Possibilities for CDM Landfill Gas Projects

(1)

Possibilities for CDM Landfill Gas Projects

Master Thesis prepared

by

Minique Vrins

with Advice and Supervision from Prof. C.J. Jepma

MSc Study International Economics and Business

Groningen University, the Netherlands

(2)

Abbreviations

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

GHG Greenhouse Gas

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CH4 Methane

SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America

CER Certified Emission Reduction

Tg One Million Metric Tons

Yr Year

UNEP United Nations Environmental Protection Program

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NOx Nitrate Oxide

Mt Megaton

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

JI Joint Implementation

ET Emission Trade

EB Executive Board

DOE Designated Operational Entity

CERs Certified Emissions Reductions

Eq Equivalents

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

IC Internal Combustion

BTU British Thermal Units

kWh Kilowatt-Hours

AAU Assigned Allocation Unit

ERU Emission Reduction Unit

EU ETS European Emission Trading Scheme

€ Euro

PCF Prototype Carbon Fund

C-ERUPT The Dutch Certified Emission Reduction Procurement Tender

(3)

Table of Dimension Symbols and

Conversion Factors

1 ton = 1 metric ton 1 metric ton = 1,000 kilograms 1 Kiloton (Kt) = 1,000 metric tons

1 Gigagram (Gg) = 1 kiloton 1 Megaton = 1 million metric tons

1 Teragram (Tg) = 1 Megaton 1 cubic feet (cf) = 0.0283 m3

(4)

Abstract

Landfills offer a sustainable way of diminishing harmful emissions to the atmosphere. By installing landfill gas collection systems and either a flare or an energy recovery system, methane emissions can be severely reduced. In particular, landfills in

developing countries provide many opportunities for possible CDM projects as harmful landfill emissions are increasing in these countries for reasons such as population growth, rapid urban growth, the absence of clear environmental standards and the organic content of the waste. However, not every developing country offers suitable circumstances for CDM landfill gas projects, a frequent problem being the quality of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management.

In January 2006, there were 45 CDM landfill gas projects in the pipeline. Countries that emit large amounts of methane at landfills are China, Mexico, Israel, Turkey and Jordan, but in January 2006 there was only one CDM landfill gas project registered for these countries.

With an average investment of 1.5 million euros in a landfill gas recovery system (including a flare or an energy recovery system) placed at a one million-ton landfill, the generated CERs are about 40,000 (flared) and 50,000 (energy recovery). With a CER price between €5-10; the revenues are between €190,000 and €500,000 per year. Together with a crediting period of 7 years and the option of renewing twice, total revenues are between €1,350,000 and €3,550,000 per crediting period. This illustrates that for a one million-tonne landfill with a flaring system and a CER price of €5, the investment breaks even at just after the crediting period of 7 years. For landfills with a capacity of less than one million tonnes to break even will generally take longer.

(5)

CDM landfill gas potential is far greater than might be expected from the number of present CDM projects in the pipeline. Many potential landfills in different developing countries are unused at the moment. Methane emissions from landfills in China are 5,272,000 tonnes per year. This, together with the fact that China has around 300 large or mid-scale landfills with the potential for landfill gas recovery systems, provides for many potentially profitable CDM landfill gas projects. Each landfill emits around 15,000 ton of methane per year. This is equivalent to 315,000 CERs per year, leading to revenues of between €1,575,000 and €3,150,000 per year per landfill. Mexico has 120 potential landfill sites for CDM landfill gas projects and annual methane emissions of 771,000 tonnes. On average revenues per landfill could be between €675,000 and €1,350,000 per year. Three other countries with equivalent potential revenues are; Turkey, Jordan and Israel. In Jordan, almost all the waste is located at 24 landfills. With methane emissions of 497,000 tonnes per year, these landfills offer great potential for CDM landfill gas projects. In Israel most of the waste ends up at 15 landfills with methane emissions of 418,000 tonnes per year, which could provide for revenues up to €3.5 million per year. Turkey has 7 highly potential landfills for landfill gas recovery systems with methane emissions of 104,600 tonnes per year. These 5 countries offer the potential for approximately 466 promising CDM landfill gas projects. Brazil also has good potential CDM projects, most of which may already be under consideration.

Other developing countries may emit more methane from landfills but have poor MSW management, which makes it harder to initiate CDM landfill gas projects. This means that less generated waste ends up at landfills in these countries. When this situation improves countries such as South-Africa, India, Indonesia, Venezuela, Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria and Thailand with total methane emissions of 3,142,000 tonnes per year from landfills, will offer great possibilities for CDM landfill gas projects. It is difficult to state the exact potential for these countries as no data is available about the number of landfills. When it is assumed that methane is emitted from one million-tonne landfills, the number of landfills is 4,142,000/2,820 (CH4 emitted from a one

(6)

(7)

1 Background Information

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries, also known as Annex I countries, are legally bound to meet quantitative targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. 154 Countries have signed the Protocol representing 61.6% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of the Kyoto Protocol a specific mechanism to enhance sustainable technology in developing countries and to provide opportunities for Annex I countries to reach their target transfers, is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Under the CDM industrialized countries can achieve part of their commitments through investment in projects in developing countries that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Increased greenhouse gas emissions have become a serious problem for the entire globe. The two most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4),

(9)

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

It has become necessary to reduce emissions worldwide to deal with the problem of global warming. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased by almost 30%, methane concentrations by more than 100%, and nitrous oxide concentrations by around 15%.1 These large increases, which are mainly due to increased anthropogenic activities, result in a change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere; the overall temperature has increased and the sea level has risen. The extremely large increase of methane emissions contributes to the global climate change issue and should be addressed seriously because of the characteristics of methane. Owing to major (industrial) developments in past years developed countries have started to clean up their acts. This, however, is seldom the case in developing countries for reasons such as: population growth, rapid urban growth and the absence of adequate environmental standards. This means that emissions from developing countries will in due course surpass those of the industrialized countries. The Kyoto protocol provides flexible mechanisms to deal with mitigation. In February 2005 the Kyoto Protocol came into force and with that also the international carbon trading market. Each credit generated via a project in a non-Annex I country can reduce the buyer's obligation to reduce emissions at home. On average the cost of reducing one tonne of emissions in an Annex I country is significantly higher than in a non-Annex I country. This is why countries like the Netherlands shop around in the developing world for cheaper deals in order to reduce their emissions and consequently, reach their Kyoto targets.2 There are many possibilities in this field for countries that participate in the Kyoto protocol. Few however, are currently making use of these strategies to reduce their national emissions.

John Skinner, Executive Director of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), made the following statements: "It's very important to control methane," and "Methane from landfills is probably one of the most controllable sources of

greenhouse gases and one of the most cost-effective avenues for reducing methane

1

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html 2

(10)

emissions. Through landfill methane control alone, we could meet about 11 percent of the U.S. target under the Kyoto Protocol."3

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to clarify the possibilities for CDM landfill gas projects. In chapter 2 of this report a literature review about the subjects is provided. Subsequently, through answering the 5 questions below, an attempt will be made to explain the possibilities for Kyoto carbon credits in this area.

o How much is the typical investment amount in this kind of CDM project (what are the costs of a landfill gas recovery system)?

o Which one of the two options; flaring or an energy recovery system, is

recommended for the recovery of landfill gas?

o How much is the reduction of emissions based on these actions?

o What are the revenues of these actions (the amount of Kyoto credits earned and the recovered energy in some cases)?

o What and where are the possibilities for CDM landfill gas recovery systems and respectively Kyoto credits?

These sub-questions lead to the main question of this paper: “How realistic are the

possibilities for Kyoto Credits via CDM, in the landfill gas sector currently?”

Much relevant information has been derived from a database of all CDM projects in the pipeline (the pipeline was produced by Jørgen Fenhann, UNEP Risø Centre 10-01-06), which is updated every month to give a clear overview of what is currently happening in this sector. Every project has to pass several stages; project preparations, validation, CDM Executive Board approval, registration, issuance of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) based on achieved emissions reductions, and implementation. This process is called the pipeline.

3

(11)

2 Landfills and Kyoto Credits

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.1 METHANE

Methane is a colourless, odourless gas with a wide distribution in nature. It is the principal component of natural gas and is therefore a significant fuel. Methane is released during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, but most importantly during the decomposition of organic waste at landfill sites. As previously indicated, methane absorbs over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Owing to this high absorption capacity it is an important energy source. For environmental reasons it is worthwhile mentioning that methane has a short (10 years) atmospheric life. Because it is both powerful and short-lived, its contribution to global warming is significant and, consequently, reductions in methane emissions have a fast and significant effect on the atmospheric warming potential.

(12)

Figure 1: Source contribution to global CH4emissions (Sources: Cicerone and Oremland, 1988; Fung et al,

1991; Hein et al, 1997; Lelieveld et al, 1998; Houweling at al, 1999).4

As shown in figure 1; 6% of the global methane emissions originate from landfills. Total global CH4emissions amount to over 600 Tg/yr. (1 Tg = 1 Mt, million metric

tonnes).5 This indicates that landfills are responsible for around 40 Tg of CH4 emissions

per year.

Methane is produced by and emitted from anaerobic decomposition of organic material in landfills. Landfills provide ideal conditions for methanogenesis, as both organic material and anaerobic conditions are present. All waste that ends up in landfills decomposes and releases methane to the atmosphere. It is relatively easy to install landfill gas recovery systems and either flare the captured gas or burn it to generate energy. When landfill gas is flared or burned, methane is turned into carbon dioxide which is far less harmful to the environment than methane. Both options (flaming and burning) have a huge impact on total methane emissions and, consequently, on greenhouse gas mitigation.

4

http://www.itm.su.se/bhm/rapporter/emission/218511.pdf 5

(13)

2.1.2 LANDFILLS

Landfill gas is a product of the degradation of biodegradable waste. Landfill gas emissions usually consist of around 50% methane, 45% carbon dioxide and 5% nitrogen. Landfills emit landfill gas throughout the year. The amount of methane generated from landfills depends on the waste characteristics (composition, density, and particle size), moisture content, nutrients, microbes, temperature, and pH (El-Fadel, 1998). The more organic waste present at a landfill, the more landfill gas is produced by bacteria during decomposition. The volume of methane released is optimal when the temperature is between C˚30 and C˚40. Soil submersion and pH neutrality stimulate methanogenesis as well. Both the quantity and the quality of methane are affected by these factors. Methane is generated during a period of approximately 30 years after waste has been land filled (EPA 1993).

(14)

Figure 2: Passive Collection System (source ATSDR, Landfill Gas Primer)6

Active collection systems are considered to be the most effective means of landfill gas collection. They include vertical and horizontal gas collection wells similar to passive collection systems. Unlike the gas collection wells in a passive system, wells in the active system have control devices to regulate gas flows and to serve as sampling ports. Sampling allows the system operator to measure gas generation, composition, and pressure. Active gas collection systems include vacuums or pumps to move gas out of the landfill and piping that connects the collection wells to the vacuum. Vacuums or pumps pull gas from the landfill by creating low pressure within the gas collection wells. The low pressure in the wells creates a safe migration pathway for the landfill gas. It is important to note that landfill gas extraction needs to be managed professionally as the low pressure attracts oxygen into the landfill, which could possibly result in explosions. In general an active system collects more of the generated landfill gas than a passive system. Figure 3 illustrates an active gas collection system.

6

(15)

Figure 3: Active Collection System (source ATSDR, Landfill Gas Primer)7

Once the gas is collected the following options exist to deal with it:

1. Flare; a device that burns landfill gas. Flaring landfill gas reduces odours, safety concerns, methane emissions, and air pollution, but does not provide energy benefits.

2. Boilers; the cheapest option, produces heat, not electricity. Landfill gas used in boilers brings up the issue of piping the gas to local industries.

3. Internal combustion engine; the dirtiest technology for burning landfill gas; it produces electricity but emits the most carbon monoxide and NOx.

4. Gas turbines are somewhere in the middle in terms of carbon monoxide and NOx

emissions. They also produce electricity.

5. Fuel cell; the most expensive technology and still experimental. Electricity is produced as well.

6. To convert the methane into methyl alcohol; one company is in this business. The organics they filter out are sent to a flare.

7

(16)

7. To clean the methane and to channel it to other industries or into natural gas grids. This, however, requires a high degree of cleaning and filtering of the gas8.

Figure 4 provides an overview of a landfill gas collection and utilisation system.

Figure 4: Landfill Gas Collection and Utilization System9

.

Installing a landfill gas recovery system has to be economically feasible. In the past installation was only viable at larger landfills. However, new technologies are presently available, which allow for viable projects at smaller landfills. For example, smaller landfills can generate enough gas to heat an on-site greenhouse or to power a micro turbine to generate a small amount of electricity. Various federal and state incentives: grants, loans, tax credits and renewable energy purchase requirements can also enhance the economic and environmental feasibilities of landfill gas recovery projects. Even though there are possibilities in this field, the following factors are commonly considered important for the feasibility of landfill gas recovery:

(17)

o The waste is more than 35 feet deep and is stable enough for well installation. o The landfill area is larger than 35 acres.

o The landfill should receive waste with a high percentage of organic fractions. o The landfill has sufficient waste of such composition that large quantities of

landfill gas composed of 35% or more of methane is generated.

o If a landfill is still open, active landfill operation will continue for several more years.

o If a landfill is already closed, a short time (no more than a few years) has elapsed since closure.

o The climate is favourable to gas production (very cold or very dry climates can slow down gas production).10

Potential landfill sites for establishing landfill gas recovery systems should preferably have the above mentioned characteristics.

2.1.3 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Most developing countries are included in the Kyoto Protocol but are not obliged to reduce their harmful emissions. There has been a great deal of debate about this issue. However, developing countries are expected to report on their actions to address climate change. The emissions from developing countries are of great concern for the following reasons.

Greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries are likely to surpass those from developed countries within the first half of this century.11 Landfills are reported to emit about 40 megaton (Mt) of methane, with the largest share of emissions coming from developed countries (around 60% in 2000, see Annex 4). Overall landfill emissions from developed countries are estimated to fall slightly in 2010 (USEPA, 1999a). The principal reasons for this decline are the increasing attention on the reduction of the amount of organic material disposed of at landfills and the expanded use of methane collection systems. In contrast, methane emissions from developing countries are

10

(18)

expected to increase in the future (IEA, 1996). Key factors are population growth, rapid urban growth and the reduction of unmanaged dumping through replacement by large sanitary landfill sites, which usually have higher methane emissions.12

Another reason for taking notice of developing countries concerning methane emissions is the waste characteristics at landfills in these countries. The characteristics of waste generated in developed and in developing countries are clearly different. In developing countries up to 60% of all municipal waste (or sometimes even more) is of organic matter. This is a much higher proportion than in developed countries and is of great importance as organic waste releases more methane than non-organic waste.

Finally, most developing countries do not have environmental standards and have therefore relatively high emissions.

2.1.4 KYOTO CREDITS

The Kyoto Protocol sets out 3 flexible mechanisms for lowering the costs of achieving the established emission reduction targets for participating countries. These are;

o Joint Implementation (JI), o Emission Trade (ET), and

o The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

JI is a mechanism in which an Annex I country tries to realize its emission targets by investing in greenhouse gas abatement projects in another Annex I country.

ET allows an Annex I country with an excess of emission units (as its emission level is less than the set maximum level) to sell its credits to another Annex I country that is unable to meet its commitments.

(19)

As described before, CDM is a mechanism in which an Annex I country with an emission reduction target can invest in a project in a non-Annex country and claim credits for the reduced emissions achieved by that project. The CDM has two key goals:

o To assist developing countries, which host CDM projects, in achieving

sustainable development.

o To provide developed countries with flexibility in achieving their emission reduction targets, by allowing them to access credits from emission reduction projects undertaken in developing countries.13

Installing landfill gas recovery systems in developing countries could be the object of CDM projects. Other possible projects that could generate potential credits are:

o Renewable energy projects that replace use of fossil fuels.

o Energy efficiency projects aimed at reducing consumption of fossil fuels. o Recovery and utilization of methane from, for example, waste landfills and

coal mines.

o Switching from fuels with greater to lesser greenhouse gas intensity (as from coal to natural gas).

o Recovery and utilization or destruction of industrial gases which are potent greenhouse gases (HFC, N20, PFCs and SF6).14

Kyoto Credits Project Criteria and Procedures

The following two basic requirements have to be met by every project. First, developers must establish a baseline scenario which states the emissions of greenhouse gases in the event the concerned project is not realized. Secondly, developers must demonstrate that their project’s emission level is less when compared to the level indicated in the baseline scenario. This is called ‘additionality’.15

(20)

and guidelines for the CDM. The Board also assigns a company called a ‘Designated Operational Entity (DOE), which checks whether projects are fulfilling CDM criteria. A CDM project must qualify for two processes: validation and verification.

Validation takes place once before approval of the initial project. The DOE will evaluate and validate the proposed CDM project. It has to confirm that several requirements are met:

o Voluntary participation of parties.

o Comments by stakeholders have been invited.

o Project participants have submitted documentation on environmental impacts to the DOE.

o The project will result in reduction in greenhouse gas.

o A methodology has been adopted in accordance with CDM rules.

o Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting are in accordance with CDM rules.

o The project complies with all other CDM rules.16

The DOE then issues a validation report and requests the CDM EB for registration of the project based on this report.

Verification takes place periodically after the project has been approved or registered. After the project has been registered by the EB, the DOE periodically checks whether emission reductions have actually taken place. It will then request the EB to issue credits, based on the verification report. Credits generated through the CDM are known as Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). Only projects that have successfully passed the process of validation and verification may sell CERs.17

In October 2005 the first ever CERs were issued by the CDM EB under the Kyoto Protocol. One CER is equal to one ton of CO2 equivalent. This means that one CER is

16

http://www.cseindia.org/programme/geg/cdm_faq.htm#cer 17

(21)

generated when a reduction of one ton of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere has taken

place.

2.2 CDM PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE (JANUARY 2006)

The following information was derived from the database of UNEP Risø. In January 2006, 589 CDM projects were in the pipeline.18 71 of these projects had been registered, 63 had requested registration, and the remaining projects were undergoing validation. The registered CDM projects are located in Latin America (34): Chile (6), Honduras (6), Brazil (5), Mexico (5), Argentina (3), Panama (3), Peru (2), Bolivia (1), Colombia (1), Costa Rica (1) and Guatemala (1). In Asia & Pacific (33): India (20), China (3), Sri Lanka (3), Nepal (2), South Korea (2), Bangladesh (1), Bhutan (1) and Fiji (1). In East

Europe (1): Armenia (1). In Sub-Sahara Africa (1): South Africa (1). In North Africa & Middle East (2): Morocco (2). The main investors in CDM were Japan, the

United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Figure 5 shows an overview of the division of CDM projects over the sectors.

Figure 5: Division of CDM Projects over the Sectors (source UNEP Risø data base, 17-01-2006).

Biomass energy Hydro EE Industry Wind Agriculture Landfill gas Fossil fuel sw itch Biogas Cement HFCs Fugitive Solar Geothermal EE Households N2O EE Service Tidal Transport Energy distrib. 18

(22)

8% of the CDM projects in the pipeline include landfill gas (=45 projects). The 45 landfill gas projects represent 11% of the total CERs for all CDM projects in the pipeline. This is equivalent to 12,883,000 CERs and will reduce emission by 12.88 MtCO2-equivalents per year (or 98.84 MtCO2-eq. by 2012 cumulatively). The reduction

of emissions varies greatly among the landfill gas projects; from 13 to 1,371 kt CO2-eq.

Out of the 45 landfill gas projects 12 were registered with a total reduction of emissions of 2,556 kt CO2-eq. Each project will on average reduce emissions by 213 kt CO2-eq.

Figure 6 indicates the division of CERs over the sectors.

(23)

3 Landfill Research, Related Cost and

Re-Use Options

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

This chapter gives the information needed to answer the following question; “What are

the possibilities for CDM landfill gas projects? To obtain the information the following

questions have to be answered first:

o What is the investment cost in this kind of CDM project (How high are the investment costs of a landfill gas recovery system)?

o Which one of the two options; flaring or an energy recovery system, is

recommended for the recovered landfill gas?

o How much is the reduction of emissions after these actions?

o What are the revenues of these actions (the amount of Kyoto credits earned and the recovered energy in some cases)?

o What and where are the possibilities for establishing CDM landfill gas projects?

It should be noted that it is not possible to give exact answers to the questions, as most of the information available is general and it is hardly possible to look closely at each and every landfill in developing countries. However, the information originates from several sources and is considered representative for all landfills.

3.1.1 LANDFILL GAS

(24)

The quantity of produced landfill gas per landfill depends on the characteristics of the landfill itself as well as on the characteristics of the waste.

After reviewing some examples it is concluded that the average estimated landfill gas yield from a landfill with the capacity of 1 million tonnes is 300 million cubic feet per year, which equals 8.4 million m³ of landfill gas per year (see Annex 1).

3.1.2 INVESTMENT/INSTALLATION COST

The cost of a landfill gas recovery system is not fixed. It depends on different factors such as the amount of waste present, the depth of the waste and the surface of the landfill area. The larger the landfill the lower the investment costs will be, compared to the amount of emitted landfill gas.

The most important part of the investment is the costs of the landfill gas collection and the energy recovery system. However, other costs, such as transaction costs, arise when starting up a CDM project. Transaction costs for CDM projects include the costs of baseline development, projects registration, verification and certification (see Table 1).

Table 1: Average CDM Project Cycle & Translation Costs (Green International Markets 2005)19

In general, transaction costs depend on (1) the volume of goods traded; (2) the frequency of trades and (3) the number of parties involved in the transaction. In the case of CDM projects, the size of the project is important. Transaction costs can be much

19

http://www.green-markets.org/Downloads/7

Estimated

Step Cost - $US

Project Identification, Project Idea Note Development 20.000

Baseline Study & Monitoring Plan 20.000

Project Design Document Preparation 25.000

Stakeholder Consultation & Host Country Approval 10.000

Validation by an Operating Entity 30.000

Registration Fee 30.000

Transaction Negotiation & Contracting 20.000

Project Monitoring (Periodic) varies

Initial Verification by Operating Entity & Certification 15.000

Periodic Verification 10.000

(25)

higher for small-scale projects as many costs are more or less fixed. The larger the project in terms of CO2 reductions, the lower per unit transaction costs will be. A one

million-tonne landfill is considered to be a small-scale project and will therefore have relatively high transaction costs. Next to relatively higher transaction costs, installation costs will also be relatively higher for smaller projects. This ispresented in Table 2.

Table 2: Average Collection System Costs in Dollars (1996).20

Gas Flow (cf/day) Initial Capital Costs Annual O&M Costs

642,000 628,000 89,000

2,988,000 2,088,000 152,000

5,266,000 3,599,000 218,000

The investment for a one million-tonne landfill used in this paper originates from 8 examples (see Annex B). The average total investment for a landfill gas collection system and energy recovery system for a one million-tonne landfill is €1.5 million.

3.1.3 DEALING WITH CAPTURED LANDFILL GAS

There are two main options for captured landfill gas; 1. A flare, and

2. An energy recovery system.

Landfill gas-flare projects offer significant environmental and economic benefits. The environmental benefits include: reduction of harmful emissions and reduction of explosion risks at landfills. The economic benefits are the generation of Kyoto credits and the creation of jobs. The aforementioned benefits also arise when a landfill gas-to-energy system is installed. Landfill gas-to-gas-to-energy projects create more benefits as the need for fossil fuels is displaced and the recovered energy is sold. Furthermore, electric utilities can benefit through improving customer relations, widening their resource base and gaining valuable experience in this field. Energy from landfill gas is therefore an important determinant as an energy resource for utilities and their customers.21

20

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~hsm/bca2005/hw/bca-proj1-2005-new.pdf 21

(26)

Where the landfill gas-to-energy option is chosen the following 3 primary approaches for using the recovered gas exist:

1. Direct use of the gas, either on-site or nearby (Medium-Btu). 2. Injection into a gas distribution grid (High-Btu).

3. Generation of electricity and distribution through the power grid.

Ad 1) direct use of the gas on-site or nearby is often the simplest and most cost-effective approach. The gas is transported, usually through a pipeline, from the point of collection to the point of gas use. Direct use of landfill gas is reliable, offers a continuous power supply and requires minimal processing and minor adjustments to existing combustion equipment. For cost-benefit reasons the end- users have to be located in the vicinity of the landfill site, preferably within a ten mile radius.22 Prior to transporting the gas to the user, it has to be cleaned. Condensate and particulates are removed through a series of filters. The level of methane concentration of landfill gas is generally acceptable for use in a wide variety of equipment, including boilers and engines. Although the gas use equipment is usually designed to deal with natural gas, which consists for almost 100% of methane, the equipment can generally be adjusted easily to handle gas with lower methane content. This is the most thermally efficient and cost-effective use of landfill gas.

Ad 2) pipeline injection may be a suitable option if no local gas users are available. Landfill gas can be upgraded into high-Btu gas and injected into a natural gas pipeline. The capital cost of upgraded pipeline quality gas is high because treatment systems, which are used to remove CO2 and impurities, are required. Also, upgraded gas needs a significant amount of compression to match the pipelines pressure at the connection point, and consequently relatively high costs are involved. The main advantage of pipeline quality gas technology is that all the gas produced can be utilized. This becomes even more relevant once the price of natural gas increases.23

(27)

Ad 3) electricity can be generated for on-site use or for distribution through the local grid. Internal Combustion engines (ICs) and gas turbines are commonly used in landfill gas energy recovery projects. In the case of extremely large gas flows, steam turbines can be used for power generation.24 Once the gas has been converted into electricity, a power line is used to deliver the electricity to a power distribution system. However, as mentioned above, these installations are very costly.

In some cases, landfill gas-to-energy projects cannot be applied economically; for example, in a situation in which households near the landfill are not able to use energy. Application of recovered landfill gas for energy production is only financially viable if the generated energy can and will be used in the vicinity of the production area. It, should be kept in mind, however, that over 2 billion people do not have access to electric power.25 Landfill characteristics include occurrence of diseases, vicious odors and frequent fires. Consequently, landfills are established in areas with suitable compact soil conditions that are located long distances from densely populated areas, such as city centers. In many developing countries, these areas are inhabited by the poorest people. The establishment of an energy recovery system in such situations brings increased costs, as a solid electricity network has to be installed first in order to distribute the produced electricity. If this were accomplished CDM landfill gas-to-energy projects would enhance the benefits for developing countries and their poorest citizens. However, investment costs will be higher and if no direct users of recovered landfill gas are available in the vicinity of the landfill site, it might be best in some cases to eliminate the collected gas through flaring.

The second reason for not installing an energy recovery system can be the high installation cost, which might scare off potential investors. In this case it could be better to use a flaring system. In general most investors give preference to flaring the captured landfill gas as this is the easiest option and most profits are generated. The difference in generated credits is not very large between flaring and energy recovery and mainly consists of the displaced additional fossil fuels from the recovered energy.

24

http://www.undp.org.in/programme/GEF/march00/page18-21.html 25

(28)

It is not easy to determine which option for dealing with captured landfill gas is the most optimal. As the feasibility of capturing landfill gas is mainly determined by local circumstances the most viable option can only be determined after an investigation of the local conditions has been carried out.

3.1.4 ELECTRICITY RECOVERY

Once the establishment of a landfill gas-to-energy system is opted for, it has to be installed next to the landfill gas recovery system.

Although gas is produced once anaerobic conditions are established within the landfill, it may take several years before enough gas has been generated to fuel an electric generator. Later, as the landfill ages, gas generation (as well as the quality of the gas) declines to a point at which power generation is no longer feasible. If a landfill has been well-engineered and well-operated, gas may be produced for as long as 50 to 100 years, but processing may be economically feasible for only around 15 years.

Landfill gas can be measured in energy and can be burned to generate electricity. Heat energy is usually measured in British thermal units (Btu). Btu is a measure of the heat content of a substance that is burned to produce electricity or steam. Electrical energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), where each 1 MW of generated electricity is equivalent to:

o +/-11,3000 acres of trees per year

o Removing the emissions of +/- 8,400 cars per year, or o Preventing the use of +/- 89,000 barrels of oil per year

In order to estimate the power potential, the gas flow from the landfill has to be converted. Using the Gross Power Generation Potential formula, the installed power generation capacity that the gas flow can support is calculated as follows:

kW = Landfill Gas Flow (cf/d) x Energy Content (Btu/cf) x 1/Heat Rate (kWh/Btu) x 1d/24h.26

26

(29)

The energy content is around 500 Btu, as landfill gas has about half the heating value of natural gas and one cubic foot of natural gas produces 1,031 Btu.27 The heat rate is around 12,000 Btu/kWh for combustion turbines; this however is above 5 MW, which is not the case here. For smaller capacities the heat rate is around 8,500 Btu/kWh. Each year a one million-tonne landfill emits 300 million cf of landfill gas of which 75% can be recovered: 225 million cf per year.

kW= 616,438 (cf/d) x 500 (Btu/cf) x 1/8,500 (kWh/Btu) x 1d/24hr = 1,500 kW It follows that the annual electricity generated: 13,250,000 kWh/yr

This amount of electricity generated from landfill gas emitted by a one million-tonne landfill will serve over 1,600 persons per year in developed countries (see Table 3). In developing countries on the other hand, the same amount of electricity may provide electricity to over 72,500 persons per year. This means that no additional fossils fuels have to be burned for over 72,500 persons per year. Additional fossils fuels, in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas, are not only finite but also produce harmful emissions to the atmosphere.

Table 3: Comparative Electrification Situation among Countries by Income Class28

Income Category Growth in Electricity

Production, 1980-95 (%)

Per Capita Electricity Consumption (kWh)

Low-income countries 8.4 less than 0.5

Middle-income countries 7.8 4.5

Rich Countries 3.2 22.0

Source: The World Bank (2000)

Note: Low-income countries exclude India and China where the average electricity consumption per capita was 1kWh and 1.8 kWh per day respectively.

3.1.5 REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS

Global methane emissions are expected to increase by 19 percent between 2005 and 2020.29 Reducing these emissions has become a necessity especially at landfills, although total recovery of methane generated at landfills is generally considered

27

http://www.onyxgroup.co.uk/pdfs/landfillgas.pdf 28

(30)

impossible due to the permeability of the waste, recovery system inefficiencies, and installation timing. On average around 75% of the methane can be collected from a landfill. However, to be qualified and counted as an emission reduction created at a landfill; a reduction has to be real, quantifiable, surplus, verifiable, and unique.

o Real: an emission reduction is real if it is a reduction in actual emission rate, resulting from a specific and identifiable action or undertaking that is not a simple change in activity level.

o Quantifiable: an emission reduction is quantifiable if the total amount of the reduction can be determined, and the reduction is calculated in a reliable and repeatable way.

o Surplus: an emission reduction is surplus if it is not otherwise required of a source by current regulations or other obligations.

o Verifiable: an emission reduction is verifiable if other parties are able to audit and confirm the source data used to develop the emission reduction.

o Unique: credits can only be created and registered once from a specific reduction activity and time.

If emissions reduction is eligible it can be calculated for a landfill gas recovery and flare system. There are two different calculations to determine quantities of captured landfill gas; for the flare and the energy recovery systems.

1. The landfill gas collection system and flare.

2. The landfill gas collection system and energy recovery system.

Ad 1) the landfill gas collection system and flare

Each ton of waste produces 8.4 m³ of landfill gas per year. Methane emissions from a landfill with a capacity of 1 million tonnes of waste are 4.2 million m³ per year (equivalent to 2,820 T/yr). 75% can be recovered and flared.

The reduced methane emissions are 0.75 x 2,820 = 2,115 T/yr per one million-tonnes landfill per year.

29

(31)

Ad 2) the landfill gas collection system and energy recovery system

With an energy recovery system, the captured methane is destroyed (converted to water and the much less potent CO2) when the gas is burned to produce electricity. To

calculate the reduced emission the “Landfill Gas-to-Energy Benefits calculator” provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is used. The LFGE Benefits Calculator is used to estimate direct, avoided, and total greenhouse gas reductions, as well as environmental and energy benefits, for the current year of a landfill gas energy project. The calculator determines emission reductions in total equivalent emissions reduced based on direct equivalent emissions reduced (methane) and avoided equivalent emissions reduced (offset carbon dioxide) of landfill gas-to-energy projects.

The recovered landfill gas (6.3 million m³/yr) in standard cubic feet per minute is inserted in the calculator: 424 cf/min. The following results are presented (see Annex 3 for further explanation):

Direct Equivalent Emissions Reduced (Reduction of methane emitted directly from the landfill): 0.0448 MtCO2e/yr: 2,354 t CH4/yr

Avoided Equivalent Emissions Reduced (Offset of carbon dioxide from avoiding the use of fossil fuels): 0.0053 MtCO2e/yr: 5.821 t CO2e/yr

The reduced equivalent emissions are in total 0.0501 MtCO2e/yr.

Methane emissions from a one million-tonne landfill with no collection system: 2,820 T/yr.

Methane emissions from a one million-tonne landfill with collection system and flare: 705 T/yr.

Methane emissions from a one million-tonne landfill with a collection and energy recovery system:

(32)

3.1.6 REVENUES OF LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY SYSTEMS

The Kyoto Protocol has set up mechanisms to reduce the costs of meeting emissions targets. The trading units of these mechanisms within the Kyoto Protocol are:

o Assigned Allocation Units (AAUs), country allowances, o Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), credits from JI projects, and o Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), credits from CDM projects.

Within the EU a trading system, the “European Emission Trading Scheme” (EU ETS), was set up in 2005 to provide for possibilities to meet Kyoto targets. The trading units within the EU ETS are:

o European Union Allowances (EUA),

o Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), and o Certified Emission Reductions (CERs).

Within the EU ETS every EU country has selected emission reductions targets for industrial sectors within each country. According to a country’s national share, each company in these sectors was issued credits (EUAs) to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases.30 Companies which emit less than their allowed limits can sell their extra allowances to other companies that are unable to meet their targets, thus creating the first market in carbon credits. From 2005 onwards, companies were allowed to buy CERs from the Kyoto CDM mechanism to meet EU ETS emission allowances. This increased the interest in CDM projects within the EU. A European company buys a CER and this company receives EUAs in exchange for passing on the CER to its home country’s government. The country will use the CER to reach its Kyoto targets.

The first trading period of the EU ETS runs from 2005 – 2007. This period started with relatively low initial traded volumes and prices fluctuated due to factors like weather and fuel prices. The second commitment period under the EU ETS runs from 2008-2012 and this period will have a larger market with more governments and companies entering the market. Within the EU ETS system penalties are handed out to countries that do not comply with their targets. The penalty is €40/tonne CO2e in the first trading

30

(33)

period and €100/tonne CO2e in the second trading period.31 This might provide for an

incentive to start up CDM projects. Figure 7 provides an Overview of the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

Figure 7: Overview of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)

Trade of Emission Allowances (EUAs)

Carbon Transactions

Joint Implementation (ERUs)

Project-Based Transactions Clean Development Mechanism (CERs) Non-Kyoto Projects

The difference between EUAs and AAUs is that AAUs can be traded by developed non-EU countries (see Table 4). Presently the prices for the different trading units differ greatly. The CER price is less than the price of a EUA, because CERs are riskier than EUAs. The 3 main risks explaining the price difference are:

o Registration risk, o Country risk, and o Project risk.32

Registration risk is the risk that the project is not registered as a CDM project. Country risk consists of the possibility that the host country does not issue the letter of approval or that the host country prevents a CDM project from entering the country. Project risk is the risk that the project does not generate the expected amount of reduced emissions and consequently the amount of CERs. When these risks are minimized the price difference between EUAs and CERs will diminish as well. See table 4 for an overview of the credits.

31

(34)

Table 4: Types and characteristics of carbon and alternative energy credits.33

Whenever a project that reduces emissions is approved by the Executive Board for Kyoto carbon credits, the revenues can be calculated.How high the prices are for Kyoto credits depends on the market. There is not one single price for CERs as prices depend on the preference of buyers for a specific project type and quality. The quality of CDM projects is predominantly defined by the project risks, and the contribution to

sustainable development.34 C-ERUPT, the Dutch Certified Emission Reduction

Procurement Tender, was one of the first substantial CDM buyers, apart from Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF). C-ERUPT bought carbon credits on behalf of the Dutch government that are realized by an investor in a CDM project. Figure 8 shows the part these buyers played in the CERs market.

Figure 8 Buyers of CERs up till now (source Point Carbon 2004).35

(35)

This division is now changing as more buyers enter the market, with the EU and Japan being the biggest buyers at the moment.36 New governments in Europe are setting up carbon purchasing funds. Buyers in the marker are: Governments (the Dutch, EU governments, Canadians), Institutional/Fund Buyers (World Bank, CDC IXIX (French Fund)), Private Companies (Sumitomo, Nippon, Holcim, Anglo and Nuon), Offset Purchasers (500ppm) and Brokers (Natsource, Evolution Markets and CO2e)37. This is

shown in figure 9.

Figure 9: Purchasers on the Carbon Credit Market (source Point Carbon, 2005)38

The main objective of the buyers is to acquire CERs at a low price and acceptable risk. Host countries sometimes feel that the price level is too low but project developers are free to decide whether the price is high enough. The host country has no say in this. The price is therefore not a criterion in the approval procedure. In the long term a CDM strategy is adopted to secure higher prices in more mature markets. However, prices will not increase too much in the coming two years, as the market will remain buyer-driven for some time.39

(36)

Figure 10 shows what makes a project riskier and the resulting increase or decrease in the CER price.

Figure 10: CER Price driven by Delivery Risk40

It is difficult to estimate the accurate CERs price.

The prices for CDM projects at various stages are as follows (2006)41: o Medium-Risk Forwards 5-6 Euros/CER o Low-Risk Forwards ~8 Euros/CER o Registered Projects ~11 Euros/CER o Gold Standard registered projects up to 15 Euros/CER

Future CER market prices might increase even more. Future prices depend on several things: ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, supply and demand of CDM and on the competition between JI, CDM and ET. Since the volume traded is limited during the first trading period because of the relatively small number of projects compared to the expected future, the increase in projects is likely to lead to an increase in CER prices in

40

http://www.methanetomarkets.org/events/2006/landfill/docs/cohn.pdf 41

(37)

the near future. Most specialists therefore assume that prices will be higher during the second phase of the EU ETS.42

The crediting period for which the revenues can be estimated depends on the project. There are 2 options for the crediting period of mitigation projects:

o With renewals; 7 years with the option of renewing twice (total crediting period = 21 years), but with a condition that DOE reviews the baseline scenario when renewing.

o Without renewal; 10 years43

It is preferable to opt for the renewal of a crediting period of 7 years for a project that starts up now. Therefore in this paper, the crediting period will be 7 years with the option of renewing twice. The reason for this is that landfill gas recovery systems have an estimated economic lifetime of 10 years and even 20 years in prevailing dry climate areas, the latter being the case in most developing countries.

For the following calculations the CER price of €8 per t CO2e is used.

Revenues for a landfill gas collection system and flare:

The number of generated CERs from one collected tonne of CH4, which is flared, will

produce 2.75 tonnes of CO2 and thus; 18.25 credits are expected to be received for

flaring one tonne of CH4.

The reduced methane emissions are 2,115 tonnes per year. The number of received CERs: 2,115 x 18.25 = 38,599. Revenues from flaring: 38,599 x €8 = €308,792 per year.

For a crediting period of 7 years, the total revenues are €2,162,000. When this is renewed twice, the total revenues are €6,485,000.

This means that the landfill has to have a capacity of one million tonnes of waste; not only for the feasibility of landfill gas recovery systems but also for financial reasons so as to break even within one crediting period.

42

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccpo/pdfs/ccpo-brochure-carbon-prices.pdf 43

(38)

Revenues for a landfill gas-to-energy system:

The number of generated CERs for a landfill gas-to-energy system does not only depend on the reduced CH4 but also on the reduced CO2 because less additional fossil

fuel is burned.

The total avoided equivalent reduced emissions are: 0.0507 Mt CO2e/yr.

The number of received CERs: 50,700.

Revenues from landfill gas-to-energy is 50,700 x €8 = €405,600 per year.

For a crediting period of 7 years, the total revenues are €2,839,000. When this is renewed twice, the total revenues are €8,518,000.

Results from the ‘CDM projects in the pipeline’ vary from 13 to 1,371 kt CO2e/y per

project, which is equivalent to 13,000-1,371,000 CERs. On average emissions are reduced by 213 kt CO2e per project (213,000 CERs). This is 4 to 5 times the CERs

generated from a one million-tonne landfill. Therefore is it important to take into account that the smallest possible landfill is used for these calculations.

3.2 LOCATIONS AND NUMBER OF POTENTIAL LANDFILLS

(39)

Landfills are generally located on suitable land away from the most densely populated areas. These areas are becoming harder to find in view of the ongoing urbanization of the population and increase in municipal traffic. The disposal and transport of waste becomes longer and more time-consuming, and therefore more expensive and less efficient.44 For these reasons less than 30% of the urban population in developing countries has access to “proper and regular garbage removal services” (Senkoro 2003). Other sources claim that only 25% of the generated waste is collected by MSW management.45 The World Bank provides different figures: 30-60% of all urban waste is uncollected (2005). Taking these figures into account; on average, around 40% of total waste generated in developing countries is disposed of at landfills. The lack of adequate MSW management is a major problem for the government’s of developing countries. The quantity of waste increases and the management is unable to dispose of it suitably. Currently, a large part of the collected waste is dumped at open uncontrolled dumps. If these are replaced by sanitary landfills, the methane emissions will increase substantially because of increased anaerobic reactions, but they would be more controllable and the installation of properly managed landfill gas recovery systems could be optimized. Most developing countries are indeed working to get controle of their MSW management and, despite a lack of financial means many governments try to install more controlled landfills.

To calculate the potential for CDM landfill gas projects, it is necessary to calculate the amount of waste that ends up at landfills as there is no information about the amount and the capacity of landfills in most developing countries. Unfortunately, the availability and quality of annual data for the waste sector is a major problem in developing countries. This makes it difficult to make assumptions about the amount of waste in these countries. However, use has been made of the currently available information to give an indication of the possibilities for CDM landfill gas projects.

(40)

Currently the total world population is 6.5 billion. 81% of the world population lives in developing nations (=5.27 billion).46 Solid waste generated in developing countries rates on average between 0.4 and 0.6 kg/person/day.47 To calculate the generated waste the average of 0.5 kg/p/d is used. The total amount of waste of developing countries is 5.27 billion x 0.5 = 2.64 billion kg per day. This is equivalent to 962 Mt per year. However, only around 40% of all waste is collected. Consequently, the amount of waste ending up at landfills is 385 Mt per year. Landfill gas is produced for 30 years after land filling. This means that the methane emissions per year are the total from all waste that ends up at landfills over the last 30 years. But emissions are produced according to first-order kinetics and approximately 80% of the gas is produced in the first 15 years after land filling48 Next to this is it important to acknowledge the fact that in developing countries the per capita generated solid waste has increased by 50%-100% over the last 20 years.49

Total waste in place is around 384.71 x 10 + 192.36 x 10 = 5,771 Mt. Total emissions are 5,771 x 8.4 = 48,476 million m³ of landfill gas per year (24,234 million m³ CH4).

This is equivalent to 16.26 Mt CH4 per year.

These methane emissions calculations for developing countries are approximately the same as those in a draft for landfill methane emissions (Emissions and Projections of

Non-CO₂Greenhouse Gases from Developing Countries: 1990-2020)50 Methane

emissions from landfills in developing countries were around 17,000 Gg in 2005 (1Gg = 1000 t). With the use of this draft a rough overview can be presented of the countries with the most potential for CDM landfill gas projects (see Annex 4). To provide an accurate indication of methane emissions in distinctive developing countries, the figures for the year 2005 are used. Note that this is a draft and these figures are not acknowledged but just give an indication of methane emissions from developing countries. Therefore, the figures are used to give an indication for potential CDM projects in these countries.

(41)

Several developing countries have very high emissions of methane from landfills. These countries are: China (5,272 Gg = 5.272 Mt), Mexico (0.771 Mt), Brazil (0.77 Mt), South-Africa (0.739 Mt), Turkey (0.523 Mt), India (0.498 Mt), Jordan (0.497 Mt), Indonesia (0.423 Mt), Israel (0.418 Mt), Venezuela (0.414 Mt), Argentina (0.373 Mt), Egypt (0.373 Mt), Peru (0.369 Mt), Iran (0.352 Mt), Saudi Arabia (0.351 Mt), Pakistan (0.34 Mt), Nigeria (0.32 Mt), Algeria (0.28 Mt), Philippines (0.24 Mt), Thailand (0.212 Mt), Mongolia (4000 t)

This list rejects some developing countries as potential CDM projects. Mongolia has 4000 T/yr methane emissions. If this is emitted from one landfill, a landfill gas recovery system might be of some use. However, this is not the case and the landfills are not large enough to generate sufficient revenues to make an investment profitable.

For some calculations the average number of landfills is used. In reality this is not ideal as most landfills in the vicinity of large cities have greater capacities than those located in rural areas and the calculations unfortunately do not reflect this.

The revenues are calculated according to the flare system.

CHINA:

In China there are 3 CDM landfill gas projects being validated at the moment; 1 project has required request and 1 project is registered. China is the developing country with the highest methane emissions from landfills; 5,272,000 T/yr. Presently there are over 1,000 landfill sites and about 30 percent of these are large or mid-scale landfill sites with potential for utilizing landfill gas in the generation of power or supplying heat.51 A large part of the methane emissions originate from these 300 landfills. It is assumed that these 300 landfills emit half of the total methane emissions: 2,636,000 T/yr. Each landfill emits 8,787 T/yr. Reduced emissions can be 6590 T/yr, which could lead to revenues of 6590 x 18.25 x €8 = €962,000 per landfill per year. Taking into account that China generates around 110 million tonnes of MSW per year itbecomes clear thatthe country provides good opportunities for more CDM landfill projects in the near future.52

51

http://www.iges.or.jp/APEIS/RISPO/inventory/db/pdf/0083.pdf 52

(42)

MEXICO:

Currently there are no CDM landfill gas projects for Mexico in the pipeline, even though it has the second largest methane emissions from landfills of 771,000 tonnes per year. It has approximately 120 landfill sites with the potential for capturing methane emissions and generating electricity.53 Mexico generates over 29 million tonnes of MSW per year.54 The 120 landfills are expected to emit almost 100% of the total methane. Each of these landfills will on average emit 6,425 t CH4. Reduced emissions

are: 4,819 T/yr. Revenues are: 4,819 x 18.25 x €8 = € 704,000 per year per landfill.

BRAZIL:

Brazil is one of the most popular countries for CDM landfill projects at the present time: 6 projects are at validation, for 4 projects the requests are in progress and 3 projects have already been registered. The total of emission reductions is: 6,167 kt CO2e /yr

(338,000 t CH4). Total methane emissions from landfills are 770,000 T/yr in Brazil.

This means that, once the proposed projects are started up almost half of the total methane emissions in Brazil will be cut back. Brazil has over 6,000 landfills (dumpsites) but the majority are not controlled in any way. Annual generated waste in Brazil is around 21 million tonnes.55 Approximately 76% of general waste is thrown into garbage dumps, which have no potential for landfill gas recovery systems. The remaining 24% is disposed of in controlled landfills. Brazil does not require landfill gas recovery systems so the majority of its landfills do not have one. It appears to be difficult to identify good and suitable landfill sites for a landfill gas recovery system next to the ones already proposed.

SOUTH AFRICA:

There is one CDM landfill gas project at validation in South Africa with reductions of 69 kt CO2e/yr (around 3,781 t CH4). The majority of the approximately 15 million

tonnes of waste generated per year ends up at uncontrolled dump sites. Only a few

(43)

dump sites are properly engineered and managed, in which case they can be referred to as landfills.56 However, in Africa, South Africa is the leader in modern landfill development with methane releases of 739,000 tonnes per year. Around 12 percent of the 182 landfill sites, disposing of solid and liquid wastes, are licensed.57 On average each of these 22 landfills annually emits around 4,060 tonnes CH4. The reduced

methane emissions are around 3,045 tonnes per year and consequently revenues are: 3,045 x 18.25 x €8 = €445,000 per year per landfill.

TURKEY:

Currently, Turkey has no CDM landfill gas projects in the pipeline. Apart from the registered sanitary landfills, it has almost 4,000 uncontrolled landfill regions.58 In 2003 26.1 millions tonnes of solid waste were collected.59 Solid waste disposal management is a major concern in Turkey. The majority of the MSW disposal sites are open dumps. Currently, only 7 sanitary landfills are used to dispose of municipal solid waste and an additional 12 landfills are in the construction stage (2003). Although the numbers represent a very small fraction of Municipalities, these correspond to almost 20% of municipal solid waste presently being land filled. Within the next ten years, more than 50% of the municipal solid waste generated in Turkey is expected to be land filled.60 At the moment 20% of the collected waste is disposed of in 7 landfills. This means that 20% of the emitted methane originates from these landfills. The total emissions are 523,000tonnes CH4 per year. This is equivalent to 14,943 tons CH4 per

landfill. From each landfill 11,207 tonnes CH4 can be recovered. Total revenues are

€11,200 x 18.25 x €8 = €1,636,000 per landfill per year. In the future, when more sanitary landfills are constructed, the potential for CDM landfill gas recovery systems will increase as more waste ends up at these controlled landfills.

(44)

INDIA:

India is the top country for CDM projects: 231 projects validated, 7 requested and 20 registered projects. However, not many of these projects are in the landfill gas field: 3 projects are at validation. Only assumptions can be made about the possible CDM landfill gas projects in India, as no national data for MSW generation are yet available. India currently produces 42 million tonnes of municipal solid waste annually.61 Almost 90% of the solid waste is deposited in low-lying dumps and is neither compacted nor covered (1998); there are few sanitary landfills in India. It is necessary to replace these low-lying dumps with well-managed safely located sanitary landfills prior to the creation of profitable prospects. When India finally controls its MSW management the possibilities for CDM landfill gas systems are enormous.

JORDAN:

In January 2006 there were no CDM landfill gas projects in the pipeline for Jordan. The quantities of solid waste generated in the country are estimated to be 4,000 tonnes per day (1.5 million tonnes per year).62 It has 24 domestic solid waste landfills which contain almost all the generated solid waste.63 Total methane emissions from landfills are 497,000 tonnes per year, resulting in an average annual emission per landfill of 20,708 tonnes CH4. Landfill gas recovery systems can obtain 15,531 t CH4 per year per

landfill. Revenues are 15,531 x 18.25 x €8 = € 2,268,000 per year.

Jordan is considered to be one of the countries with the highest potential for CDM landfill projects.

INDONESIA:

(45)

emissions from landfills are 423,000 tonnes per year. Table 6 depicts the prevailing methods of waste disposal in Eastern Asia.

Table 6: Disposal Methods for Municipal Solid Waste in Selected ASEAN Countries65

Disposal Methods (%) Country

Composting Open dumping Land-filling Incineration Others

Indonesia 15 60 10 2 13 Malaysia 10 50 30 5 5 Myanmar 5 80 10 - 5 Philippines 10 75 10 - 5 Singapore - - 30 *(10 in 2002) 70 *(90 in 2002) - Thailand 10 **(0 in 2001) 65 **(67 in 2001) 5 **(32 in 2001) 5 **(1 in 2001) 15 **(0 in 2001) Vietnam 10 70 - - 20 Source: ENV 1997

*Communication with National Environment Agency officials

**Draft Annual Report, The State of Pollution, Thailand B. E.2544 (2001), Pollution Control Department 2002

“Utilizing the landfill gas is an attractive option and Indonesia will gain considerable

advantage from the implementation of CDM towards achieving our sustainable development’s goals,” said Rachmat Witoelar, State Minister for the Environment,

Indonesia.66

The process of installing CDM projects might be easier once government support has been given. This is the case in Indonesia, and therefore, the possibilities for CDM projects there are good.

ISRAEL:

Currently, Israel has 1 project that has requested approval. In Israel most of the waste is disposed of at 15 state-of-the-art landfills.67 The total annual quantity of waste generated is some 5.8 million tonnes.68 Total methane emissions are 418,000 tonnes per year. The average annual methane emission per landfill is 27,867 tonnes. Reduced

(46)

emissions can be 20,900 tonnes per landfill per year, and consequently the annual revenues are20,900 x 18.25 x €8 = €3,051,000 per landfill per year.

This makes Israel one of the countries with the highest potential for CDM landfill projects.

VENEZUELA:

Venezuela has no CDM landfill gas projects in the pipeline at the moment. Methane emissions from landfills are 414,000 tonnes per year. The major fraction of the generated solid waste is still disposed of in open dumping areas. 20 landfills are identified, with a wide size range. The smallest of these receives an average of less than 3,000 tonnes of solid waste annually, while more than one million tonnes per year are placed in the largest landfill site near the capital. The latter alone, serving the capital of Caracas, accounts for more than 40 percent of the total landfilled waste in the country.69 This might be a great potential landfill gas recovery system.

ARGENTINA:

Argentina has 4 landfill gas projects at validation and 2 projects registered. Total generated reduced emissions for these 6 projects are 1,746 kt CO2e/yr (96,000 t CH4). In

Argentina a great part of generated solid waste is disposed of in open dumps; more appropriate sanitary landfills are only developed in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area.70 However, proposed CDM projects are located in Olavarria, which already has a sanitary landfill site available. As more of these landfills are constructed, opportunities for CDM projects increase. Total methane emissions from landfills are 373,000 tonnes per year.

69

(47)

EGYPT:

No CDM projects are in the pipeline. Egypt annually generates around 15 million tonnes of solid waste.71 Egypt tries to abolish open dumps by transporting waste to government landfills, where methane emissions are 373,000 tonnes per year.

PERU:

Central America (except for Costa Rica), the Guyanas, and most of the Caribbean countries do not have landfills. The same applies to all non-capital cities in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru, and to many medium-sized cities.72 Peru has 28 million citizens generating annually around 369,000 tonnes methane from landfills.

IRAN:

There are no CDM projects at the moment in Iran, where there are almost 86 million citizens who generate around 5 million tonnes of solid waste annually. The annual methane emissions from landfills are 352,000 tonnes.

SAUDI ARABIA:

Only limited information is available about landfills and solid waste in Saudi Arabia, which has over 26 million inhabitants. The capital Riyadh has more than 3 million citizens. A large landfill (over 3 million tonnes of refuse) in Riyadh may not be a great producer of landfill gas irrespective of the tonnage of refuse and the organic matter it may contain, owing to the lack of rainfall and moisture throughput.73 However Saudi Arabia does have methane emissions from landfills of 351,000 tonnes per year.

Possibilities for CDM Landfill Gas Projects