1 / 30

Practitioners Network “Thematic Group on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies”

Practitioners Network “Thematic Group on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies”. Carbon Footprint Methodologies for Development Projects and Case Studies March 2 nd , 2009 O. Grandvoinet C. Bernadac. Which methodologies, emission factors and tools do we use?

krikor
Télécharger la présentation

Practitioners Network “Thematic Group on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practitioners Network“Thematic Group on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies” Carbon Footprint Methodologies for Development Projects and Case Studies March 2nd, 2009 O. Grandvoinet C. Bernadac

  2. Which methodologies, emission factors and tools do we use? • Interactive presentation of the key calculations and assumptions • How do we use the results? • Which resources does our monitoring approach require? • What were and are our most important challenges? • Which type of coordinated action is most needed?

  3. AFD case studies • Combined Heat and Power: Carbon Footprint tool • Urban transportation: ad-hoc method

  4. Combined Heat and PowerDescription of project • CHP in China • 202 MW of electricity • 2 x 76 MW gas turbines • 50 MW steam turbine • 120 t/h steam production • Electricity production with combined cycle replaces coal consumption (~200.000 t p.a.) • Heat production replaces old coal boilers (~100.000 t p.a.) • Project cost: 106 M€ • AFD’s financing: 40 M€ • Project lifetime: 20 years

  5. tCO2 years Mitigation and Carbon FootprintCalculation method 1. Construction emissions 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 ... 2. Operation emissions 3 4 3. Reference scenario 1 4. Emission reductions per year ... 2 2 2 2 5. Averaging over project lifetime

  6. Combined Heat and PowerReference scenario • Here: quite straightforward • Coal consumption in current systems • Assumption: no increase in coal consumption • More difficult cases (example of natural gas terminal) • Theoretical fuel switch (non existing clients) • Unmet demand  Generally conservative approach to avoided emissions

  7. Combined Heat and PowerProject emissions • Construction emissions: considered as negligible • Gas consumption per year: 300 000 000 m3 • Figure used at AFD: including process (extraction, transport, refining)

  8. Combined Heat and PowerBaseline emissions • No construction emissions: current systems • Current coal consumption per year: 300 000 t

  9. Combined Heat and PowerAvoided emissions

  10. Combined Heat and PowerAvoided emissions (variation)

  11. AFD case studies • Combined Heat and Power: Carbon Footprint tool • Urban transportation: ad-hoc method

  12. Urban transportationDescription of project • Subway in Cairo: 4 phases, from 2007 (construction of phase 1) to 2022 (operation of phase 4) • Modal shift from road to subway • Lifetime of project: 30 years (based on lifetime of equipment) • Total cost: ~2 280 M€ • Carbon footprint method not usable for this type of project • Ad-hoc method: high number of hypotheses, numerous data needed

  13. Urban transportationHypotheses • Construction emissions taken into account • Energy consumption of subway constant over time (when finished) • Energy savings due to modal shift constant over time • Rebound effect of 1% per year: induced demand of 1% per year due to decongestion of roads.

  14. Urban transportation Project emissions • Construction emissions: • 263 000 t of steel • 1 000 000 t of cement • 51 700 t gasoline • 4 000 t oil • Operation emissions: • 180 000 MWh per year 2.1 M tCO2 75 000 tCO2

  15. Urban transportation Modal shift • In 2022, modal shift lowers petrol consumption by 235 000 toe per year (traffic studies)  822 000 tCO2 avoided per year • Decrease by 1% per year due to rebound effect • Before 2022: avoided emissions proportional to length of subway

  16. Urban transportation Avoided emissions • Average emissions: 141 000 tCO2/year • Average avoided emissions due to modal shift: 597 000 tCO2/year • Avoided emissions: 455 000 tCO2/year • Ratio avoided emissions/project emissions ~3 • Cost: ~125 €/tCO2 avoided

  17. Carbon foot print lessons • Methodology more useful than result • Help decision making at the project design level … but co-benefits and induced / unquantifiable impacts • Value of intra-sector benchmark … with both energy (kWh) and carbon (CO2) footprint • Difficult inter-sector comparison /selection

  18. Carbon footprint follow-up • Building referencedata by sector • Measurement ofinduced & leverage impacts Induced & leveraged impacts Induced & leveraged impacts Direct & indirect project impacts tCO2 avoided tCO2 emitted Cost/Budgetary cost GDP Pilot/replicable projects Public policies Structural & long term effects CARBON FINANCE

  19. Screening of climate change mitigation interventions Sector’s inertia and weight in terms of CO2 emissions Energy diagnostic: savings and substitution potential Determinants of energetic change Maturity: public policies, existing projects, market Leverage: promoters/investors, structural effects Relevance of devlt. partner instruments Intervention strategy maximising impact probability

  20. Leveraging impact by thinking global and long term Urban mobility Hanoi Strategic planning tackling climate change • Integrate energy/carbon footprint criteria in urban and urban transport planning • Reinforce links between urban planning and development of integrated transport systems • Reduce demand for mobility / Less travel means less carbon, not less access • Leverage co-benefits (local environment, optimal dimensioning of investments, efficiency & attractiveness of city, social – access to transport solutions) • AFD interventions • Soft components focused on climate change and at city policy design level • Holistic vs. urban transport project approach • Financing of priority investments as defined by strategic environmental planning • More to come : Curitiba, Brasilia, Rabat, Tshwane (Pretoria), Mumbai ? … Guiyang

  21. Additional comments Objectives: • Improve coordination on: • Method • Tool • Emission factors • Perimeter • Further work on additional areas: • Transport • Carbon sequestration (forest, soil) • Credit lines

  22. How to « sell » an energy / climate approach?

  23. How to « sell » an energy / climate approach? • Different logical framework • How to mobilize the local level for a global and long term issue? • Linking global problematic and local concerns • Maximising co-benefits(climate / livelihoods / welfare) • Linking long term and short term • Resilienceto external shocks • Examples • Air pollution due to urban transport and emitting industry • Natural resources management contributing to carbon sequestration and eco-services protection • Electric sector : technical losses, demand side management => investment planning, auto-financing, tariff optimisation incl. social • Getting prepared to a costly and scarce energy

  24. http://climcity.cap-sciences.net/#h

More Related