Technological Options for Reducing Non-CO2 GHG Emissions

Reference work entry

Abstract

In recent years, non-CO2 greenhouse gases (NCGGs), including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), have gained attention due to their higher global warming potentials (GWPs) and abundance of cost-effective and readily implementable technological options available for achieving significant emission reductions.

A project titled Clearinghouse of Technological Options for Reducing Anthropogenic Non-CO 2 GHG Emissions from All Sectors was recently conducted. The overall objective of the project was to develop a clearinghouse of technological options for reducing anthropogenic NCGG emissions. The findings of the project help to better characterize cost-effective opportunities for emission reductions of NCGGs. Employment of an appropriate control technology for a given source would achieve a net reduction in NCGG emissions as well as its contribution to climate change. This chapter of the handbook extracts relevant data and information on the technological options for reducing non-CO2 GHG emissions from the aforementioned project report.

Keywords

Combustion Methane Sludge Ozone Hydrocarbon 

References

  1. 1.
    Lucas PL, van Vuuren DP, Jos Oliver GJ, den Elzen MGJ (2006) “Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases,” Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency (MNP), published on line November 28, 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de la Chesnaye F, Harvey R, Kruger D, Laitner JA (2001) Cost-effective reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Energy Policy 29:1325–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuo J (2008) “Clearinghouse of technological options for reducing anthropogenic non-CO2 GHG emissions from all sectors,” a final project report submitted to California Air Resources Board (CARB contract number 05-328), dated August 2008Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC (1997) “Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories,” United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on clime changeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    California Energy Commission (2006) “Inventory of California greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 to 2004,” final staff report, CEC-600-2006-013, December 22, 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    California Energy Commission (2005) “Emission reduction opportunities for non-CO2 greenhouse gases in California,” a report prepared by ICF Consulting for California Energy Commissions, CEC-500-2005-121, July 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2006) “Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 to 2004,” Office of Atmospheric Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-430-R-06-002, June 2006Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendriks C, de Jager D (2001) “Economic evaluation of methane emission reductions in the extraction, transport and distribution of fossil fuels in the EU: bottom-up analysis,” A final report to European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2004) “International methane and nitrous oxide emissions and mitigation data,” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at www.epa.gov/methane/appendices.html (in Excel file)
  11. 11.
    International Energy Agency (2003) “Building the cost curves for the industrial sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases,” Report Number PH4/25, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK, October 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission (2001) “Economic evaluation of sectoral emission reduction objectives for climate change,” Brussels. (Document can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/climate_change/sectoral_objectives.htm)
  13. 13.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) International analysis of methane and nitrous oxide abatement opportunities: report to energy modeling forum, working group 21, a report prepared by ICF Consulting for the United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Report on US methane emissions 1990–2020: inventories, projections, and opportunities for reductions, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-99-013, September 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fernandez R, Lieberman D, Robinson D (2004) US natural gas STAR program success points to global opportunities to cut methane emissions cost-effectively Oil & Gas, Vol 102(26), July 12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    California Air Resources Board (2004) Staff report: initial statement of reasons for proposed rulemaking, public hearing to consider adoption of regulations to control greenhouse emissions from motor vehicles, California Air Resources Board, August 6, 2004Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Branosky E, Greenhalgh S (2007) Agriculture and climate change: greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities and the 2007 farm bill, Water Resource Institute Policy notes, Washington, DC, March 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Jager D, Hendriks CA, Byers C, van Brummelen M, Petersdorff C, Struker AHM, Blok K, Oonk J, Gerbens S, Zeeman G (2001) Emission reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, Dutch National Research Programme on global air pollution and climate change, Report no. 410-200-094Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeAngelo BJ, de la Chesnaye FC, Beach RH, Sommer A, Murray BC (2006) Methane and nitrous oxide mitigation in agriculture. Energy 27:89–108, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moritomi H, Mochida I (2000) N2O emission inventory and the abatement technologies in Japan. In: van Ham J et al (eds) Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, Control and Implementation. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Energy Agency (2000) Abatement of emissions of other greenhouse gases – nitrous oxide, Report Number PH3/29, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK, September 2000Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kowalenko G (1999) “Assessing Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Farming Practice,” Proceedings of international workshop on reducing nitrous oxide emissions from agroecosytems, Banff, Alberta, March 1999Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blok K, de Jager D (1994) Effectiveness of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies. Environ Monit Assess 31:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Soate G (1993) Nitrous oxide from combustion and industry: chemistry, emissions, and control. In: Proceedings of international workshop methane and nitrous oxide: methods in national emissions inventories and options for control, Amersfoort, the Netherlands, February 3–5Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smit AW, Gent MMC, van den Brink RW (2001) Market analysis DeN2O: market potential for reduction of N2O emissions at nitric acid facilities. Jacobs Engineering Nederland, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delhotal KG, de la Chesnaye FC, Gardinar A, Bates J, Sankovski A (2006) Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions form waste, energy and industry. Energy 27(3):45–62, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hendriks CA, de Jager D, Blok K (1998) “Emission reduction potential and costs for methane and nitrous oxide in the EU-15,” ECOFYS Interim Report, Utrech, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inamori Y, Kimochi Y, Inamori R, Gui P, Kong H, Mizuochi M (2003) Control of anthropogenic CH4 and N2O emissions from several industrial sources and from daily human life. J Chem Eng Jpn 36(4):449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2001) “US high GWP gas emissions 1990 – 2010: inventories, projections, and opportunities,” Office of Air and Radiation, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 000-F-97-000, June 2001Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McFarland M, van Gerwen R (2000) Fluorine compounds: emissions inventories, options for control and their implementation and resulting scenarios. In: Van Ham J et al (eds) Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, Control and Implementation. Kluwer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2004) “Analysis of cost to abate ozone-depleting substitute emissions,” Office of Air and Radiation, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-04-006, June 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    International Energy Agency (2001) “Abatement of emissions of other greenhouse gases – engineered chemicals,” Report Number PH3/35, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham, UK, February 2001Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Gerwen R, Vervoerd M (2000) Emission reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases used as refrigerants. In: Van Ham J et al (eds) Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, Control and Implementation. Kluwer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    March Consulting Group (1999) “UK emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 and potential emission reduction options: Final Report,” Commissioned by the Department of the environment, transport and the regions, UK, January 1999Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (2002) “Report of the Aerosols, Sterilants, Miscellaneous Uses and Carbon Tetrachloride: 2002 Assessment,” Technical Options Committee, United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (1999) “Report of the Solvents, Coatings, and Adhesive Technical Options Committee (STOC): 1998 Assessment,” Ozone Secretariat, April 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Godwin DS, Van Pelt MM, Peterson K (2003) Modeling emissions of high global warming potential gases, Proceedings of the USEPA 12th International Emission Inventory Conference – Emission Inventories: Applying New Technologies, San Diego, April 29–May 1Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    US Climate technology program (2005) “Technology options for the near and long term,” US Department of Energy, http://www.climatetechnology.gov/index.htm, August 2005
  39. 39.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2006) “Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases,” Office of atmospheric programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-430-R-06-005, June 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations