles were from model year 2011 except for one, the 2012 Infiniti M Hybrid. First the UCS scored each hybrid on how much it reduced its GHG emissions relative to its conventional counterpart, on a scale of zero (least reduction) to 10 (greatest reduction). These scores reflect the percentage in fuel efficiency gain. For example, the Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg3 compared with 28 mpg for the comparable Toyota Matrix. This represents a 44.0% reduction in GHG emissions, earning the Prius a GHG score of 9.4. At the bottom of the scale, the 21-mpg hybrid VW Touareg reduces GHG emissions only 10% over the 19-mpg conventional Toureg, for a score of 0.0. With a 46% improvement, the luxury Lincoln MKZ Hybrid had the greatest reduction over its conventional counterpart. The UCS also scored hybrids for absolute emissions (rather than relative to the conventional model) of air pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. These scores, on a scale of zero (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest), are based on California certifications for tailpipe emissions. As the scorecard showed, a vehicle that emits less heat-trapping gases may not necessarily emit less of other air pollutants. For example, the Mercedes Benz S400 Hybrid scored 9 on air pollution reduction, alongside the Prius and the Lincoln MKZ, but only 1.3 on GHG emissions. HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Nonluxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score “Hybrid technology doesn’t add additional challenges [to reducing exhaust pollutants] that can’t be addressed through design of the vehicle’s emission controls,” says Don Anair, senior vehicles analyst at the UCS. “Numerous manufacturers of hybrids are meeting the lowest emissions levels. Hybrid manufacturers who aren’t delivering the lowest smog-forming emissions have chosen not to do so.” Each vehicle’s air pollution and GHG scores were averaged into a total “environmental improvement score,” again with the MKZ and the Prius leading the pack, and the Touareg scraping bottom. The UCS also scored “hybrid value” (the cost of reducing GHG emissions in dollars per percent reduction) and “forced features” (options you must buy with the hybrid whether you want them or not). HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Luxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, compliments the scorecard for illustrating that hybrid technology is not automatically green. He says, “We should improve the efficiency of all vehicles, and [hybrid technology] is just one technology that can get us there if applied with that goal in mind.” Nonetheless, Jamie Kitman, the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, questions the wisdom of emphasizing percentage improvement in gas mileage rather than absolute miles per gallon. At 21 mpg, the hybrid Cadillac Escalade 4WD represents a 29% improvement over the 15-mpg conventional model, saving nearly 2 gallons per 100 miles. But the hybrid Escalade is still a gas guzzler, and Kitman says he wishes people would see through the marketing that encourages them to buy SUVs and “crossovers” rather than ordinary cars, which are more efficient than either. Says Anair, “The scorecard shows that automakers can pair hybrid technology with advanced emission controls to help tackle climate change while reducing the health impacts from breathing polluted air.” However, he adds, alluding to the stark variation in how much hybrid technology boosted fuel efficiency, “Not all automakers are delivering on the full promise of this technology.”

Retrospective dynamic life cycle assessment of residential heating and cooling systems in four locations in the United States

Simple SummaryLivestock accounts for an estimated 80% of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, making abatement of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock a high-priority challenge facing animal nutritionists. Mitigating greenhouse gases in ruminants without reducing animal production is desirable both as a strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and as a way of improving dietary feed efficiency. The inclusion of feed additives in the diets of ruminants can reduce energy losses as methane, which typically reduces animal performance and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. The present study evaluated the abatement potential of nine essential oil blends to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of the blends resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and in vitro apparent dry matter digestibility with higher values noted for the control treatment. A similar trend was noted for in vitro truly dry matter digestibility with higher values noted in the control treatment. The efficiency of microbial production was greater for the blends. The inclusion of the blends affected the total and molar proportion of volatile fatty acid concentrations. Overall, inclusion of the blends modified the rumen function resulting in improved efficiency of microbial production.The current study evaluated nine essential oil blends (EOBs) for their effects on ruminal in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), efficiency of microbial production, total short-chain fatty acid concentration (SCFA), total gas, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions using two dietary substrates (high forage and high concentrate). The study was arranged as a 2 × 2 × 9 + 1 factorial design to evaluate the effects of the nine EOBs on the two dietary substrates at two time points (6 and 24 h). The inclusion levels of the EOBs were 0 µL (control) and 100 µL with three laboratory replicates. Substrate × EOBs × time interactions were not significant (p > 0.05) for total gas and greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of EOBs in the diets resulted in a reduction (p < 0.001) in GHG emissions, except for EOB1 and EOB8 in the high concentrate diet at 6 h and for EOB8 in the high forage diet at 24 h of incubation. Diet type had no effect on apparent IVDMD (IVADMD) whereas the inclusion of EOBs reduced (p < 0.05) IVADMD with higher values noted for the control treatment. The efficiency of microbial production was greater (p < 0.001) for EOB treatments except for EOB1 inclusion in the high forage diet. The inclusion of EOBs affected (p < 0.001) the total and molar proportion of volatile fatty acid concentrations. Overall, the inclusion of the EOBs modified the rumen function resulting in improved efficiency of microbial production. Both the apparent and truly degraded DM was reduced in the EOB treatments. The inclusion of EOBs also resulted in reduced GHG emissions in both diets, except for EOB8 in the high forage diet which was slightly higher than the control treatment.

The dairy Carbon Offset Scenario Tool (COST) was developed to explore the influence of various abatement strategies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Australian dairy farms. COST is a static spreadsheet-based tool that uses Australian GHG inventory methodologies, algorithms and emission factors to estimate carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions of a dairy farm system. One of the key differences between COST and other inventory-based dairy GHG emissions calculators is the ability to explore the effect of reducing total farm emissions on farm income, assuming the strategy was compliant with Kyoto rules for carbon offsets. COST provides ten abatement strategies across the four broad theme areas of diet manipulation, herd and breeding management, feedbase management and waste management. Each abatement strategy contains four sections; two sections for data entry (baseline farm data specific to the strategy explored and strategy-specific variables) and two sections for results (milk production results and GHG/economic-related results). Key sensitive variables for each strategy, identified from prior research, and prices for milk production and carbon offsets are adjusted through up/down buttons, which allows users to quickly explore the impact of these variables on farm emissions and profitability. For example, if the cost to implement an abatement strategy is doubled, what carbon offset income would be required to negate this additional cost? Results are presented as changes in carbon offset income, strategy implementation cost, additional milk production income and net farm income on a per annum and on a per GHG emissions intensity of milk production basis. COST currently contains a comprehensive range of strategies for GHG abatement, although some strategies are still in development. As new technologies or farm management practices leading to a reduction in GHG emission become available, these too will be incorporated into COST. To date, two dairy-specific abatement methodologies have been legislated as part of Australia’s commitment to reducing on-farm GHG emissions through it’s the carbon offset scheme, the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and are incorporated into COST. These are the ‘Destruction of methane generated from dairy manure in covered anaerobic ponds’ and the ‘Methodology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in milking cows through feeding dietary additives’. As an example, we explored the mitigation option Replace supplements with a source of dietary fats (reflecting the second above-mentioned CFI legislated abatement strategy) as feeding a diet higher in dietary fats has been shown to reduce enteric methane emissions per unit of feed intake. A 400 milking herd was fed a baseline diet of 2.6% dietary fat. By replacing grain with hominy meal, at a rate of 5.0 kg dry matter/ cow per day for 90 days during the 3 summer months, the summer diet fat concentration was increased to 6.4%. Enteric methane emissions were reduced by 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO 2 e) per annum for the farm. Waste methane and nitrous oxide emissions were also reduced by 0.5 and 1.6 t CO 2 e/annum, respectively. However, as reductions from these two sources of GHG emissions do not qualify for payment with this CFI methodology, their reduction could not be included as an offset income. At a carbon price of $20/ t CO 2 e, the reduction in enteric methane emissions was valued at $800/farm. The implementation cost of replacing grain with hominy was valued at $18,000/farm due to the hominy meal costing an additional $100/t dry matter compared to the grain. However, the additional milk production achieved due to the higher energy concentration of the diet resulted in an additional 70,200 litres and based on a summer milk price of $0.38/ litre, this equated to an additional income from milk valued at $26,676/farm. The overall result was a net increase in farm profit of $9,476/farm when paid on a reduction in total GHG emissions. COST can quickly allow users to ascertain the level of GHG emission reduction possible with various mitigation options and explore the sensitivity of key variables on GHG emissions and farm profitability.

Executive Summary: The California Climate Action Registry, which was initially established in 2000 and began operation in Fall 2002, is a voluntary registry for recording annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The purpose of the Registry is to assist California businesses and organizations in their efforts to inventory and document emissions in order to establish a baseline and to document early actions to increase energy efficiency and decrease GHG emissions. The State of California has committed to use its ''best efforts'' to ensure that entities that establish GHG emissions baselines and register their emissions will receive ''appropriate consideration under any future international, federal, or state regulatory scheme relating to greenhouse gas emissions.'' Reporting of GHG emissions involves documentation of both ''direct'' emissions from sources that are under the entity's control and indirect emissions controlled by others. Electricity generated by an off-site power source is consider ed to be an indirect GHG emission and is required to be included in the entity's report. Registry participants include businesses, non-profit organizations, municipalities, state agencies, and other entities. Participants are required to register the GHG emissions of all operations in California, and are encouraged to report nationwide. For the first three years of participation, the Registry only requires the reporting of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although participants are encouraged to report the remaining five Kyoto Protocol GHGs (CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). After three years, reporting of all six Kyoto GHG emissions is required. The enabling legislation for the Registry (SB 527) requires total GHG emissions to be registered and requires reporting of ''industry-specific metrics'' once such metrics have been adopted by the Registry. The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) was asked to provide technical assistance to the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) related to the Registry in three areas: (1) assessing the availability and usefulness of industry-specific metrics, (2) evaluating various methods for establishing baselines for calculating GHG emissions reductions related to specific actions taken by Registry participants, and (3) establishing methods for calculating electricity CO2 emission factors. The third area of research was completed in 2002 and is documented in Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors for the California Electric Power Sector (Marnay et al., 2002). This report documents our findings related to the first areas of research. For the first area of research, the overall objective was to evaluate the metrics, such as emissions per economic unit or emissions per unit of production that can be used to report GHG emissions trends for potential Registry participants. This research began with an effort to identify methodologies, benchmarking programs, inventories, protocols, and registries that u se industry-specific metrics to track trends in energy use or GHG emissions in order to determine what types of metrics have already been developed. The next step in developing industry-specific metrics was to assess the availability of data needed to determine metric development priorities. Berkeley Lab also determined the relative importance of different potential Registry participant categories in order to asses s the availability of sectoral or industry-specific metrics and then identified industry-specific metrics in use around the world. While a plethora of metrics was identified, no one metric that adequately tracks trends in GHG emissions while maintaining confidentiality of data was identified. As a result of this review, Berkeley Lab recommends the development of a GHG intensity index as a new metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends.Such an index could provide an industry-specific metric for reporting and tracking GHG emissions trends to accurately reflect year to year changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index changes while protecting proprietary data. This GHG intensity index would provide Registry participants with a means for demonstrating improvements in their energy and GHG emissions per unit of production without divulging specific values. For the second research area, Berkeley Lab evaluated various methods used to calculate baselines for documentation of energy consumption or GHG emissions reductions, noting those that use industry-specific metrics. Accounting for actions to reduce GHGs can be done on a project-by-project basis or on an entity basis. Establishing project-related baselines for mitigation efforts has been widely discussed in the context of two of the so-called ''flexible mechanisms'' of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The production of biofuel from cellulosic residues can have both environmental and financial benefits. A particular benefit is that it can alleviate competition for land conventionally used for food and feed production. In this research, we investigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production of ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate from citrus waste, a byproduct of the citrus processing industry. The study represents the first life cycle-based evaluations of citrus waste biorefineries. Two biorefinery configurations are studied—a large biorefinery that converts citrus waste into ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate, and a small biorefinery that converts citrus waste into biomethane, limonene and digestate. Ethanol is assumed to be used as E85, displacing gasoline as a light-duty vehicle fuel; biomethane displaces natural gas for electricity generation, limonene displaces acetone in solvents, and digestate from the anaerobic digestion process displaces synthetic fertilizer. System expansion and two allocation methods (energy, market value) are considered to determine emissions of co-products. Considerable GHG reductions would be achieved by producing and utilizing the citrus waste-based products in place of the petroleum-based or other non-renewable products. For the large biorefinery, ethanol used as E85 in light-duty vehicles results in a 134% reduction in GHG emissions compared to gasoline-fueled vehicles when applying a system expansion approach. For the small biorefinery, when electricity is generated from biomethane rather than natural gas, GHG emissions are reduced by 77% when applying system expansion. The life cycle GHG emissions vary substantially depending upon biomethane leakage rate, feedstock GHG emissions and the method to determine emissions assigned to co-products. Among the process design parameters, the biomethane leakage rate is critical, and the ethanol produced in the large biorefinery would not meet EISA’s requirements for cellulosic biofuel if the leakage rate is higher than 9.7%. For the small biorefinery, there are no GHG emission benefits in the production of biomethane if the leakage rate is higher than 11.5%. Compared to system expansion, the use of energy and market value allocation methods generally results in higher estimates of GHG emissions for the primary biorefinery products (i.e., smaller reductions in emissions compared to reference systems).

Alternative methodologies for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from crude palm oil (CPO) production by a wet extraction mill in Thailand were developed. The production of 1 t of CPO from mills with biogas capture (four mills) and without biogas capture (two mills) in 2010 produced GHG emissions of 935 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq), on average. Wastewater treatment plants with and without biogas capture produced GHG emissions of 64 and 47% of total GHG emission, respectively. The rest of the emissions mostly originated from the acquisition of fresh fruit bunches. The establishment of a biogas recovery system must be the first step in the reduction of GHG emissions. It could reduce GHG emissions by 373 kgCO2eq/t of CPO. The main source of GHG emission of 163 kgCO2eq/t of CPO from the mills with biogas capture was the open pond used for cooling of wastewater before it enters the biogas recovery system. The reduction of GHG emissions could be accomplished by (i) using a wastewater-dispersed unit for cooling, (ii) using a covered pond, (iii) enhancing the performance of the biogas recovery system, and (iv) changing the stabilization pond to an aerated lagoon. By using options i-iv, reductions of GHG emissions of 216, 208, 92.2, and 87.6 kgCO2eq/t of CPO, respectively, can be achieved.