1 / 11

CO 2 -Monitoring in the Ceramic Industry in the scope of EU ETS

This article discusses the specificities of CO2 emissions in the ceramic industry and the challenges in determining emissions from organic material and pore-forming agents. It highlights the low maximum permissible uncertainty in CO2 emissions determination and the potential cost-effectiveness concerns for individual installations.

ramonat
Télécharger la présentation

CO 2 -Monitoring in the Ceramic Industry in the scope of EU ETS

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. CO2-Monitoring in the Ceramic Industry in the scope of EU ETS Katharina Liepach, German Brick and Tile Association Member of TBE , Member of Cerame Unie Köln, 12th May 05

  2. Specifics of the ceramic industry • rough estimation: across the EU Member States: ceramic installations cover 10% of all installations and emitt less then 1% of the CO2 • => many installations, only little emissions • many SMEs

  3. Ceramic Annex: Annex X First, all possible sources are listed: • calcination of limestone/dolomite in the raw material • limestone for reducing air pollutants • conventional fossil kiln fuels • alternative fossil-based kiln fuels and raw materials • biomass kiln fuels (biomass wastes)

  4. Ceramic Annex: Annex X • other fuels • organic material in the clay raw material • additives used to induce porosity, e.g. sawdust or polystyrol • waste gas scrubbing

  5. Ceramic Annex: Annex X • In the following paragraphs only the calcination process is covered in depths. • The rest is missing.

  6. Ceramic Annex: Annex X How should the emissions coming form • organic material in the clay raw material and • pore forming agents be determined is not dealt with.

  7. Ceramic Annex: Annex X The maximum permissible uncertainty of ± 2.5 % when determining the CO2 emissions coming form the calcination process is is too low. MRG, page 21, table 3: • Informative table with typical overall uncertainties associated to the determination of CO2 emissions from an installation or activity in an installation for individual fuel or material streams of different magnitudes

  8. Ceramic Annex: Annex X MRG, page 21, table 3: • process emissions from solid raw materials, (limestone, dolomite) • Installations with less than 100 ktonns CO2 per year: 10%

  9. Ceramic Annex: Annex X Why 2,5% in Annex X? • Most installations emitt less than 50 ktonns per year, so an overall uncertainty of 12,5% for the emissions coming from the raw material is resonable.

  10. Ceramic Annex: Annex X Conclusion: • In general the MRG focus on large installations. • Many information are missing for the ceramic industry. • The uncertainty is too low.

  11. Ceramic Annex: Annex X Thus: • There is the risk that the monitoring will be highly expensive for the individual installations across the member states. Cost and effect could be absolutely disproportional.

More Related