|
|
|
|
Index | Editor's note | Interviews | Discussion Platform | Project analysis | Downloads |
- go back -
Waste: From Duck to Swan?
By Catrinus J. Jepma
Most of you know Andersen's famous fairytale of the ugly 'duck' that becomes a beautiful swan rather than just a duck like
his 'brothers and sisters'. The fairytale's lesson: an initial underdog position can turn into superiority later on.
Something similar seems to apply to landfills which often spoil the landscape, have a bad smell, and may pollute the area:
they are the ugly ducks of our economic system, but can turn into the swans of 'Kyoto'.
Let us start with some figures. Landfill gas emissions are estimated to contribute approximately 10-15% to global methane emissions, or some 40 Mt/y, which, using a GWP
conversion factor of 21, is equivalent to some 800 Mt annual CO2 emissions. This figure is likely to increase by some 20%
between now and 2020. So, if in theory 75% of all these emissions would just be flared, most of the Annex I Party commitments would already be fulfilled
(why don't they just do that?) [note that most experts would agree that, on average, about three-quarter of the methane
produced at a landfill can effectively be recovered].
Presently, around 45% of these global landfill emissions, corresponding to 18 Mt/
y, take place in non-Annex I countries. However, this could have been more since on average only some 40% of total waste
generated in developing countries is collected through landfilling; 30 - 60% of all urban waste in developing countries
remains, for instance, uncollected. In other words, considering the landfill option's mitigation potential, it would be a terrible
mistake if the option were not taken very seriously.
Moreover, there are other reasons why landfills may be attractive candidates for mitigation action. First, landfill gas flaring projects are simple, not only administratively, but also technically and
economically. The administration is rather straightforward because the monitoring is not overly complex (for some proposals to
standardise monitoring systems, spreadsheet programmes have been developed, such as GasSim and Enviros, developed in the UK, see
for further information pp. 10 - 11 in this issue), and the assessment of additionality and baselines is generally less complex.
From a technical perspective, flaring is simple, because the required technology is standardised and straightforward: cover the
landfill, collect the methane and burn it. Finally, calculations suggest that the typical investment costs of a 2 Mt waste landfillgas-
collection-plus-flaring system amount to €1.5 - 2 m (irrespective of whether vertical wells or horizontal drains are
used). Taking the following set of conservative assumptions:
that 75% of the methane can and will be collected,
that each tonne of waste generates 8 m3/y landfill gas, half of
which is methane, and
that credit prices of €7/tCO2 apply,
a simple back-of-the-enveloppe calculation tells us that all investment costs will be earned back within 4 years! Although
precise estimates of the number of landfills of such size (at least some 2 m tonne waste) are not available to my knowledge,
country-specific data show that there are already thousands of such landfills in the developing countries alone (in China, for instance,
there are over 1,000 landfill sites, some 30% of which are large or mid-scale; in Mexico at least about 120 landfill sites have a
potential for capturing methane and generating electricity, etc.).
Second, the usefulness of the methane collection can be extended by using the methane for replacing other fuels, thus enhancing the mitigation impact. By doing so, e.g. by generating power from the
landfill gases, extra revenue can sometimes be generated. However, more importantly, if landfills are located in remote, rural areas,
they can serve to reduce the number of about 2 billion people on this planet that do not have access to electric power. To illustrate, a
typical 1-million tonne landfill can generate some 10 - 15 m kWh/y, which in theory can be sufficient in various developing
countries to provide some 50,000 people with electricity.
Third, as soon as landfills become nice commercial swans rather than ugly ducks, it will make people aware that garbage represents a value, and should be collected rather than thrown into the street.
This may support environmental awareness, lift the still rather poor collection and recycling rates in many developing countries, and
gives money also a better smell.
It is therefore no wonder that in the present pipeline of over 700 CDM projects (see also my Editior's note of December 2005) and
some 110 JI projects, over 100 projects are based on landfill methane collection (18 CDM landfill projects had already been
registered as of the end of March 2006).
So, the landfill duck is quickly growing into a swan. For those who want to join that miraculous metamorphosis, there is no time
to waste.
Catrinus J. Jepma
Chief editor
Previous Notes from the Editor
December 2005
October 2005
July 2005
April 2005
December 2004
October 2004
July 2004
March 2004
|
|
|
