Application of a system dynamics approach for assessment and mitigation of CO2 emissions from the cement industry

A system dynamics model based on the dynamic interactions among a number of system components is developed to estimate CO(2) emissions from the cement industry in India. The CO(2) emissions are projected to reach 396.89 million tonnes by the year 2020 if the existing cement making technological options are followed. Policy options of population growth stabilisation, energy conservation and structural management in cement manufacturing processes are incorporated for developing the CO(2) mitigation scenarios. A 42% reduction in the CO(2) emissions can be achieved in the year 2020 based on an integrated mitigation scenario. Indirect CO(2) emissions from the transport of raw materials to the cement plants and finished product to market are also estimated.     

Ecological indicators of global climate change: A research framework

Large-scale environmental research efforts are conducted under frameworks that provide a common basis for evaluating research in many diverse fields. Such frameworks should be subjected to critical review to determine if they meet crucial expectations. In the case of the US Global Change Research Program, we perceive that most research follows a framework that we define as the predictive model framework. We believe this framework is insufficient for resolving the unprecedented predicaments posed by global change. We recommend a complementary framework, the system response framework, which directs research toward useful indicators of change rather than precise predictions. We further argue that, even if research is complementary and effective under the two frameworks, conclusive results prior to decisions should not be expected. The burden of proof must itself be a continuing topic of open discourse and inquiry.     

Natural and Anthropogenic Methane Emission from Coastal Wetlands of South India

For the first time, the methane emissions from diverse coastal wetlands of South India have been measured. Annual emission rates varied widely, ranging from 3.10 mg/m²/hr (Bay of Bengal) to 21.56 mg/m²/hr (Adyar River), based on nature of the perturbance to each of the ecosystems studied. Distinct seasonality in methane emission was noticed in an unpolluted ecosystem (mangrove: 7.38 mg/m²/hr) and over a twofold increase was evident in the ecosystem that was disturbed by human activities (21.56 mg/m²/hr). The wide ranges in estimate suggest that methanogenesis occurs by both natural and anthropogenic activities in these coastal wetlands. Several physical and chemical factors such as salinity, sulfate, oxygen, and organic matter content influenced methanogenesis to a large degree in each of these ecosystems in addition to individual responses to human-induced stress. For example, there was a clear negative correlation between oxygen availability (0.99), sulfate (0.98), and salinity (0.98) with CH₄ emission in the Adyar river ecosystem. Although similar results were obtained for the other wetland ecosystems, CH₄ emission was largely influenced by tidal fluctuations, resulting in a concomitant increase in methanogenesis with high sulfate concentrations. This study demonstrates that coastal wetlands are potentially significant sources of atmospheric methane and could be a greater source if anthropogenic perturbations continue at the current rate. RID=" ID=" *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.     

Bioethanol from waste: Life cycle estimation of the greenhouse gas saving potential

This paper considers two alternative feedstocks for bioethanol production, both derived from household waste—Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been carried out to estimate the GHG emissions from bioethanol using these two feedstocks. An integrated waste management system has been considered, taking into account recycling of materials and production of bioethanol in a combined gasification/bio-catalytic process. For the functional unit defined as the ‘total amount of waste treated in the integrated waste management system’, the best option is to produce bioethanol from RDF—this saves up to 196 kg CO₂ equiv. per tonne of MSW, compared to the current waste management practice in the UK.However, if the functional unit is defined as ‘MJ of fuel equiv.’ and bioethanol is compared with petrol on an equivalent energy basis, the results show that bioethanol from RDF offers no saving of GHG emissions compared to petrol. For example, for a typical biogenic carbon content in RDF of around 60%, the life cycle GHG emissions from bioethanol are 87 g CO₂ equiv./MJ while for petrol they are 85 g CO₂ equiv./MJ. On the other hand, bioethanol from BMW offers a significant GHG saving potential over petrol. For a biogenic carbon content of 95%, the life cycle GHG emissions from bioethanol are 6.1 g CO₂ equiv./MJ which represents a saving of 92.5% compared to petrol. In comparison, bioethanol from UK wheat saves 28% of GHG while that from Brazilian sugar cane – the best performing bioethanol with respect to GHG emissions – saves 70%. If the biogenic carbon of the BMW feedstock exceeds 97%, the bioethanol system becomes a carbon sequester. For instance, if waste paper with the biogenic carbon content of almost 100% and a calorific value of 18 MJ/kg is converted into bioethanol, a saving of 107% compared to petrol could be achieved. Compared to paper recycling, converting waste paper into bioethanol saves 460 kg CO₂ equiv./t waste paper or eight times more than recycling.     

Global Warming Impact of Electricity Generation from Beef Cattle Manure: A Life Cycle Assessment Study

We compare calculated greenhouse gas emissions for a North American beef feedlot operation, which includes biogas production by anaerobic digestion with subsequent electricity generation (the AD case), to the emissions for a “business as usual” case, which includes both a feedlot and an equivalent amount of grid-generated electricity. Anaerobic digestion, biogas production and electricity production are the major sources of differences in emissions. Fertilizer production, crop production, manure collection and spreading, as well as the associated transport stages are also considered within the LCA system boundaries; impacts on life cycle emissions from these sources are lower. Running a feedlot and producing electricity using typical grid power plants produces 3,845 kg CO_2?eq/MWh while running a feedlot, which generates biogas to produce electricity, produces 2,965 kg CO_2?eq/MWh. This savings of 880 kg CO_2?eq/MWh arises because the net power generation in the AD case emits about 90% less life cycle GHG emissions compared to grid-average electricity. The high overall emission levels arise due to emissions associated with enteric fermentation in beef cattle as the main source of GHG emissions in both the “business as usual” and the AD cases. It contributed 57% of total emissions for the feedlot /biogas /electricity system and 44% of total emissions for the feedlot /grid electricity system.     

Assessment of the greenhouse effect impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste: A case for England

Waste management activities contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions approximately by 4%. In particular the disposal of waste in landfills generates methane that has high global warming potential. Effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is important and could provide environmental benefits and sustainable development, as well as reduce adverse impacts on public health. The European and UK waste policy force sustainable waste management and especially diversion from landfill, through reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, and recovery of value from waste. Energy from waste is a waste management option that could provide diversion from landfill and at the same time save a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, since it recovers energy from waste which usually replaces an equivalent amount of energy generated from fossil fuels. Energy from waste is a wide definition and includes technologies such as incineration of waste with energy recovery, or combustion of waste-derived fuels for energy production or advanced thermal treatment of waste with technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis, with energy recovery. The present study assessed the greenhouse gas emission impacts of three technologies that could be used for the treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in order to recover energy from it. These technologies are Mass Burn Incineration with energy recovery, Mechanical Biological Treatment via bio-drying and Mechanical Heat Treatment, which is a relatively new and uninvestigated method, compared to the other two. Mechanical Biological Treatment and Mechanical Heat Treatment can turn Municipal Solid Waste into Solid Recovered Fuel that could be combusted for energy production or replace other fuels in various industrial processes. The analysis showed that performance of these two technologies depends strongly on the final use of the produced fuel and they could produce GHG emissions savings only when there is end market for the fuel. On the other hand Mass Burn Incineration generates greenhouse gas emission savings when it recovers electricity and heat. Moreover the study found that the expected increase on the amount of Municipal Solid Waste treated for energy recovery in England by 2020 could save greenhouse gas emission, if certain Energy from Waste technologies would be applied, under certain conditions.