Carbon Capture Usage and Storage: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 20:

* [[Eunomia]] ''''''CCUS Development Pathway for the EfW Sector'''''' <ref>[https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/ccus-development-pathway-for-the-efw-sector/ Link to Eunomia Website for Download of Report]</ref> (a report commissioned by [[Viridor]])

The reports both refer to carbon emissions from [[EfW]] plants as being approximately 1 tonne of CO2 'emitted' for 1 tonne of [[MSW]] processed whilst the document referenced<ref name="Inc">[https://~~publications~~.jrc.ec.europa.eu/~~repository~~/~~handle~~/~~JRC118637#:~:text=The%20Best%20Available%20Techniques%20(BAT,the%20Commission%2C%20to%20draw%20up~~ BAT and BREF for Waste incineration]</ref> on page 152 refers to a range of between 0.7 and 1.7 tonnes of CO2 'generated' per tonne of [[MSW]] waste due to its heterogeneous nature. The document further identifies that between 33% and 50% of this carbon is of fossil origin (i.e. [[Plastic]]) which is considered relevant to climate change . Whilst [[Eunomia]] set out the potential for reducing emissions from [[EfW]] in their report at a cost of between £66 and £110 per tonne processed<ref> The report acknowledges other studies at figures around £170 per tonne</ref>, initially centered on the [[BEIS]] 'decarbonisation clusters', the [[Zero Waste Europe]] report suggests these costs will be higher and that the push towards [[CCS]] for [[EfW]] plants distract from investing and managing waste further up the [[Waste Hierarchy | waste hierarchy]].

The reports both refer to carbon emissions from [[EfW]] plants as being approximately 1 tonne of CO2 'emitted' for 1 tonne of [[MSW]] processed whilst the document referenced<ref name="Inc">[https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2020-01/JRC118637_WI_Bref_2019_published_0.pdf BAT and BREF for Waste incineration]</ref> on page 152 refers to a range of between 0.7 and 1.7 tonnes of CO2 'generated' per tonne of [[MSW]] waste due to its heterogeneous nature. The document further identifies that between 33% and 50% of this carbon is of fossil origin (i.e. [[Plastic]]) which is considered relevant to climate change. This differs from the [[Wikipedia:Global warming potential|CO2e]] for a [[combustion]] facility set out by [[BEIS]], where the figure used is 21.294kg [[Wikipedia:Global warming potential|CO2e]] per tonne of [[MSW]]<ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2021</ref>.

Whilst [[Eunomia]] set out the potential for reducing emissions from [[EfW]] in their report at a cost of between £66 and £110 per tonne processed<ref> The report acknowledges other studies at figures around £170 per tonne</ref>, initially centered on the [[BEIS]] 'decarbonisation clusters', the [[Zero Waste Europe]] report suggests these costs will be higher and that the push towards [[CCS]] for [[EfW]] plants distract from investing and managing waste further up the [[Waste Hierarchy | waste hierarchy]].

==References==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 * [[Eunomia]] ''''''CCUS Development Pathway for the EfW Sector'''''' <ref>[https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/ccus-development-pathway-for-the-efw-sector/ Link to Eunomia Website for Download of Report]</ref> (a report commissioned by [[Viridor]])
-The reports both refer to carbon emissions from [[EfW]] plants as being approximately 1 tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> 'emitted' for 1 tonne of [[MSW]] processed whilst the document referenced<ref name="Inc">[https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC118637#:~:text=The%20Best%20Available%20Techniques%20(BAT,the%20Commission%2C%20to%20draw%20up BAT and BREF for Waste incineration]</ref> on page 152 refers to a range of between 0.7 and 1.7 tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> 'generated' per tonne of [[MSW]] waste due to its heterogeneous nature. The document further identifies that between 33% and 50% of this carbon is of fossil origin (i.e. [[Plastic]]) which is considered relevant to climate change . Whilst [[Eunomia]] set out the potential for reducing emissions from [[EfW]] in their report at a cost of between £66 and £110 per tonne processed<ref> The report acknowledges other studies at figures around £170 per tonne</ref>, initially centered on the [[BEIS]] 'decarbonisation clusters', the [[Zero Waste Europe]] report suggests these costs will be higher and that the push towards [[CCS]] for [[EfW]] plants distract from investing and managing waste further up the [[Waste Hierarchy | waste hierarchy]].
+The reports both refer to carbon emissions from [[EfW]] plants as being approximately 1 tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> 'emitted' for 1 tonne of [[MSW]] processed whilst the document referenced<ref name="Inc">[https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2020-01/JRC118637_WI_Bref_2019_published_0.pdf BAT and BREF for Waste incineration]</ref> on page 152 refers to a range of between 0.7 and 1.7 tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> 'generated' per tonne of [[MSW]] waste due to its heterogeneous nature. The document further identifies that between 33% and 50% of this carbon is of fossil origin (i.e. [[Plastic]]) which is considered relevant to climate change. This differs from the [[Wikipedia:Global warming potential|CO<sub>2</sub>e]] for a [[combustion]] facility set out by [[BEIS]], where the figure used is 21.294kg [[Wikipedia:Global warming potential|CO<sub>2</sub>e]] per tonne of [[MSW]]<ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2021</ref>.
+Whilst [[Eunomia]] set out the potential for reducing emissions from [[EfW]] in their report at a cost of between £66 and £110 per tonne processed<ref> The report acknowledges other studies at figures around £170 per tonne</ref>, initially centered on the [[BEIS]] 'decarbonisation clusters', the [[Zero Waste Europe]] report suggests these costs will be higher and that the push towards [[CCS]] for [[EfW]] plants distract from investing and managing waste further up the [[Waste Hierarchy | waste hierarchy]].
 ==References==