1

Global Emissions of SF6 and the Costs of Reducing Them: EPA’s Global Emissions and Mitigation Reports

Deborah Ottinger Schaefer (EPA), Ravi Kantamaneni, and Marian Van Pelt (ICF International)

2

Overview

Scope and purpose of the reportsRole of fluorinated gases and SF6

EmissionsAssumptionsResults

ReductionsAssumptionsTechnologiesResults

3

Purpose of the Reports

Where are emissions and reduction opportunities for non-CO2 greenhouse gases?

Which industry sectors?Which countries and regions?

Global Emissions Report: Global and country-specific emissions Global Mitigation Report: Global and country-specific reduction opportunities and their costsAvailable at:

http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/international.html

4

Global GHG Emissions and Sinks, 2000

F gases1%

CO2 - Fuel and cement

56%

N2O9%

CH415%

CO2 - LUCF19%

5

GER 2005 High-GWP Emissions by Gas

HFCs55%

HFC-2320%

PFCs13%

SF611%

Use of EE 9%

Mg 1%

Semiconductors (SF6 only) 1%

Total High-GWP Emissions = 503 MtCO2-eq

6

CaveatsSF6 emissions don’t include

Manufacture of flat panel displayManufacture of electrical equipmentOther SF6 applications

Other studies (e.g., RAND survey) indicate some of these sources are significantAssumes that SF6 emissions make up the same fraction of semiconductor emissions in world as in U.S.

7

Example of “Other Application:”AWACS

IPCC Tier 1 Method:AWACS Emissions = 740 kg x no. of planesGlobal AWACS fleet = 70 planes (Boeing)740 x 70 = 51,800 kg SF6 = 1.24 MtCO2-eq= 2% of 2005 GER SF6 emissions

8

Why are High-GWP Gases Important?

High potential growth (early action = high payoffs)

PFCs and SF6 have long atmospheric lifetimesRelatively cheap to abate

1990-2020 High-GWP Emissions from Industrial Sources (TAB) and ODS Substitutes

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Em

issi

ons

MtC

O2-

eq

ODS SubstitutesIndustrial

9

Sources of High-GWP GasesIndustry Gas Reason Emitted Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

HFCs Various performance characteristics

Primary Aluminum

PFCs Byproduct

HCFC-22 Production

HFC-23 Byproduct

Semiconductor Manufacture

HFC-23, PFCs, SF6

Fluorine source for etching, cleaning

Magnesium prod. and processing

SF6 Cover gas to prevent oxidation

Electric Transmission

SF6 Insulating gas for electrical equip.

10

Estimating Emissions

Current emissions: Used methods based on IPCC guidanceTwo scenarios for future emissions:

Technology Adoption: Assumes industries decrease emission rates to meet their global and regional emission reduction goals No Action: Assumes current emission rates will continue unchanged

11

Industrial High-GWP Emissions by Sector: Technology-Adoption and No-Action ScenariosTechnology-Adoption

EPA believes future emissions are likely to be closer to this scenarioBut additional actions are required to realize expected reductions

No-ActionProvided as upper-boundShows industry commitments avert very large emissions

-

100

200

300

400

500

TAB NAB TAB NAB TAB NAB TAB NAB TAB NAB TAB NAB TAB NAB

Technology Adoption Baseline (TAB) and No Action Baseline (NAB) Scenarios

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2eq)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

HCFC-22 Production Electric Power Systems Aluminum ProductionSemiconductor Manufacturing Magnesium Manufacturing

12

Global and Regional Reduction GoalsIndustry Global Industry

Assoc., Region, or Country

Percent of World Production/ Emissions in 2003

Goal

Semiconductor manufacturing

World Semiconductor Council

85% Reduce fluorinated emissions to 90% of 1995 level by 2010

Magnesium production and processing

International Magnesium Association

70% (about 90% of sector’s SF6emissions)

Phase out SF6 use by 2011

Aluminum production

International Aluminum Institute

70% (but goal applies to entire industry)

Reduce PFCs/ton Al by 80% relative to 1990 levels by 2010

Electrical Equipment (Use)

EU-25+3, Japan, U.S.

40% of use emissions

Country-specific reductions from 2003 totaling 2.5 MtCO2-eq, (15%).

HCFC-22 China, India, Korea, Mexico

65% of emissions CDM projects totaling 55 MtCO2-eq, (63% of 2010)

13

1990-2020 High-GWP Industrial Emissions by Sector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2-eq

)

HCFC-22 Production Electric Power Systems Aluminum ProductionSemiconductor Manufacturing Magnesium Manufacturing

14

Current SF6 Emissions from Use of Electrical Equipment

Manufacturing not included!Bottom-up country and regional studies used for U.S., Japan, EU-25+3 (Ecofys)For rest of the world, Emissions = RAND sales to utilities + nameplate capacity of retiring equip. (40-year life)+ 16% add-on for Russia and China (not in RAND)- U.S., Japanese, EU-25+3 emissionsThese emissions are allocated to countries according

to their net electricity consumption.

15

Future SF6 Emissions from Use of Electrical Equipment

For Technology-Adoption scenario, U.S., Japan, EU-25+3 are assumed to meet their emission reduction goalsOther developed countries maintain constant emissions (system growth offset by decreasing charge sizes and leak rates)Developing countries’ emissions grow with net electricity consumption (charge sizes already small)

16

TAB and NAB Scenarios for Use of Electrical Equipment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2-eq

)

No-Action BaselineTechnology-Adoption Baseline

17

Emissions from Use of Electrical Equipment by Region (TAB)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2eq)

OECD90+ China/CPAS&E Asia Non-EU Eastern EuropeLatin America Non-EU FSUAfrica Middle East

United States

EU-25

Japan

18

Current SF6 Emissions from Mg

Production/processing estimatesPrimary and secondary production: USGSDie Casting: Regional studies or auto production

Emission and usage factorsWhere SF6 is used, 0.75 - 1 kg SF6/ton MgIn China, 10% primary and 100% die casters use SF6

19

Future SF6 Emissions from Mg

Production/processing growthPrimary: 1% – 6%, depending on regionCasting: 2% - 10%, depending on regionGrowth assumed to slow after 2010

Emission factor changesFor Technology-Adoption scenario, almost all producers/processors outside of China are assumed to phase out use of SF6 by 2011 under IMA goal.

20

NAB and TAB Scenarios for Magnesium Production and Processing

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2-eq

)

No-Action BaselineTechnology-Adoption Baseline

21

Emissions from Production and Processing of Magnesium by Region (TAB)

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 2000 2010 2020Year

Emis

sion

s (M

tCO

2eq)

OECD90+ Non-EU FSU China/CPA

Middle East Latin America S&E Asia

United States

EU-25

Japan

22

Reduction Options, Potentials, and Costs

Again, two scenariosTechnology Adoption: Assumes industries decrease emission rates to meet their global and regional emission reduction goals.

Both emissions and reduction potentials lower. Some options (e.g., SF6 recycling in Europe) fully implemented in baseline and thus aren’t in MAC.

No Action: Assumes current emission rates will continue unchanged. Emissions and reduction potentials higher.

23

Reduction Options for Use of Electrical Equipment* (TAB)Technology Baseline

market penetration

Share of unabated emissions to which applied

Fraction of share reduced

SF6 Recycling 80% (rises to 93% in

U.S.)

67% 95%

Leak Detection and Repair

80% (rises to 93% in

U.S.)

30% 50%

Equipment Refurbishment

80% (rises to 93% in

U.S.)

3% 95%

*All countries but EU-25+3 and Japan. For EU-25+3 and Japan, options, reduction potentials, and costs drawn from 2005 Ecofys study for Capiel.

24

Reduction Options for Mg Production/Processing (TAB)

Technology Baseline market penetration

Share of unabated emissions to which applied

Fraction of share reduced

SO2 Rises to 50% by 2011 outside China

50% 100%

Fluorinated gases

Rises to 50% by 2011 outside China

50% 97%

25

Inputs into Cost AnalysisExample: SF6 Recycling (EE)

EffectivenessApplicability: 67%Baseline market penetration: 80%Maximum market penetration: 100%Reduction efficiency: 95%Total reduction off baseline: 50%U.S. reduction: 6.6 MtCO2eq

Cost (U.S.)Capital costs: $5.6 M ($25,000 per unit)Operating costs: $277,000 (labor)Gas savings: $4.3 MProject lifetime: 10 yrsCost/tCO2-eq: ($0.10)

26

2020 Sector-by-Sector Technology Adoption MACs for High-GWP Industrial Sources

$(80)

$(60)

$(40)

$(20)

$-

$20

$40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cumulative Reductions (MtCO2eq)

Mar

gina

l Cos

t ($/

tCO

2eq)

Semiconductors

Electric T&DHCFC-22

Magnesium

Aluminum

27

Options with Largest SF6Reductions (2020)

Industry Sector

Option Reduction(MtCO2-eq)

Cost($/tCO2-eq)

Use of Electrical Equipment

SF6 Recycling 25 Near 0

Magnesium Production and Processing

SO2 4.2 Near 0.65

Use of Electrical Equipment

Leak Detection and Repair

3.5 Near 1

28

2020 No-Action and Technology-Adoption MACs for Use of Electrical Equipment

$(10)

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cumulative Reductions (MtCO2-eq)

Mar

gina

l Cos

t ($/

tCO

2-eq

) No-Action MACTechnology-Adoption MAC

29

2020 No-Action and Technology-Adoption MACs for Magnesium

$-

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

0 5 10 15 20Cumulative Reductions (MtCO2-eq)

Mar

gina

l Cos

t ($/

tCO

2-eq

)

No-Action MACTechnology-Adoption MAC

30

2020 High-GWP Industrial Technology Adoption MACs by Region

$(80)

$(60)

$(40)

$(20)

$-

$20

$40

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cumulative Reductions (MtCO2eq)

Mar

gina

l Cos

ts ($

/tCO

2-eq

)

ChinaROWU.S.Other OECD

EU-15

Japan

31

UncertaintiesRAND data for utilities only shows part of the world. Imports from/exports to China or Russia would affect results.Relationship between emissions and net electricity consumption can vary considerably.Chinese use of SF6 for primary assumed 10%; could be higher or lower.Emissions sensitive to control efforts:

Higher if industry goals are not met.Lower if developing countries lower emission rates (e.g., through CDM).

32

ConclusionsIndustrial (not ODS sub) high-GWP emissions are expected to decline in developed countries and to increase in developing countries. Driven by

Emission controls in developed countriesHigher growth rates of activity in developing countries

Largest reduction opportunities are also in developing countriesEven in Technology-Adoption Scenario, large and inexpensive reduction opportunities remain.