Bilan Carbone Emission_Factors

Bilan Carbone TM Companies and Authorities

EMISSION FACTORS GUIDE

Version 5.0

Emission Factors Calculation and

Bibliographical Sources Used

JANUARY 2007

French Agency for the Environment Inter ministerial Mission and Energy Management on the Greenhouse E ffect

The development of this “Authorities” Version received the support of :

Bilan Carbone ®

Companies and Local Authorities Version

2001-2006 © ADEME - Emission Factors Guide – Version 5.0 2 / 249

The Bilan CarboneTM Method was developed for ADEME by Jean-Marc Jancovici, from the Manicore Consulting Firm. The development of the “Authorities” Version is supported by the Groupe Caisse d’Epargne Bilan CarboneTM is a registered trademark of ADEME.

Bilan Carbone TM

Companies and Authorities Version


Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................. ................................................................... 3

Introduction....................................... ...................................................................... 12

1 - Default Uncertainties.......................... ............................................................... 13

1.1 Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 13

1.1.1 Fossil fuels.......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.2 Bioenergy ........................................................................................................................................... 13

1.1.3 Electricity ........................................................................................................................................... 13

1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2 ............................................................................. 14

1.3 Transport ................................................................................................................................... 14

1.4 Materials entering and tertiary services ................................................................................. 14

1.4.1 Incoming materials ............................................................................................................................. 14

1.4.2 Tertiary services ................................................................................................................................. 15

1.5 Waste and wastewater/sewage ................................................................................................. 15

1.6 Capital assets ............................................................................................................................. 15

2 - Factors related to direct energy consumption ... ............................................ 17

2.1 Type of emissions ...................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Fossil fuels.................................................................................................................................. 17

2.2.1 Gross heating value and nett heating value......................................................................................... 18

2.2.2 Conversion table for energy units....................................................................................................... 19

2.2.3 Liquid fuels......................................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.3.1. Emissions linked to combustion of liquid fuels ......................................................................... 20 2.2.3.2. Upstream emissions for liquid fuels ............................................................................................... 21

2.2.3.3. Uncertainty .....................................................................................................................................24

2.2.4 Natural gas.............................................................................................................................. 24

2.2.4.1. Emissions linked to combustion of natural gas............................................................................... 24

2.2.4.2. Upstream emissions for natural gas ................................................................................................ 25

2.2.4.3. Uncertainty .....................................................................................................................................26

2.2.5 Solid fuels................................................................................................................................ 26

2.2.6 Plastics used as fuel ................................................................................................................ 28

2.3 Bioenergy ...................................... .................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Biofuels.................................................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1.1 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1.2 Gases covered by emission factors .................................................................................................. 29

2.3.1.3 Emission factors .............................................................................................................................. 30

2.3.1.3.1 Coproducts and byproducts used on-site............................................................................. 30 2.3.1.3.2 Coproducts or byproducts directed to a supply chain ......................................................... 31

Bilan Carbone TM



2.3.1.3.3 Biofuels from dedicated crops............................................................................................. 31

2.3.2 Liquid Biofuels ....................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.1 Definition......................................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.1.1 Bioethanol production......................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.1.2 Vegetable oils...................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.2 Emission factors .............................................................................................................................. 32

2.3.2.2.1 Principle................................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.2.2 Default values .......................................................................................................................... 33

2.3.2.3 Systematic blending with gasoline and diesel fuel...................................................................... 34

2.4 Electricity................................................................................................................................... 34

2.4.1 Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................................... 34

2.4.2 Grid electricity.................................................................................................................................... 36

2.4.3 Emission factors by producer for European electricity suppliers ....................................................... 38

2.4.4 Intermittent and fatal renewable sources ............................................................................ 39

2.4.4.1 General Information.................................................................................................................... 39

2.4.4.2 Wind power ..................................................................................................................................... 40

2.4.4.3 Photovoltaic ................................................................................................................................ 40

2.4.5 Seasonal nature of electricity generated by EDF (producer)............................................. 40

2.4.6 Factors broken down by usage for grid power in France .................................................. 41

2.4.7 Standard consumption figures for the principal residential electric appliances.............. 42

2.4.8 Specific electricity consumption for a tertiary service........................................................ 44

2.4.9 Electricity transmission losses............................................................................................... 45

2.4.10 Precautions to take within the framework of action plans............................................... 45

2.5 Steam purchases........................................................................................................................ 46

2.5.1 General information............................................................................................................................ 46

2.5.2 CPCU.................................................................................................................................................. 46 2.5.3 Electricity transmission losses............................................................................................................ 47

2.6 Space heating without corresponding meter readings........................................................... 47

2.6.1 Tertiary-sector activities, non-electric heating ................................................................................... 47

2.6.1.1. Heating with fuel oil .................................................................................................................. 48

2.6.1.2. Heating with natural gas ............................................................................................................ 48

2.6.1.3. Accounting for location and climate............................................................................................... 49

2.6.2 Average residential consumption.......................................................................................... 50

2.6.2.1 Heating emission factors by primary residence .......................................................................... 50 2.6.2.2 Sanitary hot water emission factors by primary residence.......................................................... 51 2.6.2.3 Proportion of energy type in the heating of principal residences................................................ 52 2.6.2.4 Proportion of energy type for sanitary hot water in principal residences.................................... 53

3 - Accounting for non-energy emissions............ ................................................ 54

3.1 GWP of the main gases involved ............................................................................................. 54

3.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer.................................. 56

3.3 Leakage of refrigerant fluids ................................................................................................... 57

3.3.1 Commercial cooling equipment.......................................................................................................... 57

3.3.2 Industrial Cooling............................................................................................................................... 58

3.3.2.1 Food processing industry ............................................................................................................ 58

3.3.2.2 Other industries........................................................................................................................... 59

3.3.2.3 Average for all industries............................................................................................................ 60

Bilan Carbone TM



3.3.3 Cooling in the service sector (air conditioning).................................................................................. 60

3.4 Other cases................................................................................................................................. 61

4 - Accounting for transport ....................... ........................................................... 62

4.1 Road transportation of persons ............................................................................................... 63

4.1.1 Personal vehicles ................................................................................................................................ 63

4.1.1.1 Amortization of private cars ....................................................................................................... 63

4.1.1.2 Calculating reference consumption for personal vehicles........................................................... 66 4.1.1.2.1 Emissions approximated by fuel type and residential zone................................................. 66 4.1.1.2.2 Emissions approximated by fuel type and length of time in use ......................................... 68 4.1.1.2.3 Emissions approximated by fuel type and fiscal horsepower rating ................................... 69

4.1.1.3 Commuting travel ....................................................................................................................... 71

4.1.1.3.1 Emission factors for people commuting by car................................................................... 71 4.1.1.3.2 Emission factors for people commuting by car, when distance travelled is known............ 73

4.1.1.4 Work-related travel by car .......................................................................................................... 74

4.1.1.5 Travel by car for the daily mobility of a territory’s residents ..................................................... 74

Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution modal for daily trips......................................... 75

4.1.1.6 Long-distance travel by car for mobility of residents in a territory ......................................... 75

4.1.2 Buses and cars ........................................................................................................................ 77

4.1.2.1 Amortization of buses and coaches............................................................................................. 77

4.1.2.2 Emissions per vehicle.km ........................................................................................................... 77

4.1.2.3 Emissions per passenger.km ....................................................................................................... 78

4.1.2.3.1 General case ........................................................................................................................ 78

4.1.2.3.2 Overall factor for commuting travel.................................................................................... 79 4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for the daily mobility of a territory’s residents..................................................... 79 4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for long distance mobility of a territory’s residents ............................................. 82

4.1.3 Two-wheeled vehicles............................................................................................................. 82

4.1.3.1 Amortization and upstream emissions for two-wheeled vehicles ............................................... 82 4.1.3.2 Combustion emissions per vehicle.km........................................................................................ 83

4.1.4 Mass transit: suburban rail, metro and tramway............................................................... 84

4.1.4.1 Emission factor ........................................................................................................................... 84

4.1.4.2 Kilometres travelled for daily mobility ........................................................................................... 84

4.2 Goods transport by road .......................................................................................................... 84

4.2.1 Amortization of trucks and utility vehicles......................................................................................... 85

4.2.2 Average fuel consumption per vehicle.km by GVW weight class ..................................................... 89 4.2.3 Emission factors per vehicle.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips ........................... 92

4.2.3.1 Reasoning ................................................................................................................................... 92

4.2.3.2 Determining consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles ................................................. 94 4.2.3.3 Reintegrating manufacturing emissions...................................................................................... 96

4.2.4 Emission factors per ton.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips.................................. 96 4.2.4.1 Typology of goods transport ....................................................................................................... 97

4.2.4.2 Determining emissions per ton.km in Bilan Carbone™ ............................................................. 97 4.2.5 Uncertainties in the methods described in §4.2.3 and 4.2.4................................................................ 99 4.2.6 Accurate calculation of road distances ............................................................................................... 99

4.2.7 Tons.km per capita and region.......................................................................................................... 100

4.2.7.1 Tons.km shipped per capita and region .................................................................................... 100

4.3 Air transport............................................................................................................................ 101

4.3.1 Fuel consumption per passenger.km................................................................................................. 101

4.3.2 Fuel consumption per ton.km for freight .......................................................................................... 105

4.3.3 Determining distances travelled per trip........................................................................................... 107

4.3.3.1 General case.............................................................................................................................. 107

Bilan Carbone TM



4.3.3.2 Long distance mobility mileage................................................................................................ 107

4.3.4 Adding accuracy............................................................................................................................... 108

4.4 Rail transport .......................................................................................................................... 109

4.4.1 General information.......................................................................................................................... 109

4.4.2 Passenger travel ................................................................................................................................ 109

4.4.2.1 Passengers travelling by train in France.................................................................................... 109

4.4.2.2 Passengers travelling by train in Europe................................................................................... 110

4.4.2.3 Long distance mobility mileage................................................................................................ 111

4.4.3 Freight .............................................................................................................................................. 111 4.4.3.1 Rail freight in France ................................................................................................................ 111

4.4.3.2 Rail freight in Europe ............................................................................................................... 112

4.4.4 Accurate calculation of rail distances ............................................................................................... 112

4.5 Sea and waterway freight ....................................................................................................... 112

4.5.1 Emissions linked to ship manufacture .............................................................................................. 113

4.5.2 Specific emissions linked to fuel consumption................................................................................. 113

4.5.2.1 Container ships ......................................................................................................................... 114

4.5.2.2 Bulk cargo carriers.................................................................................................................... 116

4.5.2.3 Cargo Carriers........................................................................................................................... 117

4.5.3 Calculating sea routes....................................................................................................................... 117

4.6. River and waterway goods transport ................................................................................... 117

5 - Accounting for inputs: purchased materials and services.......................... 121

5.0 Preliminary remarks on inputs.............................................................................................. 121

5.1 Steel and ferrous metals ......................................................................................................... 121

5.2 Aluminium............................................................................................................................... 123

5.3 Other metals ............................................................................................................................ 124

5.4 Plastics...................................................................................................................................... 127

5.4.1.1 Polystyrene ............................................................................................................................... 127

5.4.1.2 Polyvinyl chloride..................................................................................................................... 127

5.4.1.3 High-density polyethylene ........................................................................................................ 128

5.4.1.4 Low-density polyethylene......................................................................................................... 129

5.4.1.5 Polyethylene terephtalate (PET) ............................................................................................... 129

5.4.1.6 Nylon ........................................................................................................................................ 130

5.4.1.7 Average values.......................................................................................................................... 131

5.5 Glass ......................................................................................................................................... 131

5.6 Building materials ................................................................................................................... 133

5.6.1 Cement, concrete .............................................................................................................................. 133

5.6.1.1 Some definitions ....................................................................................................................... 133

5.6.1.2 Emission factors........................................................................................................................ 133

5.6.2 Other materials .................................................................................................................... 134

5.6.2.1 Quarried stone ............................................................................................................................... 134

5.6.2.2 Wood .............................................................................................................................................134

5.6.2.3 Other building materials ................................................................................................................ 135

5.7 Paper and cardboard.............................................................................................................. 136

5.8 Miscellaneous purchases and supplies, default factor ......................................................... 136

5.8.1. Small supplies.................................................................................................................................. 136

5.8.2. Consumable office equipment supplies ........................................................................................... 137

Bilan Carbone TM



5.9 Services..................................................................................................................................... 137

5.9.1 Preliminary remarks ......................................................................................................................... 137

5.9.2 Suggested ratio ................................................................................................................................. 138

5.9.3 Information technology expenditures, miscellaneous services......................................................... 138

6 - Accounting for other inputs: products used in a griculture, livestock raising and food processing ................................ ............................................................ 139

6.1 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................... 139

6.2 Fertilizer................................................................................................................................... 140

6.3 Phytosanitary (plant protection) products............................................................................ 141

6.3.1 Herbicides.........................................................................................................................................141

6.3.2 Fungicides.........................................................................................................................................142

6.3.3 Insecticides .......................................................................................................................................142

6.3.4 Molluscicidal agents ......................................................................................................................... 142

6.3.5 Growth regulators ............................................................................................................................. 143

6.3.6 Default value .................................................................................................................................... 143

6.4 Grains, flour ............................................................................................................................ 143

6.4.1 Wheat................................................................................................................................................ 144 6.4.2 Maize for fodder ............................................................................................................................... 145

6.4.3 Flour ................................................................................................................................................. 147

6.5 Fruits and vegetables .............................................................................................................. 147

6.6 Beef and veal............................................................................................................................ 147

6.6.1 Annual livestock emissions .............................................................................................................. 148

6.6.2 Imputation of nursing cows .............................................................................................................. 149

6.6.3 Milk-fed calves................................................................................................................................. 150

6.6.4 Dairy cows and milk......................................................................................................................... 150

6.6.5 Steers ................................................................................................................................................ 151 6.6.5.1 Beef cattle ................................................................................................................................. 151

6.6.5.2 Average values.......................................................................................................................... 152

6.7 Dairy products......................................................................................................................... 152

6.7.1 Boiled cheese ............................................................................................................................... 152

6.7.2 Fresh cheeses, yoghurt ................................................................................................................. 152

6.7.3 Raw milk cheeses......................................................................................................................... 153

6.7.4 Butter, cream................................................................................................................................ 153

6.8 Industrial swine....................................................................................................................... 153

6.9 Poultry and poultry products........................................................................................................... 154

6.9.1 Industrial chicken......................................................................................................................... 154

6.9.2 Eggs ....................................................................................................................................... 155

6.10 Sheep ...................................................................................................................................... 155

6.10.1 Milk-fed lambs........................................................................................................................... 156

6.10.2 Grass-fed lambs ......................................................................................................................... 156

6.11 Fish ......................................................................................................................................... 157

6.12 Alcoholic spirits, sugar ......................................................................................................... 157

6.13 Other products ...................................................................................................................... 158

6.14 Consolidated emission factors for farms............................................................................. 158

6.14.1 Emissions per hectare for the main crops .................................................................................. 158 6.14.1.1 Nitrous oxide emanations ....................................................................................................... 158

Bilan Carbone TM



6.14.1.2 Manufacture of fertilizer ......................................................................................................... 159

6.14.1.3 Farm machinery ...................................................................................................................... 160

6.14.2 Methane emissions from livestock............................................................................................. 161

7 - Accounting for direct waste and sewage ......... ............................................. 163


7.1 Inert waste ............................................................................................................................... 163

7.1.1 Inert waste materials – landfill disposal and incineration................................................................. 163 7.1.2 Inert waste materials – default value ................................................................................................ 164

7.2 Non-fermentable but combustible materials ........................................................................ 165

7.2.1 Plastic sent to landfill ....................................................................................................................... 165

7.2.2 Plastic incinerated without energy recovery ..................................................................................... 165

7.2.3 Plastic incinerated with energy recovery .......................................................................................... 165

7.2.4 Recycled plastic................................................................................................................................ 167

7.2.5 Breakdown of types of disposal in France and average values......................................................... 167 7.3 Fermentable and combustible materials .............................................................................................. 167

7.3.1 Materials sent to landfill without energy or materials recovery ....................................................... 168 7.3.1.1 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 168

7.3.1.2 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 168

7.3.2 Material sent to landfill with energy or materials recovery ......................................................... 169 7.3.2.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 169

7.3.2.2 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 169

7.3.3 Incineration without energy recovery ............................................................................................... 170

7.3.3.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 170

7.3.3.2 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 170

7.3.4 Incineration with energy recovery .................................................................................................... 170

7.3.4.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 170

7.3.4.2 Paper and cardboard ...................................................................................................................... 171

7.3.5 Recycling ..................................................................................................................................... 171

7.3.6 Statistical average for waste disposal in France........................................................................... 171

7.4 Hazardous industrial waste.................................................................................................... 172

7.5 End-of-life non-energy emissions and leakages.................................................................... 174

7.6 Wastewater .............................................................................................................................. 174

8 - End-of-life disposal of packaging .............. .................................................... 177

9 - Accounting for amortized assets................ ................................................... 179


9.1 Buildings .................................................................................................................................. 179

9.1.1 Rough approach for building surface area........................................................................................ 179

9.1.2 Overall approach based on energy consumption .............................................................................. 182 9.1.3 A more detailed approach, based on quantities of materials used .................................................... 182

9.2 Roadways and parking areas ................................................................................................. 183

9.2.1 Primary components ......................................................................................................................... 183

9.2.2 Emission factors per m² for roadways and parking areas ................................................................. 185 9.2.2.1 Types of roadways .................................................................................................................... 185

9.2.2.2 Emissions per m²....................................................................................................................... 186

9.2.2.3 Emissions related to safety barriers .......................................................................................... 186

9.2.2.4 Parking areas............................................................................................................................. 187

9.3 Machinery and vehicles ......................... ........................................................ 187

Bilan Carbone TM



9.3.1 Vehicles ............................................................................................................................................ 187 9.3.2 Production machinery....................................................................................................................... 187

9.3.3 Office and computer equipment ....................................................................................................... 188

9.3.3.1 Manufacture of computer chips ................................................................................................ 188

9.3.3.2 Printed circuit boards ................................................................................................................ 189

9.3.3.3 Screens...................................................................................................................................... 189

9.3.3.4 Other components and total ...................................................................................................... 190

9.3.3.5 Printers and servers................................................................................................................... 191

9.3.3.6 Method based on purchase price............................................................................................... 192

9.3.3.7 Reprographic equipment........................................................................................................... 192

10 - Bibliographical References .................... ...................................................... 193

10.1 - Sources ..................................... .................................................................. 193

10.1.1 - List of individuals consulted in the course of preparing the emission factors............ 193

10.1.2 - Literature consulted for the elaboration of the emission factors .................................................. 196 10.1.3 - Main websites consulted in elaborating the Bilan Carbone™ methodology................................ 200

10.2 General bibliography.......................... .......................................................... 200

10.2.1 - IPCC publications ........................................................................................................................ 200

10.2.2 - CITEPA publications ................................................................................................................... 201

10.2.3 - ADEME publications ................................................................................................................... 201

10.2.4 - Publications issued by other French organizations....................................................................... 202

Appendix 1 – Power production in Europe ............ ............................................ 203

Appendix 2 – Carbon content of electricity generate d by EDF ........................ 205

Appendix 3 – Carbon dioxide emission factors for fu els.................................. 207

Appendix 4 – Background note on the CO2 content per kWh by use in France............................................................................................................................... 211

1. Background........................................................................................................................... 211

2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 211

3. Findings................................................................................................................................. 212

Appendix 5 – Distribution of agricultural lands in France ................................ 215

Appendix 6 – Carbon content of poultry ............. ............................................... 216

1 - Industrial turkey .............................. ................................................................ 216

2 - Industrial duck and guinea fowl................ ..................................................... 216

3 - Free-range poultry............................. .............................................................. 217

Appendix 7 – Breakdown of road vehicles for goods t ransport by Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)....................................... ................................................................. 218

1 - Lightweight utility vehicles GVW < 1,5 t....... ................................................. 219

2 - Utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW... .............................................. 219

3 - Utility vehicles between 2,51 t and 3,5 t GVW.. ............................................. 220

4 - Utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW.... .............................................. 220

5 - Trucks between 5,1 and 6 t GVW ................. .................................................. 221

Bilan Carbone TM



6 - Trucks between 6,1 and 10,9 t GVW .............. ................................................ 221

7 - Trucks between 11 and 19 t GVW ................. ................................................. 222

8 - Trucks between 19,1 and 21 t GVW ............... ................................................ 223

9 - Trucks between 21,1 and 32,6 t GVW ............. ............................................... 224

10 - Articulated trucks (tractor-trailers) ......... ..................................................... 224

Appendix 8 – Fuel consumption of passenger vehicles : breakdown by fiscal horsepower ......................................... .................................................................. 225

1 - Gasoline vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rat ing ...................................... 225

2 - Gasoline vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower ra ting..................................... 226

3 - Gasoline vehicles, over 11 fiscal horsepower ra ting ................................... 227

4 - Diesel vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower ratin g ........................................... 228

5 - Diesel vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rati ng ......................................... 228

6 - Diesel vehicles, 11 fiscal horsepower and over . .......................................... 229

Appendix 9 – Operating range and seating in Airbus aircraft .......................... 230

1 - Operating range................................ ............................................................... 230

1.1 A300 cargo aircraft ................................................................................................................. 230

1.2 A310.......................................................................................................................................... 230

1.3 A318.......................................................................................................................................... 231

1.4 A319.......................................................................................................................................... 231

1.5 A320.......................................................................................................................................... 232

1.6 A330-200 .................................................................................................................................. 232

1.7 A330-300 .................................................................................................................................. 233

1.8 A340-200 .................................................................................................................................. 233

1.9 A340-300 .................................................................................................................................. 234

1.10 A340-500 ................................................................................................................................ 234

1.11 A340-600 ................................................................................................................................ 235

2. Passenger seats ................................. .............................................................. 235

2.1 A320.......................................................................................................................................... 235

2.2 A330-200 .................................................................................................................................. 236

2.3 A340-200 .................................................................................................................................. 236

2.4 A340-600 .................................................................................................................................. 237

TABLES ............................................. .................................................................... 238

FIGURES................................................................................................................ 244

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................... .......................................... 246

Bilan Carbone TM



ADEME EXPERTS................................................................................................. 249

Bilan Carbone TM



Introduction This document allows the detail calculation of each of the emission factors1 contained in the various main spreadsheets forming the Bilan CarboneTM Method, and specifies its sources. It is inseparable from the series of documents linked to the Bilan Carbone TM Method . The division of the Bilan CarboneTM into several separate documents responds to a practical concern, and not to the fact that these documents are autonomous. Since the release of the first version of the Bilan CarboneTM which were more particularly intended for companies, this method was the object of constant improvements - as much on formation level than in content, in order to be current with version n° 4 (or V4). This evolution’s new decisive step is perfected into a version specifically intended for territorial authorities, and this justified that the series of spreadsheets and associated documents in the Bilan CarboneTM henceforth carries a version number, and thus n°5 (or V5). A first version of the "authority"-spreadsheet was, as a test, the objective of experimentation with approximately fifteen French territorial authorities, and for 18 months. The first feedback from this experience steered towards significant modification of the initial spreadsheet, which was divided into 2 distinct modules:

1. A "heritage & services"-module, which relates to emissions generated by the

authority’s activity or the services that it renders; and 2. A "territory"-module, which largely relates to the emissions generated by the

series of activities taking place in the considered authority’s territory. It is the release of Version n°5 that justifies the update of this Guide, which recaptures the calculation of the emission factors in totality, as included in the three main spreadsheets, namely "companies", "local authorities – heritage & services" and "local authorities – territory"; overall forming the whole Bilan CarboneTM Method. Note: The two updated editions in comparison to this Emission Factors Guide should be taken into account - the one of June 2006 for emission factors relating to the main "companies" spreadsheet, and the other one of December 2006 for the emission factors relating to the main "authorities" spreadsheet. We will indicate the paragraphs modified at the time of these last two updates with a red border in the left margin, the same as is the case for this paragraph.

Bilan Carbone TM



1 - Default Uncertainties As indicated in the basic methodological guidelines, is each emission factor1 associated with a degree of uncertainty. This chapter lists the uncertainty values that apply by default, in the absence of specific uncertainty values given in the following chapters. 1.1 Energy 1.1.1 Fossil fuels Greenhouse gas emissions linked to the combustion of natural gas, coal and oil are well documented as a result of a lot of research. A major source of uncertainty lies in obtaining accurate knowledge of the fuel used, especially for coal that greatly varies from one type to another in composition. When a fuel’s composition is well known, variability linked to combustion conditions is low. Accordingly, the emission factors derived here and used in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet were assigned an uncertainty by default of:

- - 5% for petroleum and gas products,

- - 20% for coal and coal-derivates. 1.1.2 Bioenergy Due to the classification of Bioenergy (liquid and solid Biofuels) being relatively detailed and production processes fairly well documented, its emission factors were allocated an uncertainty by default of 10%. 1.1.3 Electricity Today electricity producers publish their own emission factors with low uncertainties, because the amount of fuel used in flame-combustion power plants is well known to its operators. There may be differences between producers, however, as to how other contributing factors are taken into account. For low greenhouse gas (GHG)

1The calculations that allow the conversion of observable data of greenhouse gas emissions in its entirety (expressed as carbon equivalent) are called emission factors. The carbon equivalent is the "official" measure of greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of companies however, use the "CO2 equivalent", giving values 3.67 times higher (within a ratio of 44/12 to be exact); a factor that corresponds to the report (molecular mass of CO2) / (atomic mass of carbon). The Bilan Carbone® Method spreadsheet hereafter proposes the results with the two units - however the emission factors are merely in carbon equivalent. Attention: Do not confuse "CO 2

equivalent" with "emissions of CO 2 only" – which is alas a common confusion.

Bilan Carbone TM



emitting power production in particular (nuclear and renewable energy), deciding to include or exclude the manufacture of plant equipment makes in huge difference in relative terms, even if the values remain low in absolute terms (from 10 to 20 is an increase of 100%!). Furthermore, the degree of uncertainty retained depends a good deal on whether or not an average GHG content per kWh is assigned by convention. If not, the degree of uncertainty depends on how closely the factor used matches the reality of the situation that the calculations attempt to represent. Uncertainty by default for electricity emission factors is 10%. 1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions other than CO 2 Emission factors for greenhouse gases other than CO2 are expressed by the GWP2 (see §3.1). These values are approximations and considered by IPCC3 to be valid within a range of ±30%. Emission factors for greenhouse gases other than CO2 thus carry an uncertainty by default of 30%. 1.3 Transport Uncertainty for transport emission factors varies greatly from one category to another. No default uncertainties are assigned in this category, and uncertainty ranges are always specified for the transport emission factors given below. 1.4 Materials entering and tertiary services 1.4.1 Incoming materials The uncertainty by default value for the emission factors of entering materials for food products is set at 30%, designating the variation around a mean value for the GHG content of raw materials. Uncertainty is set at 10% for emission factors related to building construction materials listed in the INIES4 database, as this information is based on detailed studies. Primary raw materials are assigned an uncertainty factor of 20%. Once again, determining a degree of uncertainty means knowing what conventions are adopted. If the emission factor is meant to reflect - with great accuracy - the emissions per ton of steel used in the reporting company, uncertainty is likely to be greater than 20%. When steel is made with electricity, for example, it is crucial to

2 GWP: Global Warming Potential 3 IPCC: International Panel on Climate Change 4 INIES: Information sur l’Impact Environnemental et Sanitaire. The INIES is a database of life-cycle assessments for various building construction materials and products. See §9.1.3.

Bilan Carbone TM



know the country that provided the steel, and the power supplier from whom the producer obtained its electricity, etc, and a factor 2 between these extremes seems a minimum. If the emission factor however conventionally reflects average emissions linked to the production of a ton of steel - all countries and processes combined - then the uncertainty on the emission factors is due only to uncertainty about the data used for the calculations (e.g. tons of coal consumed worldwide). In this case 20% uncertainty is probably too pessimistic. Ultimately, the issue is to know what degree of inaccuracy applies to the marginal emissions avoided if less material is used. This inaccuracy will depend, among other things, on the size of the marginal reduction. 1.4.2 Tertiary services Barring further investigation, uncertainty for services has been set conservatively at 50%. This is perhaps overly pessimistic, seeing that a Bilan Carbone™ assessment carried out for a tertiary service activity5 has yielded a value that was not too far from the average coefficient used. 1.5 Waste and wastewater/sewage All calculations regarding end-of-life disposal of waste (including wastewater effluent) have been assigned, conservatively, an uncertainty of 50%. This reflects the approximate nature of our knowledge of certain processes, notably decomposition of fermentable matter in landfills (for food and paper waste). There is one exception however: incineration of plastics is assigned an uncertainty of only 20%, as the fossil carbon content of plastic is relatively easy to ascertain. 1.6 Capital assets The “capital assets” category covers emissions linked to manufacture of durable goods owned by the company or service provider (buildings, machinery, etc.). This designation establishes a parallel with material assets that are immobilized for financial accounting purposes. In the absence of detailed research in this area, uncertainty is set at 50% for emissions estimated for buildings (surface area method), machinery, vehicles, computers and office equipment. Only closer analysis of these production chains could reduce these uncertainty figures significantly.

5 The assessment was conducted by the Direction Générale de l'Energie et des Matières Premières (DGEMP, Energy and Raw Materials Division) at the French Industry Ministry (in charge of energy).

Bilan Carbone TM



By contrast, emission factors for buildings, roadways and parking areas derived by the approach based on materials are assigned lower uncertainty, between 10% and 20%.

Bilan Carbone TM



2 - Factors related to direct energy consumption

2.1 Type of emissions Energy use is a source of greenhouse gases, in the following ways:

- Carbon dioxide emitted during combustion of fossil fuels (petroleum, gas, coal) which, as the name indicates, were formed long ago by decomposition of living organisms;

- Various localized pollutants that may be greenhouse gases, or GHG precursors (this is notably the case for ozone and nitrogen oxides);

- Because electricity is partly or totally generated using fossil fuels, depending on the country (see appendixes 1 and 2);

- Due to leakage of natural gas during oil and gas drilling operations: methane, the main component of natural gas, is itself a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than CO2. These factors correspond essentially to CO2 emissions. When other gases are taken into account, the only emissions calculated are for methane6 and N2O,7 and their contributions are generally marginal. Emissions of refrigerant fluids (air conditioning, refrigeration for foodstuffs) are also taken into consideration. For more information, refer to the relevant section in this document (cf. §3 on non-energy emissions). 2.2 Fossil fuels The term fossil fuels refer to all products, crude or refined, derived from petroleum, natural gas and coal. The emission factors given here are designed to calculate GHG emissions from data that are readily available for the reporting company or audited site (tons of coal, kWh of gas, litres of gasoline, etc.). All uses of fossil energy are covered: heating, firing of industrial ovens and furnaces, power for stationary or mobile machinery, etc. They are also used, in the framework of this method, to obtain emission factors applicable to other categories of items (use of means of transport, production of primary materials, etc.).

6 Methane may be emitted during combustion in the event of incomplete oxidation; this is notably the case for biomass fires, but is generally not significant for hydrocarbon combustion in a motor. 7 N2O is one of the nitrogen oxides formed during combustion using air as the oxidant. Oxygen and nitrogen combine in various forms, of which N2O.

Bilan Carbone TM



We propose two sets of emission factors:

- "comprehensive" values that comprise most upstream emissions (for example: refining, transport), also known as "well to tank" emissions.

- values that cover only in situ combustion may be used in conjunction with certain extractions8.

To keep the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet to a reasonable size, emission factors are expressed in a limited number of energy units, those that are most commonly used. Basic rules for conversion of units are included for cases where data are available only in units not directly useable in the spreadsheet. Notice: The fossil fuel emission factors given below (see § 2.2.3 to 2.2.5) largely stems from a recent ministerial circular, composed in the framework of the transposition of the "allowed emissions” directive. This circular proposes emission factors for fuels (solid, liquid or gaseous) that differ in some % from those that were in force in the preceding Version n°3 of the Bilan CarboneTM. The values of this circular were resumed in the present guide for harmonisation purposes, and to avoid all hesitation regarding the value to employ (the difference remains inferior to the uncertainty on the factors). On the other hand, the fuel factors below are not those used to calculate the transportation emission factors (§ 4 of the present document). The latter were adjusted with the fuel emission factors in force in Version n°3 and were not modified in this version, due to a lack of time. This probably resulted in a difference of some %, by order of magnitude, with the transportation factors that would take the values below into account - if they are less than the uncertainty on the transportation factors. This does not at all disturb the approaches by order of magnitude and harmonisation will be carried out for the next version. 2.2.1 Gross heating value and nett heating value All fossil fuels contain carbon and hydrogen in variable quantities. Combustion of these fuels therefore always produces CO2 and water vapour. Due to the presence of steam, there are two ways to measure the energy available per fuel unit: gross heating (calorific) value and nett heating (calorific) value. The heating value of a fuel is the amount of heat, expressed in kWh or MJ, released by complete combustion of one cubic meter of gas at a constant pressure of 1,01325 bar. The initial temperature of the gas and air is 0°C, and all combustion products are cooled to 0°C.

8 Extraction is the possibility to reduce the investigation fields. The latter are taken into account according to the extraction detailed in the "Bilan Carbone® Methodological Manual" and the "User’s Manual of the Bilan Carbone.xls Spreadsheet"..

Bilan Carbone TM



As at around 0°C water may be in a gaseous state or may be a liquid, there are two heating values, depending on the state of the water released by combustion:

- When the water formed during combustion is maintain ed in a gaseous state (steam) the heat measured corresponds to nett heating value.

- When the water formed during combustion is converte d to a liquid (all other products remaining in a gaseous state), the heat measured corresponds to gross heating value.

The difference between gross and nett heating value lies in the fact that gross heating value includes the energy released by condensation9 of water after combustion (called latent heat), and the figure for nett heating value does not. In most boiler plants, flue gases are evacuated without condensation of the water, because condensation boilers that exploit this latent heat are relatively recent. With this in mind, when the literature does not specify whether available figures are for gross or nett heating value, they are assumed by default to be nett values. Of course, this assumption should be checked whenever possible. Passage from nett to gross heating value (or the opposite) depends on the amount of steam in combustion products, and thereby on the proportion of hydrogen in the fuel; therefore it is not constant for all fuels.

Liquid and gaseous fuels Gross/nett heating value

ratio

Source

Natural gas 1,11 www.thermexcel.com LPG 1,09 www.thermexcel.com Gasoline 1,08 Author's extrapolation Diesel fuel, home heating oil 1,07 www.thermexcel.com Heavy fuel oil 1,06 www.thermexcel.com Coal 1,05 www.thermexcel.com

Table 1: Gross/nett heating value ratio for liquid and gaseous fuels

For natural gas, for example, 1 kWh gross heating value is equal to 1,11 kWh nett heating value. The means that the emission factor per unit of energy increases by 11% when passing from gross to nett heating value (or inversely, decreases by 11% when going from nett to gross heating value). 2.2.2 Conversion table for energy units The table below recaptures the units used to measure energy (toe10, tce11, Joules, kWh nett heating value, BTU12, m3 of gas, tons of wood13) and states the equivalences between the different units. 9 Condensation is the changeover from a gas to a liquid state. 10 toe: ton oil equivalent. 11 tce: ton coal equivalent.

Bilan Carbone TM



Units conversion

toe tce Joule

kWh nett heating value BTU m3 of gas ton of wood 20%

toe 1 1,43 4,20 E+10 11 667 39 808 351 1 200 2,99 tce 0,697 1 2,93 E+10 8 136 27 759 690 837 2,09

Joule 2,38 E-11 3,41 E-11 1 2,78 E-07 0,000948 2,86 E-08 7,12 E-11 kWh nett

heating value 8,57 E-05 1,23 E-04 3,60 E+06 1 3 412 0,10 2,56 E-04 BTU 2,51 E-08 3,60 E-08 1 055 0,00029 1 3,01 E-05 7,51 E-08

m3 de gaz 0,00083 0,00120 3,50 E+07 9,7 33 174 1 0,00249 t wood

20% 0,334 0,479 1,40 E+10 3 900 13 307 363 401 1

Table 2: Equivalences between the energy measuring units

The toe line of the above table lists the equivalent of one ton oil equivalent (toe) in ton coal equivalent (tce), Joules, kWh nett heating value, BTU, m3 of gas, and in tons of wood. 2.2.3 Liquid fuels Notice: all values given below refer to nett heating value. 2.2.3.1. Emissions linked to combustion of liquid f uels The basic data available to us have been obtained from the following organizations: ADEME14, Observatoire de l'Energie15, Comité Professionnel du Pétrole (CPDP)16, the French Environment and Sustainable Development Ministry17 and the European Commission18. The information contained in these publications enables us to derive GHG emission factors for various energy units, or to establish equivalencies. The values retained are as follows: 12 BTU: British Thermal Unit. 13 20% humidity content. 14 ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'émission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles (see Appendix 3). 15 DGEMP, Observatoire de l'Energie, L'énergie en France, Repères, Edition 2005, and website http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm 16 CPDP, 2005, Circulaire n°9642, Masses volumiques 20 06. 17 ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'émission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles(see Appendix 3). 18 Commission Directive 1999/100/EC of 15 December 1999, adapting to technical progress of the Council Directive 80/1268/EEC relating to the carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption of motor vehicles (standardised measurement of CO2 emissions).

Bilan Carbone TM



Source d'énergie kg équivalent carbone par tonne

kg équivalent carbone par

kWh

kg équivalent carbone par tep

PCI

kg équivalent carbone par

litre

Liquid petroleum gas - GP

Premium gasoline (ARS, SP95, SP98)

19

876 0,072 836 0,661

Diesel oil 859 0,074 859 0,726

Domestic fuel oil 859 0,074 859 0,726

Heavy fuel oil 851 0,077 893 0,851

Crude oil 836 0,072 836 0,726

Aviation Fuel20 852 0,073 848 0,682

Table 3: Emission factors for liquid fuels

These values pertain only to the combustion phase of the hydrocarbon fuels, and do not take upstream emissions into account, i.e. the emissions of the industry that produces them from primary materials. The emissions not covered in the above values are emissions due to the extraction, transport and refining of these fuels, as the case may be. 2.2.3.2. Upstream emissions for liquid fuels Upstream emissions for liquid fuels are those that occur during extraction and transport of crude oil, whether by ship or by pipeline, and during refining, the most emissions-intensive segment of the chain. A document published in 200121 by the Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) gives "well to tank" emissions for these fuels, when they are obtained from standard crude oil. These data are expressed in grams of CO2 per MJ of final energy, converted here to kg of carbon equivalent per ton oil equivalent, and then to kg carbon equivalent per ton.

Emissions related to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude oil

Gasoline or diesel fuel

LPG

Grams CO2 per MJ 13 9 kg C eq per toe 148 103 kg C eq per ton 155 113

Table 4: Emissions due to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude oil (IFP, 2001)

19 Equivalent to gasoline. 20 Equivalent to home heating oil. 21 Evaluation des émissions de CO2 des filières énergétiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants à partir de ressources fossiles, IFP report 55 949, April 2001, page 44.

Bilan Carbone TM



In the absence of more specific data, we have correlated this supplementary factor to the per unit (nett heating value) emission factor. In the present case emissions from extraction, transport and refining represent more than 15% of final energy (i.e. energy available in the fuel tank) for diesel oil and gasoline, and 13% for LPG. Incidentally, it is important to point out that LPG is for the time being what oil companies call a refinery byproduct, i.e. an oil fraction inevitably produced during refining operations, in small quantities. If more refineries were to be built specifically to produce LPG and stimulate use of this fuel, its upstream carbon balance would be much less positive. The following figures are given in a publication on refinery emissions issued by the French Industry Ministry (Direction Générale de l'Energie et des Matières Premières, DGEMP):

Refined products Intrinsic carbon content (source: MEDD) kg C eq per ton

Carbon content linked to energy consumption for refining

(source: DGEMP) kg C eq per ton

Total carbon content

kg C eq per ton

LPG 803 90 893 Gasoline 876 88 964 Aviation fuel 852 18 870 Heavy fuel oil 851 56 907 Home heating oil and diesel oil

859 31 890

Table 5: Emission factors for refinery energy cons umption

(DGEMP – 2002) As we do not have the full information needed to establish a "well to tank" carbon assessment for all types of fuels, the following method of estimation is proposed:

- for gasoline, complete upstream-emissions information is available, amounting to 155 kg C eq per ton, from well to tank, and 88 kg C eq per ton for refinery alone (IFP, 2001). Emissions "from well to refinery" are thus equal to 67 kg C eq per ton of gasoline.

- IFP and CEREN22 figures for LPG cannot be compared, as the two groups use different methods for assigning refinery emissions. However this affects only a very small fraction of refinery products.

- lastly, "well to refinery" emissions are available for the oil industry as a whole, given in the table below (IFP, 2001):

22 Energy by products, CEREN study for ADEME, 1999.

Bilan Carbone TM



Petroleum extraction and transport emission factors Extraction (g CO2/MJ) 2,82 Transport (g CO2/MJ) 2,40

Total (g CO2/MJ) 5,22 Total (kg C eq per toe) 59,6 Total (kg C eq per ton) 61,4

Table 6: Petroleum extraction and transport emissi on factors

The value of 61,4 kg C eq/ton is fairly close to that obtained by subtracting refinery emissions of 88 kg C eq (DGEMP/CEREN) from the upstream total of 148 kg C eq per ton (IFP, 2001), i.e. 60 kg C eq per ton. We retain this value of 61 kg C eq/ton for extraction plus transport emissions for all types of liquid fuels derived from petroleum. Extraction and transport costs can be considered to be the same for all fuel types, to the extent that the fuels cannot be distinguished prior to separation by refining, and in both cases the energy expenditure is proportional to weight, in the first approximation. Using this approach we arrive at the values summarized in the tables below:

Combustion emissions

Refinery emissions

Upstream extraction and

transport

Total emissions

% of additional emissions

compared to combustion

alone Unit kg C eq

per ton kg C eq per ton

kg C eq per ton

kg C eq per ton

Petroleum 836 61,4 898 7,3%

Table 7: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emissi on factors and

combustion emissions factors for petroleum (IFP, 2001)

Combustion emissions

Refinery emissions

Upstream extraction and

transport emissions

Total emissions

Percentage of additional emissions

compared to combustion

alone Source MEDD CEREN IFP

Unit kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton Fuel type LPG 803 90 61 954 18,8% Gasoline 876 88 61 1025 17,0% Aviation fuel 852 18 61 931 9,3% Heavy fuel oil 851 56 61 968 13,7% Diesel oil 859 31 61 951 10,7%

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 8: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emissi on factors and

combustion emission factors according to fuel type

By extrapolating these new per-ton values to other coefficients (per toe, per kWh, per litre) and using MEDD figures for combustion alone as the reference value, we ultimately obtain the following figures for overall emissions, that is including upstream emissions.

Energy resource kg carbon equivalent per ton

kg carbon equivalent per

kWh

kg carbon equivalent per toe

(nett heating value)

kg carbon equivalent per

litre

Liquid petroleum gas (LPG)

954 0,075 871 0,513

Premium gasoline (ARS, SP95, SP98)

23

1 025 0,084 978 0,774

Diesel oil 951 0,082 951 0,804 Home heating oil 951 0,082 951 0,804 Heavy heating oil 968 0,087 1 016 0,968 Crude oil 898 0,077 898 0,779

Aviation fuel 24

931 0,080 926 0,745

Table 9: Conversion of global emission factors (up stream + combustion) according to fuel type

It can thus be observed that when upstream emissions are integrated, diesel fuel, gasoline and kerosene are comparable in terms of emissions per unit of final energy. The spreadsheet makes a distinction between on-site combustion emissions and upstream emissions. 2.2.3.3. Uncertainty As explained in §1 above, all emission factors are assigned an uncertainty figure. In the present case we have assigned an uncertainty range of only 5% to the emission factors, because the processes are relatively standardized, the combustion fuels are well known, and worldwide averages have been calculated for intermediate expenditures. 2.2.4 Natural gas 2.2.4.1. Emissions linked to combustion of natural gas 23 Equivalent to gasoline. 24 Equivalent to kerosene or jet fuel.

Bilan Carbone TM



The ADEME and MEDD studies cited above give the following values for natural gas combustion emissions:

Energy resource

kg carbon equivalent per ton

kg carbon equivalent per kWh

kg carbon equivalent per toe (final energy)

Natural gas 771 0,056 653

Table 10: Emission factors for natural gas combust ion (ADEME, MEDD, 2005)

2.2.4.2. Upstream emissions for natural gas As for liquid fuels, emissions can be estimated for the upstream processes of extraction, transport and storage of natural gas. The IFP document quoted above presents the results of calculations for emissions linked to different stages in natural gas operations.

Stage g CO 2/MJ of final energy Extraction 1,9 Processing 1,6 Transport 2,2 TOTAL 5,7

Table 11: Emission factors for upstream natural ga s processes (IFP, 2001)

The figure of 5,7 g C eq per MJ is equivalent to 71 kg C eq per toe, i.e. 9% of emissions due to combustion alone (which come to 707 kg C eq per toe). This same source indicates that gas losses from transport and distribution networks in Europe amount to 0,35% of gas sold (p. 70). Losses in Russia are thought to be much higher (greater than 1%), but without knowing the shares to be assigned to capillary distribution and transport respectively, we cannot include losses for gas transport in Russia alone, for the gas imported from Russia for consumption in France. It should not be forgotten that losses of 1% (i.e. 10 kg of gas per ton) raise gas combustion emissions by 10%, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Retaining the figure of 0,35% of losses, it is necessary to extract 1003,5 kg of natural gas for 1 000 kg of final consumption. This is the equivalent of adding 2,9% more emissions in CO2 equivalent25, compared to emissions for combustion alone, meaning that total upstream emissions represented 12,9% of combustion emissions.

Combustion Extraction Processing Transport

Transport and

distribution

Total emissions

% of additional emissions

compared to

25 Assuming a GWP of 23.

Bilan Carbone TM



network losses

combustion alone

Source CITEPA IFP

Emissions in kg C/GJ 16 0,518 0,436 0,600

% of gas consumed

100% 100% 100% 100% 0,35%

emissions in kg C eq/ton 771 25,702 21,644 29,760 21,95 870 12,85%

Table 12: Calculation of emission factors (upstrea m + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emissi on factors and

combustion emissions factors for natural gas

The following table gives the “overall” emissions.

Energy resource

kg carbon equivalent per ton

kg carbon equivalent per kWh

kg carbon equivalent per toe (final energy)

Natural gas 870 0,063 737

Table 13: Calculation of an overall emission facto r (upstream + combustion) for natural gas

2.2.4.3. Uncertainty As for liquid fuels, emission factors for natural gas are assigned a 5% uncertainty range. 2.2.5 Solid fuels Emission factors per unit of energy (CO2/GJ) and energy content per unit of weight (GJ/t) for the main solid fuels were published by the French Environment Ministry in 2005, and included in a note issued by ADEME.26 The data given in the table below are for solid fuels from fossil resources:

Type of fuel

Energy content per ton (GJ nett heating value)

Emission factor (kg CO 2/GJ nett heating value)

Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95

Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95 Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) 26 96

Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) 32 95

Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) 17 100

Lignite briquettes 17 98

Hard-coal coke 28 107

26 ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'émission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles (see Appendix 3).

Bilan Carbone TM



Lignite coke 17 108

Petroleum coke 32 96

Peat 11,6 110

Shale 9,4 106

Old tyres 26 85

Plastic 23 75

Naphtha 45 73

Table 14: Mass energy and associated CO 2 emissions

The values below can be derived from this table:

Type of fuel

Energy per unit mass (GJ/t)

kg CO2/GJ nett heating

value

kg C eq/kWh nett

heating value

kg C eq per ton

kg C eq per toe

nett heating value

Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95 0,093 674 1 082

Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95 0,093 674 1 082 Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) 26 96 0,094 681 1 093

Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) 32 95 0,093 829 1 082

Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) 17 100 0,098 464 1 139

Lignite briquettes 17 98 0,096 454 1 116

Hard-coal coke 28 107 0,105 817 1 219

Lignite coke 17 108 0,106 501 1 230

Petroleum coke 32 96 0,094 838 1 093

Peat 11,6 110 0,108 348 1 253

Shale 9,4 106 0,104 272 1 207

Old tyres 26 85 0,083 603 968

Plastic 23 75 0,074 470 854

Naphtha 45 73 0,072 896 831

Table 15: Mass energy and CO 2 emissions pour unit energy for solid fossil fuels

Note: A more complete list of fuels together with emission factors per mass unit or energy unit is available in Appendix 11. The IFP document27 quoted above also includes an analysis of emissions linked to extraction and transport of coal for France, taking into consideration that most coal imports are shipped by sea.

Stage g CO 2/MJ of final energy Extraction energy 1,1 CH4 losses (in CO2 eq) CO2) 4,3 Transport 2,2 TOTAL 7,6

Table 16: Upstream emission factors for solid fuels 27 Source: Evaluation des émissions de CO2 des filières énergétiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants à partir de ressources fossiles, IFP report 55 949, April 2001, page 71.

Bilan Carbone TM



The figure of 7,6 grams CO2 equivalent per MJ of final energy represents 86,3 kg C equivalent per toe, i.e. 7,7% of final energy. Given the low emissions linked to transport alone, this factor will not change much for a site located in a country with its own domestic coal industry, not requiring long-distance transport. In fact coal quality has a much greater impact on emissions per toe. In the absence of specific data for other solid fuels, we apply the same supplementary percentage of roughly 8% of combustion emissions, to account for upstream processes. Old tyres and plastic are exceptions, because combustion of these fuels constitutes energy recovery from waste, for which by convention production emissions are nil.

TYPE OF FUEL

kg C eq/kWh

nett heating value

kg C eq per ton

kg C eq per toe

nett heating value

Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 0,101 728 1 169

Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 0,101 728 1 169 Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) 0,102 735 1 181

Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) 0,101 895 1 169

Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) 0,106 501 1 230

Lignite briquettes 0,104 491 1 205

Hard-coal coke 0,113 882 1 316

Lignite coke 0,115 541 1 328

Petroleum coke 0,102 905 1 181

Peat 0,117 376 1 353

Shale 0,112 293 1 304

Naphtha 0.077 968 898

Table 17: Overall emission factors (upstream + comb ustion) for solid fuels, other than waste-to-energy fuels

As the standard deviation from averages is greater for coal than for refined liquid fuels, we apply an uncertainty range of 20% for this standard factor. Naturally users of the tool can always add a line with the emission factor that is best suited to their circumstances. 2.2.6 Plastics used as fuel Plastic is sometimes used as fuel, in particular in heating facilities that burn household waste. See section 7.2.2 for the values used, knowing that upstream transport (4 kg C eq per ton) is excluded from the without upstream emissions value. Insofar as burning plastic creates value from waste, manufacturing emissions are not imputed to the user's carbon balance.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.3 Bioenergy 2.3.1 Biofuels 2.3.1.1 Definitions The Biofuels category includes solids of animal or plant origin that can be burned to provide heat from combustion (for direct use of thermal energy, or with cogeneration of electricity). Today these fuels derived from plants (or less frequently animals) and used in boilers are mainly byproducts or waste products of agriculture, forestry or industrial activities: wood (bark, sawdust, scraps), straw, seeds, pits, rice hulls, bagasse28, etc. Several production chains are being developed to supply energy: wood chips, pellets (compacted sawdust), energy crops (grains, etc.). 2.3.1.2 Gases covered by emission factors As explained in the methodological guide, greenhouse gas inventories are intended to represent how human activity disturbs natural greenhouse gas cycles. It is the supplementary greenhouse effect caused by accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere due to human activity that must be measured. Supplementary emissions occur when a human action or activity creates a flux of gases into the atmosphere, without a counteracting flux that removes them from the atmosphere. When an organic compound is burned, one of two typical cases will arise:

- The burned biomass is not replaced, and emissions should be counted.

- The burned biomass is replaced in the course of the year or shortly thereafter, and emissions do not need to be counted, because they are compensated by ensuing new biomass growth. The second situation applies when annual crops are used. For example, burning straw from year N is compensated by straw grown in year N+1. This reasoning holds for fuel wood (and wood products) from forests that are properly managed, where the quantities cut annually are equal to or less than new biomass produced during the year29, so that the equation "combustion + growth" at least zeroes out (if the balance is in favor of plant growth, the forest is a carbon sink). This biomass CO2, integrated into the carbon cycle of forested and agricultural lands, does not contribute to the

28 Bagasse is a woody residue of sugar cane, and is used in power plants located in tropical sugar-producing countries, where it substitutes approximately 33% of the coal used. 29 Called "annual growth" in forestry.

Bilan Carbone TM



greenhouse effect as long as the cycle is balanced, that is as long as photosynthesis compensates for emissions caused by exploitation of biomass and its combustion. This condition is attested for wooded and forested areas in France, that are sustainably managed and renewed (forest areas has increased by 0,4% annually over the last decade; wooded areas has increased by 50% since the late 19th century30). The cycle is also respected for agricultural crops that are renewed annually, as explained above. As the organic fraction of Biofuels does not generate CO2 emissions that need to be included in carbon accounts, the emission factors for Biofuels are based on:

- gases other the CO2 emitted during combustion (for example CH4),

- GHG emissions in the course of fuel production (manufacture of fertilizer, if any, mechanical and/or thermal treatment of harvested crops, wood, etc.)

- GHG emissions linked to fuel transport. Calculations demonstrate that the greenhouse impact of on-site CH4 emissions is negligible compared to that of other emissions during the fuel cycle (3,2 g / GJ31). Therefore the carbon-equivalent content of biomass fuel is limited to:

- GHG emissions linked to fuel production,

- GHG emissions linked to fuel transport, 2.3.1.3 Emission factors The calculations of GHG emission factors for Biofuels are for the most part based on two studies very recently published by ADEME32. 2.3.1.3.1 Coproducts and byproducts used on-site This first category includes all coproducts and byproducts of the site's activity or the company's activity that are used on-site. Typical cases are wood and food processing companies that generate bark, sawdust, wood scraps or plant waste which are burned in a boiler to meet on-site needs for heat or steam. In these examples of very short byproduct reprocessing chains, the emission factor is taken to be nil. This assumption is in keeping with observations made in analyses of the wood industry33.

30 DGEMP, Observatoire de l'Energie website pages on biomass - www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm 31 ADEME – Bio Intelligence Service / Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005. 32 ADEME – Bio Intelligence Service / Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005; And : ADEME / Bilan énergie et effet de serre des filières céréales / 2006. 33 ADEME – Bio Intelligence Service, Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.3.1.3.2 Coproducts or byproducts directed to a su pply chain This second category includes process coproducts that are not used on-site, but are transformed and sent to another site. In this case, transformation and transport generate emissions to be included in the balance. The following table lists the main Biofuels in this category (corresponding to the major supply chains currently emerging in France) and their emission factors.

Definition Energy content Emission factor

Factor for transformation

stage

Factor for transport stage

Bark, sawdust, ground-up industrial waste (pallets, crates, etc.)

3,3 MWh GHV / ton at 30% humidity

1,2 kg C eq / MWh GHV



Wood chips (from forestry slash)


4 kg C eq / MWh GHV



Straw (grain stalks) 4,2 MWh GHV / ton at 10% humidity

14 kg C eq / MWh GHV



Table 18: Principal Biofuels and their emission fa ctors (ADEME, 2005 et ADEME, 2006)

These assumptions are explained in detail in the literature cited in the bibliography. Here we recall the two main principles:

- Production sites are generally located between 50 to 100 km from boiler sites.

- The impacts of the different phases of straw cultivation have been allocated on a per-mass basis.

2.3.1.3.3 Biofuels from dedicated crops Some Biofuels are the main product targeted by a supply chain, and not simply a coproduct or unavoidable byproduct of some other production process. This is the case for short-rotation coppicing (SRC), pluriannual plantations of poplar, willow or eucalyptus, miscanthus, triticale (a rustic cereal plant) or sorghum crops. The (solid) fuels are found in the form of grains, chips, and ground-up whole plants. In the absence of detailed information for this type of dedicated crop (notably the technical pathways of agricultural and forestry production), an average emission factor is adopted, based on wood chips and straw.

Definition Energy content Emission factor

Factor for transformation

stage

Factor for transport stage

Dedicated crops (SRC, annual crops)


9 kg C eq / MWh GHV



Table 19: Emission factors for Biofuels from dedic ated crops (ADEME, 2005)

Bilan Carbone TM



These orders of magnitude are consistent with calculations carried out by ADEME for triticale (ADEME, 2006). 2.3.2 Liquid Biofuels 2.3.2.1 Definition Liquid Biofuels are obtained from plant feedstocks. At present there are two major types of industrially produced Biofuels:

- alcohols

- products derived from vegetable oils. 2.3.2.1.1 Bioethanol production Bioethanol is produced by fermentation of sugars or starches, which in France come mainly from beets and cereals. This alcohol can be blended with gasoline and used without technical modification of vehicle engines, in proportions of up to 5% by volume, and up to 7,5% if the ethanol is first converted with petroleum-based isobutene to ethyl tertio-butyl ether (ETBE). ETBE blends can reach 15% by volume. Bioethanol can also be used in so-called "flexible fuel" vehicles that are adapted to accept 85%-ethanol–15%-gasoline blends (E85). In reality, the blending proportions of ethanol and gasoline for these flex-fuel vehicles are variable, allowing some leeway for motor-fuel supply. 2.3.2.1.2 Vegetable oils The other feedstock for Biofuels is vegetable oil, obtained from pressing oilseed plants, mainly rape and sunflower. Transesterification with methanol or ethanol yields vegetable oil methyl ester (VME), a product that can be blended with diesel fuel. Variants of this process are being developed to use ethanol to obtain vegetable oil ethyl ester, or to achieve esterification of fatty acids from animal feedstocks. Esters are allowed in diesel fuel blends, up to 5% in volume, without modification of current diesel engines, and can go as high as 30%. Esters must comply with the specifications of European standard (NF) EN 14214. 2.3.2.2 Emission factors 2.3.2.2.1 Principle We apply the same principles as in §2.3.1.2 to calculate emission factors, as there is no particular reason to differentiate between liquid, solid and gaseous organic fuels.

Bilan Carbone TM



As the liquid Biofuels used in Europe are derived exclusively from annual crops34, the life-cycle analyses carried out for emission factors consider only methane and nitrous oxide emissions of combustion, which are generally negligible, in addition to emissions pertaining to farming, processing and distribution of the energy crops. 2.3.2.2.2 Default values Published emission factors for liquid Biofuels vary by a factor of four from one study to another35, although they remain within the same order of magnitude.

- Alcohol/ether Biofuels: 20 to 80 g CO2 eq/ MJ

- Oil/ester Biofuels 10 to 40 g CO2 eq/ MJ In the absence of a specific value for the case being studied, the default values used are taken from work done by ADEME/DGEMP/Ecobilan in 2002 (Bilans énergétiques et gaz à effet de serre des filières de production de biocarburants en France). Emission factor per MJ Emission factor per kg Before combustion Bioethanol 34 g CO2 eq / MJ 9,3 g C eq / MJ 912 CO2 eq / kg 249 g C eq / kg VME (rapeseed) 20,2 g CO2 eq / MJ 5,5 g C eq / MJ 755 CO2 eq / kg 206 g C eq / kg After combustion Bioethanol 34 g CO2 eq / MJ 9,3 g C eq / MJ 912 CO2 eq / kg 249 g C eq / kg VME (rapeseed) 23,7 g CO2 eq / MJ 6,5 g C eq / MJ 888 CO2 eq / kg 242 g C eq / kg

Table 20: Emission factors for liquid Biofuels (AD EME/DGEMP, 2002)

Two distinct emission factors are given for VME, before and after combustion. VME is obtained by transesterification of vegetable oil and methanol, and the latter is currently derived from natural gas. VME therefore contains a non-organic carbon fraction, which is released during combustion. This is not the case for Bioethanol, where all the carbon is organic. Using the above values we obtain the following factors, making a distinction between values including "upstream" emissions, and a value for combustion only, called "without upstream": Emission factor per kWh Emission factor per ton without upstream with upstream without upstream with upstream Bioethanol 0 33 g C eq 0 249 kg C eq VME (rapeseed) 3,6 g C eq 23 g C eq 36 kg C eq 242 kg C eq

Table 21: Bilan Carbone™ emission factors for liqui d Biofuels

34 This statement is not true for oil palms, which are an annual crop; there is also a methodological difficulty in this case, if the palm trees were planted on a plot of land that was first cleared (usually by burning the vegetation present). 35 ADEME – BG – EPFL / Bilan environnemental des filières végétales pour la chimie, les matériaux et l’énergie / 2004.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.3.2.3 Systematic blending with gasoline and diese l fuel Fiscal incentives have been adopted to encourage oil company and distributors to gradually incorporate Biofuels into gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2004 the motor fuels sold included 0,42% ethanol and 0,95% esters, in nett heating value. The goal is to boost this proportion to 5,75% in 2008, and 7% in 2010. By blending Biofuels with fossil fuels, a little bit of Biofuel is consumed by each vehicle fuelled in France, without having to modify the engines. The inclusion of ETBE and VME in standard fuels calls for no particular correction of Bilan Carbone™ emission factors. This inclusion is already encompassed in the calculation of emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuel by the Observatoire de l'Energie, and adopted in Bilan Carbone™. Above and beyond the systematic and user-independent consumption of Biofuels, heavier use of Biofuels can be achieved by choosing certain types of vehicles or modifying of existing engines. This is the case for flexible technologies (varying proportions of ethanol and gasoline used in the same vehicle), and use of VME in captive fleets. In the case of flexible-fuel technology, simply apply the ethanol emission factor to the amount of ethanol consumed. This technology concerns mainly light vehicles, and is already marketed in Brazil, Canada, Sweden and the United States. In case of captive fleets, standard diesel blends usually include only a small proportion, a few %, of VME. This proportion can be as high as 30% by volume, without necessitating modification of fuel injection and engine operation parameters. The Biofuel proportion can voluntarily be increased for captive fleets: buses, trucks, utility vehicles, even trains. Diesel blends incorporating more than 50% VME require technical modifications. In these cases apply the appropriate emission factor to each fuel component (VME and diesel fuel). 2.4 Electricity 2.4.1 Preliminary remarks Whether in a coal-fired plant or a nuclear power plant, with a windmill or a hydropower dam, electricity is always generated from a primary energy resource (petroleum, natural gas, nuclear fuel, solar energy, etc.). Ideally it would be necessary to consider the following, in order to calculate the carbon-equivalent content of a kWh of electricity supplied to a consumer:

- primary energy used to generate a kWh of power plant output,

Bilan Carbone TM



- upstream emissions tied to making this primary energy available for use at the power plant,

- emissions engendered by construction of the production apparatus (whether it be a mass-production plant or a solar panel),

- line losses if electrical power is not produced on-site, because this lost energy itself caused emissions.

Electricity is generated using primary energy resources that vary a great deal from one country in Europe to another (see appendix 1). As a result, the average GHG content of a kWh of power plant output is highly variable from one country to the next. In addition, there may be several power producers within a single country who use different primary resources, and therefore sell electricity with different GHG content values. In Britain, for instance, depending on the producer, emissions per kWh of power output will be nearly nil (British Energy, that has only nuclear power plants) or among the highest in Europe (Innogy, that possesses mainly coal-fired plants). As these different national electricity producers are often all connected to the same grid, it is not easy to determine the provenance of a kWh hour of grid power. In France there is only one major electricity producer, but in other countries there may be several. In these countries, while some customers who can choose their supplier know which company they buy electricity from, the same is not necessarily true for "non-eligible" customers (including individuals) who use grid power that draws electricity from different domestic or foreign producers, in proportions that vary over time. Lastly, different power plants are in use at different times of the year, and at different times of the day. For example in France, nuclear plants cannot easily shut down at a few minutes' notice, whereas hydropower dams and coal-or gas-fired plants are much easier to shut down or start up rapidly. In these circumstances, it is the fossil-fuel plants (coal, heavy heating oil, gas) that cause CO2 emissions, and the average CO2 content of a kWh of grid electricity in France will vary significantly, as the high-GHG emitting plants (using coal, oil or natural gas) are brought on or taken off line. Moreover, any increase in electricity consumption resulting from a substitution in energy (electrification for example), would most probably be translated by an increase of the CO2 contents of kWh, in view of the production means that could be mobilized quickly (mainly thermo plants). The CO2 contents proposed in the Bilan CarboneTM are thus relevant for a current evaluation, but should be used with precaution for any future prospective. In the latter situation, the hypotheses assumed for consumed electricity emissions will have to be clarified clearly.

Bilan Carbone TM



This method proposes emission factors appropriate for the cases which are the most common.

- grid power without a designated producer company for most countries in Europe,

- electricity purchased from EDF for eligible clients, with or without specification of the month of purchase,

- electricity explicitly purchased from another European electricity supplier for eligible clients, expressed as an average annual figure only,

- electricity for certain renewable sources. It should be noted that, excepting in §2.4.5, the emission factors given below do not take distribution losses into account 36, and do not include amortization of plant installations for European producers (§2.4.3). Emission factors correspond to the generating plant(s) used to supply the customer, and are not necessarily limited to plants located in the customer's country. Generally speaking there is a broad geographic correlation (for the most part the kWh supplied by EDF to its customers in France are produced in plants in France), but there can be exceptions, notably when a small French producer serves as a local backup for a much larger producer outside of France. 2.4.2 Grid electricity Grid power refers to electricity from power mains consumed by a customer in a given country without contracting with a specific power producer for electricity to be supplied exclusively by that producer37. All individual customers, and all so-called non-eligible customers, are consumers of grid power. Emission factors per kWh of grid power reflect the types of primary energy used to produce the electricity for the grid in question, i.e. for the most part primary energy used by national producers, corrected for imports and exports. In France, the emission factor for one kWh of output has been calculated to be 23 grams C equivalent per kWh, in a life-cycle analysis38. Other values have been published more recently for emissions linked to primary energy consumption alone, but as the power pool in France is made up largely of nuclear electricity and hydropower, thus without any primary energy emissions, the corresponding emission factors are much lower. In our opinion the figure of 23 g C equivalent per kWh is closer to reality (excluding distribution losses) and we have decided to keep it until another life-cycle analysis is conducted. 36 Distribution losses from power plant to final low-voltage user is in the order of 10%. 37 Obviously, such contracts do not reflect a physical reality; they correspond to simultaneous production and consumption, at two points on the grid, of power of the same value. But it is highly unlikely that the electrons injected into the grid by the producer will wind up at the consumer's site! 38 Source: EDF (see Appendix 2 for more details).

Bilan Carbone TM



For other countries, figures from the GHG Protocol are used, which refer to International Energy Agency figures (reference year 2004).

Country kg carbon equivalent per kWh, in 2004

Electricity in France 0,023 Electricity in Germany 0,141 Electricity in Austria 0,056 Electricity in Belgium 0,073 Electricity in Denmark 0,091 Electricity in Spain 0,117 Electricity in Finland 0,069 Electricity in Greece 0,222 Electricity in Ireland 0,176 Electricity in Italy 0,139 Electricity in Luxembourg 0,083 Electricity in the Netherlands 0,120 Electricity in Portugal 0,137 Electricity in the United Kingdom 0,124 Electricity in Sweden 0,012 European average 0,096 Electricity in the United States 0,158 Electricity in Japan 0,115

Table 22: Emission factors for power production by country in 2004 39

In addition, while emission factors for a given producer may change rapidly, if the producer buys or sells a power plant, emission factors for grid electricity evolve much more slowly. Grid power reflects the output of the pool of plants located in a country, and the composition of this pool does not vary all at once from one year to the next. The values below are still fairly close to values for 2006. Inversely, what can change considerably from one year to the next is recourse to plants that generate electricity at times of peak consumption. In many European countries these are flame combustion thermal power plants, i.e. burning coal, gas or petroleum as primary fuel (but there are also hydroelectric dams). Nuclear plants, which supply around 30% of electricity in Europe, operate nearly continuously, providing "base" power supply. A shift from coal to gas can occur within just a few years. Given the slow pace of construction of new power plants and strong variation in the use of peak power plants from one year to the next, and the fact that the above figures date from 2004, the uncertainty range for these emission factors is set at 15%.

39 Data published by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Bilan Carbone TM



2.4.3 Emission factors by producer for European ele ctricity suppliers In October 2005 the firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers published an article40 on the "CO2 content" of the electricity supplied in 2004 by the main European electricity suppliers. These figures per kWh refer only to emissions linked to combustion in power plants; they are not the result of a life-cycle analysis (see appendix 2).

Name g

CO2/kWh Germany, EnBW 263 Germany, Eon 381 Germany, RWE 779 Austria, Verbund 133 Belgium, Electrabel 327 Denmark, Elsam 436 Denmark, Energi E2 678 Denmark, Elsam 436 Spain, Endesa 507 Spain, Hidrocantabrio 864 Spain, Iberdrola 179 Spain, Union Fenosa 593 Spain, Viesgo generacion 823 Finland, Fortum 187 Finland, PVO 280 France, EDF France 42 France, SNET 985 UK, British Energy 106 UK, Drax 833 UK, EDF Energy 812 UK, Eon UK 719 UK, RWE UK 681 UK, Scottish & Southern 524 Greece, DEI 1 015 Italy, Endesa Italia 550 Italy, Edison 569 Italy, ENEL 503 Norway, Statkraft 0 Netherlands, Essent 484 Portugal, EDP 475 Czech Republic, CEZ 575 Sweden/Germany, Vattenfall 410

Table 23: Emission factors CO 2/kWh by power supplier, Europe 2004 (PWC – ENERPRESSE, 2005)

40 Changement climatique et électricité. Facteur Carbone européen. Comparaison des émissions de CO2 des principaux électriciens européens, PWC and ENERPRESSE, November 2005 (data for 2004).

Bilan Carbone TM



The Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet also includes an emission factor for Compagnie Nationale du Rhône (CNR). CNR produces power from hydroelectric plants, for which the CO2 content per kWh is 0. As mentioned above, only power plant combustion emissions are taken into account here, and by definition hydroelectric plants, which convert hydraulic energy to electrical energy, use no combustion. By taking into account only plant combustion emissions, however, two sorts of under-estimations are introduced:

- for one, upstream emissions are not included for natural gas and coal, reducing the emission factor values by around 7% or 8%,

- secondly, construction of the production plants is not taken into account, reducing estimated emissions by 2 to 6 grams carbon equivalent, when the primary energy source contains "no carbon". As a reminder, hydropower and nuclear power represented respectively 14% and 32% of electricity production in Europe in 200441.

As with EDF, these emission factors are to be used only when an "eligible" client has contracted with a specific designated producer for power supply. These figures do not apply to grid electricity by country. We have likewise assigned an uncertainty range of 15%, with the same reservations as mentioned in §2.4.2. It should be noted that the European emissions trading directive, that requires electricity producers to publish their emissions figures, will make it much easier to obtain up-to-date information on per-kWh emission factors for all producers. 2.4.4 Intermittent and fatal renewable sources 2.4.4.1 General Information In order to take electricity production’s renewable sources into account, the method proposes zero emission factors for “in production”-emissions – ie the emissions from the use of primary energy being nil. The emissions taken into account are those upstream and peripheral: manufacture, installation, maintenance. The intermittency induced in the network is not considered and the volumes caused is weak for the moment. These emission factors are particularly used in the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheets intended for the local authorities.

41 Eurostat, 2005, Electricity statistics, Statistics in Brief, May 2005. It can be noted that wind power represented less than 0,1% of electricity supply in Europe.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.4.4.2 Wind power A recent and exhaustive LCA42 proposes for the more recently installed aero-generator model on sites in northern Europe an emission factor to the value of 1.3 g carbon equivalent per kWh for the wind on earth and 1.4 g for wind at sea. Since the emission factor is proportional to the assumption made about the annual load factor (i.e. the number of hour-equivalent where the wind mill turns to full power), it is proposed to keep to a sufficient safety coefficient to the value of 2 g carbon equivalent per kWh - ±50%. 2.4.4.3 Photovoltaic A recent and exhaustive LCA43 proposes an emission factor to the value of 8 to 13 g carbon equivalent per kWh for a complete photovoltaic system connected to the network. Extrapolated to the conditions of average sunshine periods in France it results in 15 g carbon per kWh. This value will be retained with an uncertainty of 30%. 2.4.5 Seasonal nature of electricity generated by E DF (producer) Starting in 2002, EDF decided to publish the monthly average of its GHG emissions per kWh, figures which are available practically in real time on its internet website44. This makes it possible to more accurately estimate emissions due to power consumption by eligible clients who have contracted with EDF, when monthly electricity consumption figures are available. A complete set of emission factors (calculated by life-cycle analysis) is available for 2005, and reproduced below.

Month g CO2 eq per kWh g C eq per kWh

January 2005 49 13,4 February 2005 73 19,9 March 2005 69 18,8 April 2005 52,8 14,4 May 2005 33,2 9,1 June 2005 41,3 11,3 July 2005 51,7 14,1 August 2005 28,3 7,7 September 2005 44,9 12,2 October 2005 50 13,6 NOVEMBER 2005 55,8 15,2 December 2005 71 19,4

Table 24: Monthly emission factors for EDF in 2005

42 "Life cycle assessment of offshore and offshore sited wind power based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines", Vestas, 2006 43 "Environmental impacts of crystalline silicon photovoltaic module production", Erik A. Alsema & colleagues, 2005 44 www.edf.fr

Bilan Carbone TM



These emission factors are listed in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet, and can be used for eligible clients who have explicitly contracted with EDF as electricity producer. As EDF emissions are well known, we have decided that uncertainty is less than 10% for the figures in Table 23. It is important to point out that in France EDF is both producer – ensuring around 95% of electricity produced in the country – and electricity supplier. Individual customers deal with EDF in this second capacity. In this case they are consuming grid electricity, sold by EDF, but combining EDF's own production with that of other domestic producers (SNET, Compagnie du Rhône, etc.) that EDF purchases. Individuals, or more generally customers who have not explicitly contracted with EDF as producer (in a contract stating that all the power provided comes from plants owned by EDF) cannot use for grid electricity the emission factors that apply only to EDF. 2.4.6 Factors broken down by usage for grid power i n France Power production in France relies on resources that are highly diverse in terms of GHG emissions per kWh of electricity generated.

Primary energy used

g C eq per kWh

GHG 100 to 130 Fuel oil 160 to 200 Coal 200 to 280 Hydropower 1 Nuclear power 2

Wind power45

2 to 10

Table 25: Emission factors for the different produ ction modes used for grid power in France

These different means are not exploited in the same fashion:

- Nuclear power plants operate all the time, but their output is modified slightly depending on the time of year or the time of day,

- Other resources (hydropower, flame-combustion thermal) are used essentially for peak needs (peak power consumption is consumption that is concentrated in a short period of time, typically household lighting in the morning and in the evening in winter).

Consequently the GHG content of a kWh varies considerably with the load curve. It is therefore tempting to try and assign the peak power production resources to the uses that trigger the need for peak power, if they can be clearly delimited, because peak

45 Wind power amounted to 0,03% of all electricity production in 2004. It is therefore not significant for calculating the emission factor, even marginal.

Bilan Carbone TM



resources are much more emissions-intensive in France (the same is not true in all countries: in Switzerland for example, peak power comes from hydropower, and use of these resources causes no extra emissions). Naturally, the corollary of this approach is that electricity consumption that is stable throughout the year is taken to be derived from nuclear power or river hydropower only, with a below-average GHG content. Work by ADEME46 along these lines gives the following emission factors (including transmission losses!).

(in gCO 2/kWh)

Detailed indicatorsReference

(average value)

heating and circulation pumps 180 129 to 261 180 Heatinghousehold lighting 116 93 to 151

teritary sector lighting 80 64 to 88

industrial and street lighting 109 85 to 134

household use: cooking 82 66 to 93household use: washing 79 63 to 88

household use: brown appliances 62 50 to 81

household use: other 52 41 to 77

industrial use (other than lighting) 55 38 to 86

household use: hot water 40household use: cooling 40household use: other 39tertiary sector use: air conditioning 37agriculture - transportation 38other (construction, research, military, etc.) 35

(en g de CO/kWh)

Simplified indicators

40

60

100 Lighting

Intermittentuse

"Baseline"use

For information:ranges of variation

20 to 72

Table 26: Emission factors for electricity usage i n France (g CO 2/kWh)

These emission factors by use for French grid power are used in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet intended for local authorities, in particular. 2.4.7 Standard consumption figures for the principa l residential electric appliances In order to estimate electricity consumption for a set of household appliances, it may be useful to know the average consumption measured for the most common types of appliances.

46 Source : Note de Cadrage sur le contenu CO2 du kWh par usage en France, ADEME, January 2005 (see Appendix 4).

Bilan Carbone TM



The suggested values are the following47:

Appliance Average annual consumption (kWh)

Refrigerator 365 Refrigerator-freezer 600 Freezer 615 American-type freezer 1 640 Clothes washing machine 250 Dishwasher 285 Clothes dryer 430 TV 160 VCR 122 Canal+ receiver 96 Dish antenna modem 80 Hi-Fi 35 Telephone answer machine 25 Telephone w/ built-in answer machine 45 Cordless telephone 23 Vacuum cleaner 18 Lighting 465 Halogen lamp 292 Iron 40 Poorly regulated wall water heater 400 Fish aquarium 800 Swimming pool pump 1 500 Controlled mechanical ventilation (individual unit) 311 Total kitchen electricity consumption 568 Oven 224 Cooker 457 Electric burners (cast-iron plates) 198 Vitro-ceramic burners 281 Induction plates 337 Electric burners (all types) 273 Microwave oven 60 Toaster oven 99 Coffee maker 31 Kettle 58 Deep fryer 11 Toaster 14 Steam cooker 15

Table 27: Standard consumption of household electr ic appliances

These consumption figures can be correlated with different "carbon contents" according to usage (for example lighting and refrigeration) to obtain "standard emissions" per appliance and per year.

47 These values are derived from the three publications by Olivier Sidler/Enertech (1996, 1999, 2000) cited in the bibliography.

Bilan Carbone TM



To compute emissions for a set of homes, an average ownership figure must be given for each appliance, and an emission factor for the "quality" of the electricity used (see §2.4.5 above). The default ownership rates in the spreadsheet correspond to national averages, and the carbon equivalents per kWh are derived from the studies cited in §2.4.5 above. Both are listed in the table below.

Appliance Default ownership rate in 2001

kg C eq per kWh (by default)

Refrigerator alone 49% 0,008 Refrigerator-freezer 56% 0,008 Freezer 47% 0,008 American-type freezer 5% 0,008 Clothes washing machine 90% 0,039 Dishwasher 39% 0,039 Clothes dryer 30% 0,039

TV48

137% 0,039

VCR49

50% 0,039

Canal+ receiver50

20% 0,039

Parabolic antenna modem 20% 0,039 Hi-Fi 50% 0,039

Telephone answering machine51

10% 0,039

Telephone with built-in answer machine 80% 0,039 Vacuum cleaner 90% 0,039 Lighting 100% 0,079 Iron 80% 0,039 Swimming pool pump 0% 0,039 Total kitchen electricity consumption 100% 0,039

Table 28: Emission factors for household electric appliances

2.4.8 Specific electricity consumption for a tertia ry service Data published by ADEME52 in 2005, using figures from CEREN, give average specific electricity consumption for 2003, all uses taken together, and broken down by specific type of use53. This data is given in the table below:

48 This percentage, exceeding 100%, reflects a multiple appliance ownership rate of 37%. 49 Source: INSEE, for VCRs and hi-fi equipment. 50 Calculated on the basis of 5 million subscribers for approximately 25 million households in France. A similar ownership rate is assumed for dish antennas. 51 Ownership rates for answer machines, telephones with answer machines, vacuum cleaners and irons are the author's personal estimates. 52 ADEME, 2005, Les chiffres clés du bâtiment, Energie – Environnement, 2005 Edition, page 84. 53 Specific electricity consumption refers to electricity use other than for heat and hot water.

Bilan Carbone TM



Activity Specific electricity consumption Electricity consumption – all uses

kWh/m² of surface area kWh/m² of surface area

Commercial buildings 126 243 Office space 121 283 Schools 16 131 Healthcare facilities 67 221 Cafés, hotels, restaurants 78 254 Average for all branches 83 222

Table 29: Average electricity consumption in 2003 b y branch of activity (all uses and broken down by specific uses) (ADEME, 2005)

2.4.9 Electricity transmission losses Transmission54 and distribution55 of electricity from the power plant to consumers lead to power losses due to the Joule effect. For a consumer of low-voltage power (220 volts) these losses amount to 10% of final electricity consumption, on average. In other words, when a consumer draws 1 kWh from the grid, the generating system has to inject 1,1 kWh. The emission factors supplied by producers generally refer to the GHG content for power leaving the plant. If this emission factor is applied directly to consumer electricity usage figures, line losses are not covered, whereas the electricity lost through the grid has indeed been produced. To obtain a good estimate of actual emissions, an extra 10% must be added back in to emissions calculated on the basis of final consumption and ex-plant emission factors. The percentage of losses is lower for medium and high-voltage power supplied to consumers, because most line losses occur during transmission of low-voltage current. Large industrial consumers of electricity should apply a more suitable coefficient for line losses if they receive medium-voltage electricity (a percentage of 3% seems reasonable). 2.4.10 Precautions to take within the framework of action plans Given the low emission factor of the electricity network in France, it will be tempting to consider in the action plans the transition to electricity usage currently provided by other energy sources (eg building an electric furnace for melting materials instead of a gas oven; replacing a gas-fired boiler with electricity heating, etc). In this case, it will be necessary to agree on an emission factor for the additional electricity that the 54 Classically, transmission refers to transport of electrical current over very high, high and medium-voltage networks ( >20 kV, roughly). 55 Distribution designates the "low voltage" segment of electrical current transport. Most losses occur in the distribution network.

Bilan Carbone TM



entity executing the Bilan CarboneTM will consume. Taking the actual emission factors per usage - calculated on a historical basis - for the electricity network’s additional consumption may seem obvious, but it is actually not that much.

In fact, except by realising savings elsewhere within the entity that does the Bilan CarboneTM or within other entities, such an action will increase the overall electricity consumption of the country. This then raises the question whether the additional resources that will be implemented emits CO2 identical to what is done currently or not, in a context of “liberalisation” of the energy markets. It therefore appears that the choice of an emission factor necessitates, all in good discipline, to speculate about the global consumption evolution, and about the additional means that will be implemented if the global consumption increases. Consequently, the possible substitution of fossil energy with electricity - in the framework of an action plan that follows a Bilan CarboneTM - must be accompanied by the careful reflection on the legitimate assumptions that can be made about electricity sources required in larger quantities. Without this precaution no overall reduction in CO2 emissions may be invoked. 2.5 Steam purchases 2.5.1 General information Steam purchased by a company has required use of various fuels by the supplier. This tool does not propose a default emission factor for steam, as the factor depends entirely on the fuel or fuels used by the producer. Steam-producing plants are often multi-fuel: coal, heavy fuel oil, natural gas and municipal solid waste (MSW) are used in varying proportions. As of 2005 the owners of district heating facilities – that continue to burn coal, fuel oil and gas, in part – are required to declare their emissions under the European emissions trading directive, making appropriate emission factors available for most of them. Tentatively, we give the emission factor below for steam supplied by the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU) in 2004, as an indication. 2.5.2 CPCU One form of space heating available in Paris is supplied by steam from the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU). To produce this steam, CPCU burns different fuels: coal, natural gas, fuel oil, municipal solid waste (MSW). CPCU also operates an incinerator in the Kremlin Bicêtre suburb of Paris, but the company's annual report for 2004 states that this facility does not recover incineration heat for

Bilan Carbone TM



energy use (p. 22) and therefore that the CPCU steam heating network is not supplied by energy recovered from household waste. Average emissions for all steam-producing sites are 308 g CO2 per kWh produced, or 84 g C per kWh (p. 23, CPCU 2004 annual report). For sites producing only steam the average is 306 g CO2 per kWh. Published data shows that one ton of CPCU steam contains 756 kWh, so that one ton of CPCU steam has emissions of 63,5 kg C eq. 2.5.3 Electricity transmission losses As for electricity (see §2.4.8) transmission losses occur during transport and distribution of steam from production facilities to consumers, due to the Joule effect. These losses amount to 10% of final steam consumption, on average. In other words, when a consumer draws 1 kWh from the grid, the production system has to inject 1,1 kWh. The emission factors supplied by producers generally refer to the GHG content for steam leaving the plant. If this emission factor is applied directly to consumer steam usage figures, line losses are not covered, whereas the steam lost through the grid has indeed been produced. To obtain a good estimate of actual emissions, an extra 10% must be added back in to emissions calculated on the basis of final consumption and ex-plant emission factors. This percentage for losses is not relevant if the emission factor is given for steam delivered to the building where it is consumed. In this case no coefficient need be applied for line losses. 2.6 Space heating without corresponding meter readi ngs 2.6.1 Tertiary-sector activities, non-electric heat ing For certain activities (notably office-based activities) information on fuel consumption for space heating may not be readily available, if for instance heating is supplied by an outside vendor. In this case the Bilan Carbone™ tool proposes an estimation method based on the number of m² heated and the type of energy used for heating. As a guide average the consumption per m² is indicated in the table below - according to the type of activity and the energy used for heating.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.6.1.1. Heating with fuel oil The Observatoire de l'Energie56 has published information on total consumption of fuel oil and total surface area; after division we obtain the following results:

Branch of activity Fuel oil (kWh/m 2)

Commercial buildings 197 Office space 248 Schools 161 Healthcare, social work 292 Other sectors 259

Table 30: Average heating fuel oil consumption per m2 heated, broken down by branch of activity (Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001 )

2.6.1.2. Heating with natural gas Two studies by CEREN (1990 and 2003) give indicators pertaining to use of natural gas for heating and hot water, broken down by average consumption activity as presented in the following table.

Average expenditure in kWh/m 2 – natural gas

Branch of activity Subcategory Heating + hot water Heating

Hot water

Altogether 184 177 7 <1000m² 198 191 7 Office space

>=1000m² 170 163 6 Altogether 120 108 12 Primary schools 174 157 17 Secondary schools 96 86 9 Schools

Higher education, research facilities 140 127 14 Altogether 174 134 41 Public hospitals 193 148 45 Private clinics 152 117 35

Healthcare facilities

Remainder 164 126 38 Altogether 152 142 10 Hyper and supermarkets (2) Small shops (1) 278 260 18

Commercial buildings

Large shops (2) Altogether 274 220 54 Restaurants 304 244 60 Drinking establishments 218 175 43

Cafés, hotels, restaurants

Hotels 253 203 50 (1) "Small shops" designates smaller than 500 m2. (2) Values for large retail stores will be forthcoming, based on work currently underway by PERIFEM.

56 Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001 edition, Tableaux des consommations d’énergie en France, page 89.

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 31: Average natural gas consumption for heat ing and hot water per m 2, broken down by branch of activity CEREN 1990-2003

2.6.1.3. Accounting for location and climate Average energy consumption for heating is variable, depending on location. The average energy consumption figures by branch of activity given above should be adjusted using a geographic location coefficient, to reflect the severity of the climate for specific locations. Correction coefficients and the associated geographic zones are given below.

Map 1 : Location of climatic zones

H1 H2 H3 Coeff climate 1,1 0,9 0,6

Table 32: Climate correction coefficient

If the altitude exceeds 800 meters within a given area, use a conventional coefficient of the above. Thus, housing situated more than 800 m in zone H2 will be considered as being in zone H1, and so on. The housing area located in H1 which is more than 800 meters above sea level may be assigned a coefficient H1, increased by 20%.

Bilan Carbone TM



2.6.2 Average residential consumption When applying the Bilan Carbone™ method to a local authority, it will be necessary to obtain an energy consumption estimate related to the heating of current residences within the local authority, without having access to energy meters and with only basic data on the number of homes, its types (apartment or house), and year of construction57. 2.6.2.1 Heating emission factors by primary residen ce The figures provided by CEREN to ADEME can lead to the following values classified by type of energy and type of housing58:

Table 33: French energy consumption average by fos sil energy and nature of housing per m 2 - heating only

In other words, a house heated with fuel oil before 1975 is assumed to have an average area of 106 m², and will consume on average 290 kWh per m² per year for heating.

57This information is available on the site of INSEE, under the heading "census"(see the spreadsheet manual for details on access to information tools). 58 Throughout this chapter the term "housing" is used to designate primary residences.

Final energy used and age of housing kWh/m2.yr - average Area average Natural gas, homes before 1975 201 105 Natural gas, homes after 1975 166 112 Natural gas, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating 207 66 Natural gas, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating 196 66 Natural gas, apartments < 1975, individual heating 146 71 Natural gas, apartments > 1975, individual heating 125 Fuel, homes before 1975 187 Fuel, homes after 1975 171 Fuel, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating 195 Fuel, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating 174 Fuel, apartments < 1975, individual heating 172 Fuel, apartments > 1975, individual heating 162 Coal, homes < 1975 290 Coal, homes > 1975 235 Coal, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating 211 Coal, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating 172 LPG, homes < 1975 139 LPG, homes > 1975 129 LPG, apartments < 1975 101 LPG, apartments > 1975 80 Urban heating, apartments < 1975 255 Urban heating, apartments > 1975 230

Bilan Carbone TM



The same source (CEREN) also gives the values for residences heated with electricity:

Electrical heating for housing kWh/m2.yr -

average Area average Homes before 1975 150 96 Homes after 1975 106 110 Apartments before 1975 98 49 Apartments after 1975 65 53

Table 34 : French energy consumption average by nature of hous ing per m 2 – electrical heating

Homes heated with electricity have much lower consumption compared to gas or fuel oil (2 times lower or more), due to the conjunction of several factors, described below:

- for gas and fuel oil, purchased energy is counted (the meter reading), but the efficiency of heating installations is a little more than 50% on average59, the rest of the energy resource goes up the chimney as combustion gases, or is dissipated as thermal losses from piping in the basement, and broadly speaking is "lost" otherwise than as heat given off by radiators. Consequently, the useful energy (heat from radiators) is just half of the purchased energy (metered energy),

- for electricity, on the contrary, practically 100% of purchased energy (metered energy) is used in radiators,

-electrical heating relates to individual installations only (not collective heating of buildings with an electrical boiler), which are generally more economical than collective heating (see table 32 above), notably because it is not necessary to overheat certain parts of the building to ensure a temperature of comfort in the coldest or most badly isolated parts, - the kWh price of electricity is considerably higher than the kWh price of gas, and therefore consumers pay more attention to their consumption.

2.6.2.2 Sanitary hot water emission factors by prim ary residence

The same source (CEREN) allows successful results for fossil energy with the following values, categorised by energy type and by lodging type:

Nature of housing and final energy type kWh/yr on average Natural gas, homes before 1975 1 668 Natural gas, homes after 1975 1 944 Natural gas, apartments < 1975 1 640

59 Conversation with André Pouget, Pouget Consultants, May 2004.

Bilan Carbone TM



Natural gas, apartments > 1975 1 792 Fuel, homes before 1975 2 672 Fuel, homes before 1975 3 120 Fuel, apartments < 1975 1 935 Fuel, apartments > 1975 1 918 LPG, homes < 1975 2 384 LPG, homes > 1975 2 918 LPG, apartments < 1975 1 642 LPG, apartments > 1975 1 700 Urban heating, apartments < 1975 2 379 Urban heating, apartments > 1975 2 436

Table 35 : French energy consumption average by fos sil energy and nature of housing – sanitary hot water only

In of words, an apartment using gas as energy for sanitary hot water after 1975 will consume on average 1,792 kWh per year for this water. Finally, concerning electricity is data of the same nature displayed in the picture below:

Electric HSW for housing kWh/yr on average Homes before 1975 1 629 Homes after 1975 1 633 Apartments before 1975 1 110 Apartments after 1975 1 302

Table 36 : French average for energy consumption, by nature of housing – electric sanitary hot water

2.6.2.3 Proportion of energy type in the heating of principal residences Analysis of CEREN statistics60 yields the following data on the use of different types of energy for residential heating61:

Energy used Thousands of houses equipped

% Thousands of apartments equipped

%

Gas 4 064 30% 5 356 49% Fuel oil 4 302 32% 1 417 13% LPG 740 5% 81 1% Electricity 4 118 30% 2 952 27% Wood 339 2% 0 0% District heating 12 0% 1 046 10% All subcategories 13 616 100% 10 852 100%

60 Source : Suivi du parc et des consommations de l'année 2002, CEREN. 61 Source : IFEN, J-M Jancovici, 2004, Indicateurs de développement durable.

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 37: Energy mix for residential heating in Fr ance

This national distribution data can be used to estimate the proportion of units per type of energy when this information is not directly available. 2.6.2.4 Proportion of energy type for sanitary hot water in principal residences The CEREN statistics mentioned above can be used to derive the following data on the use of different types of energy for residential hot water:

Energy for sanitary hot water

Thousands of houses

equipped

% Thousands of apartments equipped

%

Gas 3 779 28% 5 405 50% Fuel oil 2 183 16% 683 6% LPG 1 036 8% 111 1% Electricity 6 953 51% 4 145 38% Wood 179 1% District heating 0% 764 7% All subcategories 14 129 104% 11 108 102%

Table 38: Energy mix for residential hot water in France

As above, this national distribution data can be used to estimate by default the proportion of units per type of energy for hot water, when no other information is available for the case studied.

Bilan Carbone TM



3 - Accounting for non-energy emissions

This chapter is devoted to emission factors pertaining to chemical reactions other than those intended to produce energy, and to leakage of various gases. Some examples are:

- nitrous oxide (N2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer,

- losses of refrigerant fluids used in cooling and refrigeration systems,

- releases of fluorinated solvents used in the semiconductor industry,

- releases of fluorinated gases during alumina electrolysis,

- CO2 emissions due to decarbonation (calcinations) of compounds used as raw materials for construction materials (lime, cement, among others),

- etc. 3.1 GWP of the main gases involved Most of these "non-energy" emissions involve gases other than CO2. To convert emissions of these gases into carbon equivalent units we use the factors suggested by the IPCC62, as listed in the table below. It should also be remembered that these emission factors are subject to change in the futur e. The global warming potential (GWP) coefficients are derived on the basis of:

- concentrations of various GHG that are already present in the atmosphere;

- natural cycles of the gases involved, that determine the rate at which they are removed from the atmosphere, and hence their "life expectancy" in the air63.

62 GIEC signifie Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat. Its English abbreviation is IPCC, for International Panel on Climate Change. Source : IPCC / 2001 / Climate change 2001 – 3rd assessment report.. 63 Very frequently in the order of a century.

Bilan Carbone TM



Gas Kg carbon equivalent per

kg of gas64

CO2 0,273 Methane 6,27 N20 80,7 NOx 10,9 Dichloromethane 2,46 HFC – 125 764 HFC – 134 273 HFC – 134a 355 HFC – 143 81,8 HFC – 143a 1 036 HFC – 152a 38,2 HFC – 227ea 791 HFC – 23 2 673 HFC – 236fa 1 718 HFC – 245ca 153 HFC – 32 177 HFC – 41 40,9 HFC – 43 – 10mee 355 Perfluorobutane 1 909 Perfluoromethane 1 309 Perfluoropropane 1 909 Perfluoropentane 2 045 Perfluorocyclobutane 2 373 Perfluoroethane 2 509 Perfluorohexane 2 018 R11 1255 R12 2891 R134a 355 R22 464 R401a 307 R404a 1 032 R407c 451 R408a 822 R410a 539 R502 1232 R507 1050 SF6 6 518

Table 39: Non-energy emission factors (processes a nd leakage)

Despite their significant warming potential, some of the gases in the table above are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, in particular the following refrigerants: R11, R12, R502, R22, R401a and R408a. This is reflected in the compilation of results under different assessment boundaries in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet. In addition, CFCs have been banned in new equipment by EC regulations since 2000, and barred from use for maintenance and upkeep of existing installations since 2001. There are, however, still units using these refrigerants in France. HCFCs have been banned in new appliances since 2004, but maintenance with virgin compounds is authorized up to 2010, and with recycled compounds until 2015. Accordingly, the

64 The carbon equivalent is worth the GWP multiplied by 12/44, and only the first 3 significant figures of the results were kept.

Bilan Carbone TM



emission factors for these gases continue to appear in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet. 3.2 Nitrous oxide (N 2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer As their name indicates, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, now commonly used in agriculture, contain a range of nitrogen compounds, including nitrates (NO3). When fertilizer is spread on fields, a fraction of the initial nitrogen compounds reacts with microbial flora in the soil to form nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas that is released to the atmosphere. Other gases are also formed during fertilizer spreading, but in minor proportions. The most significant of these is ammonia (NH3). The fraction of nitrogen that is converted to gas depends on climate conditions, soil type, and the type of fertilizer; the IPCC65 has estimated that at European latitudes on average 1,25% of the nitrogen spread will be volatized on average66. The weight of nitrogen applied is very easily obtained, insofar as all agronomic literature refers explicitly and only to the weight of nitrogen in fertilizers. In other words, fertilizer supplements are always given in kg of nitrogen, also called nitrogen units, and not in kg of fertilizer. The volatized fraction of nitrogen forms NH3 for 10% of total gas emissions, and N2O for 90% of the total67. NH3 is not a greenhouse gas under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, and is therefore not considered in our calculations. These 10% of volatile nitrogen in the form of NH3 precipitate atmospheric deposition in the form of N2O, on the order of 1%68, that must be taken into account. In addition to spreading and atmospheric deposition, another phenomenon is to be considered69. An estimated 30% of nitrogen spread leaches through the soil, causing N2O emissions equal to 2,5% of this quantity. The percentage of nitrogen in fertilizer that yields N2O is calculated as follows: (0,9 * 1,25%) + (0,3 * 2,5%) + (0,1 * 1%) = 1,975% of total nitrogen applied. To obtain the weight of N2O emitted from the weight of nitrogen alone, the weight of the oxygen associated with the nitrogen must be integrated. As the atomic mass of nitrogen is 14 and that of oxygen is 16 (ignoring minor isotopes in both instances), the multiplication factor for converting nitrogen weight in N2O is 2* 14+16

2* 14, or 44/28.

The weight of N2O emitted can be obtained from the weight of nitrogen applied in fertilizer using the formula 65 GIEC signifie Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat. Its English abbreviation is IPCC, for International Panel on Climate Change. 66 IPCC /1996 / Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories – reference manual. 67 Exchange with Sébastien Beguier, CITEPA, December 2002. 68 Source: IPPC 1997 & CITEPA methodology used for national inventories. 69 Source: IPPC 1997 & CITEPA methodology used for national inventories.

Bilan Carbone TM



Weight of N2O emitted = (Weight of nitrogen applied) x 1,975% x (44/28) Or expressed in another way

Weight of N2O emitted = 3,1% x (Weight of nitrogen applied) To obtain N2O emissions directly from the weight of nitrogen contained in applied fertilizer the emission factor is 3,1%. The associated uncertainty factor is 70%, given the strong variation that may occur from one field to another. Local field measurements would make it possible to choose the best emission factor for the case at hand. 3.3 Leakage of refrigerant fluids Most modern refrigerant fluids are halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, i.e. they are obtained by substituting halogens (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine) for all or part of the hydrogen in a hydrocarbon molecule. These fluids (HFCs, CFCs, HCFCs) are potent GHG gases, and as a result they can represent a significant fraction of total GHG emissions for a given site, even if they are emitted in very small quantities. 3.3.1 Commercial cooling equipment Two approaches are used for commercial cooling equipment: by equipment type, and by surface area of the commercial establishment. Cooling systems in user processes and equipment may be direct or indirect. In direct cooling systems the refrigerant fluid cools equipment directly. In indirect systems, the refrigerant fluid cools an intermediate fluid, called the secondary refrigerant, that transfers the cooling effect to equipment via an secondary refrigeration circuit. These systems use less refrigerant, and consequently have less leakage. They are not yet sufficiently disseminated (only 10% of stores opened in 2001 were equipped with indirect cooling systems). Positive cooling refers to positive temperature applications, and negative cooling to negative temperature applications. Stand-alone equipment refers to small refrigeration appliances generally found in neighbourhood shops. The table below70 gives the refrigerant charge (in kg/kWh of cooling capacity), annual leakage rate and end-of-life emissions for each type of installation. 70 Source : ADEME – ARMINES /August 1999 / Inventaire des émissions de HFC utilisés comme fluides frigorigènes.

Bilan Carbone TM



System type, temperature range and age of installation

Charge (kg/kW cooling

capacity)

% of leakage annually

End-of-life emissions

Stand-alone equipment (compressor incorporated) 0.3 0.5% 30% Positive cooling, direct refrigeration (> 3 years) 2 30% 50% Positive cooling, direct refrigeration (< 3 years) 2 15% 50% Positive cooling, indirect refrigeration (> 3 years) 0.8 30% 50% Positive cooling, indirect refrigeration (< 3 years) 0.8 15% 50% Negative cooling (> 3 years) 3.5 30% 50% Negative cooling (< 3 years) 3.5 15% 50%

Table 40: Commercial cooling – by type of equipmen t (ADEME-ARMINES, 1999)

The age of the installation is calculated from the time of installation if the system has not been renovated, or from the date of the most recent renovation. The table below71 lists characteristics to be recorded in relation to the commercial surface area. Type and dimensions Charge

(kg/m 2 commercial surface area)



Neighbourhood shop (120 – 400 m2) 0.65 10% 50% Supermarket, direct refrigeration (400 – 2 500 m2) 0.29 15% Hypermarket, direct refrigeration (2 500 – 15 000 m2) 0.27 25% All establishments, indirect refrigeration (secondary circuit)

0.12 10%

Table 41: Commercial cooling – surface area (ADEME – ARMINES, 2001)

3.3.2 Industrial Cooling 3.3.2.1 Food processing industry The table below72 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions.

System

kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling

capacity



Direct system, average temperature (refrigeration) 5.5 15% 50% Direct system, low temperature (freezing) 8.8 15% 50% Indirect system, average temperature (refrigeration) 1 15% 50%

71 Source : ADEME – ARMINES / 2001 / Inventaire et prévisions des fluides frigorigènes et de leurs émissions / Méthodes d'inventaires / pages 16-19-22-23. 72 Source : ADEME – ARMINES / 2001 / Inventaire et prévisions des fluides frigorigènes et de leurs émissions / Méthodes d'inventaires / pages 35.

Bilan Carbone TM



Indirect system, low temperature (freezing) 1.5 15% 50%

Table 42: Industrial cooling for the food processi ng industry (ADEME-ARMINES, 2003)

Milk tanks are described separately73 : Milk tanks kg refrigerant per m 3

of storage capacity % of leakage annually End-of-life emissions

2.09 5% 50%

Table 43: Milk tanks

The uncertainty range for emission factors pertaining to the food processing industry is set at 50%, because these calculations have been refined since publication of earlier versions of Bilan Carbone™. 3.3.2.2 Other industries Water cooler units and chilled water systems (positive temperatures) are classical systems, identical to those used in commercial cooling (air conditioning and climate control). The table below74 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions for these systems. Positive temperature (water cooler/chilled water systems)

kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling capacity



Type of unit Renovated centrifugal compressor, all condensation modes

0.3 15% 20%

New centrifugal compressor or volumetric compressor, water condenser

0.2 10% 20% (40% for small or medium-sized volumetric compressor)

New centrifugal compressor or volumetric compressor, air condenser

0.25 10% 20% (40% for small or medium-sized volumetric compressor)

Table 44: Industrial cooling – positive temperatur e systems (ADEME-ARMINES, 2001)

The chilled water and air-conditioning groups can be consolidated. The consolidation averages the above values, yielding the following results: -0.25 kg/kW cooling capacity, 15% annual leakage, 30% at end-of-life.

73 Source : ADEME– ARMINES / 2003 / page 35. 74 Source : ADEME – ARMINES / 2001 / page 43.

Bilan Carbone TM



The table below75 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of cooling system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions for negative temperature systems.

Negative temperature kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling capacity

% of leakage anually End-of-life emissions

Average 1 15% 50% Low 1.6 15% 50%

Table 45: Industrial cooling – negative temperatur e systems (ADEME-ARMINES, 2003)

For the food processing industry the uncertainty retained is 50%. 3.3.2.3 Average for all industries If detailed information is not available then the figures given in the table below76 – an average of food industries – can be used. System kg of refrigerant

per kW of cooling capacity



"Average" for cooling units 2.6 15% 50%

Table 46: Average characteristics to be used when information on cooling systems is not available

In this case the uncertainty is set at 80%. 3.3.3 Cooling in the service sector (air conditioni ng) For large air-conditioning units using chilled water, the figures are the same as for the production of the chilled water (other industries). The same simplifications apply. A line is included for direct air-based cooling systems without a refrigeration circuit77. kg of refrigerant

per kW of cooling capacity



Chilled water / air conditioning 0.25 15% 30% Air-based cooling 0.3 3.5% 90%

Table 47: Service sector cooling (air conditioning )

The uncertainty chosen is 50%. 75 Source: ADEME–ARMINES / 2003 / page 37-38. 76 Source: ADEME–ARMINES / 2002 / page 39. 77 Source: ADEME–ARMINES / August 1999.

Bilan Carbone TM



With the information corresponding to the cooling system studied and the useful life of the installations (information that can be found), the proposed "Clim_froid” utility complementing the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheet allows you to reconstruct the approximate emissions of refrigerants, during equipment use and for end-of-life treatment78. 3.4 Other cases Reporting emissions not due to combustion will in most cases require a specific inquiry. Other than the cases outlined above, this tool does not include any other standard module for calculating or estimating non-combustion emissions from readily available corporate or activity data.

78 For more details, refer to Appendix 2 of the Instruction Manual of the Bilan_carbone.xls spreadsheet (June 2006 version).

Bilan Carbone TM



4 - Accounting for transport Transport is a source of greenhouse gases, in the following ways:

- carbon dioxide emitted during combustion of fuels (petroleum, gas, LPG, etc.)

- refrigerant losses from air-conditioning systems that cause halocarbon emissions (most often HFCs)

- various localized pollutants, that may be themselves greenhouse gases (nitrogen oxides), or precursor compounds that form ozone, a greenhouse gas in its own right (ground-level or tropospheric ozone accounts for roughly 15% of anthropogenic disturbance of the climate system).

Excepting leakage of refrigerants from air-conditioning systems, the balance of emissions is a direct consequence of motor fuel use. Transport emissions are thus a special case of fossil energy use. The GHG emissions from transport vehicles vary widely, depending on the case. Predicting emissions that are generated requires information about characteristics that can be measured (engine power, fuel use, or load), and others that are much more difficult to specify quantitatively (driving mode for road vehicles). The following information is intended to suggest orders of magnitude. The gap between these figures and actual situations will lessen as the law of numbers takes effect, that is to say that the suggested emission factors will be increasingly reliable as they are applied to a large number of sources and/or a large number of trips. Refinery emissions associated with fuel production are included in all cases. Whenever possible, vehicle amortization has been taken into account. Note : The emission factors for fossil fuels given in Chapter 2 are largely obtained from a recent ministerial circular, drafted under the transposition framework of the directive called “emissions permitted”. This circular proposes emission factors for fuels (solid, liquid or gas) which differ with a few % from those enforced in Bilan CarboneTM Version 3. For harmonisation purposes the values in this circular are used in this guide to avoid any hesitation about the value of use (the difference is less than the uncertainty of the emission factors). On the contrary, these fuels are not those that were used to calculate the transportation emission factors described below. It was developed with the fuel emission factors in force in Version 3 and was not modified in this version, due to a lack of time. This probably resulted in a difference of a few % in order of magnitude, with the transport factors obtained while taking the values below into account, which is less than the uncertainty of the transport factors. This worry does not come close to the orders of magnitude, and harmonisation will be effected for the next version.

Bilan Carbone TM



4.1 Road transportation of persons Note: The topics are not discussed here in the order of the different instruction manuals for the use of the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheets. In this chapter emission factors are grouped by means of transportation, while the manuals are destinations serving as a background. 4.1.1 Personal vehicles 4.1.1.1 Amortization of private cars All cars in use have of course been manufactured, a process that emits greenhouse gases, whether for production of materials used, or for their transformation and assembly. The Observatoire de l'Energie reports energy consumption for "construction of land vehicles" at sites located in France for 1999, as follows.

Primary energy consumption in

the sector

Coal Gas Petroleum products

79

Electricity in France

80

ton oil equivalent (toe)

38 000 462 000 119 000 1 390 000

Table 48: Energy consumption for the construction of land vehicles in France (1999)

Many vehicles in use in France, however, are made elsewhere in Europe. It would be incorrect to assume that all vehicles in use in France have been made using electricity with low carbon emissions. Inversely, the energy efficiency of European (and even Japanese) vehicle manufacturers is likely to be quite comparable, and the respective shares of primary energy sources are also probably fairly similar from one European country to another. To calculate GHG emissions per vehicle, we have used French data for the relative shares of primary energy per vehicle, and European coefficients for electricity. Thus the resulting "GHG content per car" will be applicable for all of Europe, with the proviso that this figures represents only energy consumed by manufacturers at the end of the construction chain, and not energy used by parts suppliers who are not listed under "construction of land vehicles" in the French nomenclature (NAF). The results are as follows:

Primary energy Coal Gas Petroleum Electricity in TOTAL

79 It primarily acts as heavy fuel oil. 80 The equivalence here is 0,222 toe per MWh.

Bilan Carbone TM



products Europe81

ton oil equivalent (toe)

38 000 462 000 119 000 1 390 000 -

Tons C eq per toe 1,209 0,739 1,013 0,481 - Tons C eq 45 942 341 418 120 547 668 261 1 176 168

Table 49: Emission factors for the construction of land vehicles in France

In 2001 3,4 million personal vehicles were manufactured in France (i.e. at sites located in France, which are the only sites covered in the consumption statistics compiled by the Observatoire de l'Energie). As energy consumption for this sector varied by less than 5% annually between 1995 and 1999, we can reasonably combine the 2001 data on vehicle production with 1999 data on energy consumption. The French nomenclature for this sector of activity includes production other than automobiles (trucks, trains, etc.) but as personal cars are preponderant in the sector, we assume that an acceptable order of magnitude is obtained by equating sector activity with automobile manufacture. On the basis of these assumptions, additional emissions due to automobile manufacture stricto sensu are on the order of 350 kg carbon equivalent per vehicle. To complete our estimation of the carbon content of a manufactured vehicle, however, the following items must be taken into consideration:

- emissions linked to energy use in upstream industrial activity (parts and equipment suppliers)

- emissions linked to production of materials used for vehicle manufacture. To account for the emissions of equipment suppliers, who furnish more than half of the value added in the manufacturing process, we assign a flat-rate multiple of 2 to the emissions estimated above for the final phase of vehicle manufacture. The total thus doubles from 350 to 700 kg carbon equivalent per car. It remains to be explored whether a company such as Valeo is classed under "mechanical construction" in the nomenclature (this is likely, but not certain) or in a category related to vehicle manufacture. This classification determines the rubric in which the company's energy consumption is reported. On the basis of these assumptions, emissions "excluding materials" amount to roughly 0,7 tons carbon equivalent per vehicle. We have obtained the following information regarding the materials used:

- according to the Institute Français du Pétrole (IFP)82, the average European car contains (by weight) 60% to 66% steel, 10 to 15% plastic, 7% aluminium, 2% other metals, 4% glass, 4% rubber, 7% fluids, and 1% foam.

81 The equivalence here is 0,222 toe per MWh and 106 g C eq per kWh of electric power (source IEA). 82 Exchanges with Stéphane HIS, IFP, October 2003.

Bilan Carbone TM



- according to the Association of Plastic Manufacturers (APME)83, the average European car contains 100 kg of plastic, and this material represents 10% of the vehicle's weight (from which we deduce that the average weight of a car is one ton).

- according to the Institut de Recherche de la Sidérurgie (IRSID) 84, the average car is 50% steel, which we assume to be 66% reprocessed steel (this proportion should be verified).

Pooling all this information gives the following for a one-ton vehicle:

Plastic Aluminium Glass Steel85

Rubber Fluids Other86

TOTAL

Kg per vehicle 100 70 40 500 50 70 170 1000 kg C eq per kg of weight 0,650 2,800 0,400 0,500 0,600 0,500 1,000 - kg C eq per vehicle 65 196 16 250 30 35 170 762

Table 50: Emission factors for manufacture of mate rials used to build a one-ton vehicle

From these various estimates we conclude that a car, weighing on average one ton, generates manufacturing emissions on the order of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent, or 1,5 times the weight of the vehicle. This coefficient of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight will be our reference value, until updated information becomes available. Considering average vehicle life for cars, which is on the order of 150 000 to 200 000 km, manufacturing emissions come to 10±4 g carbon equivalent per km travelled, depending on the weight of the vehicle and distance travelled before the vehicle is scrapped. Lastly, the uncertainty range for this figure is probably less than 40%: a figure 40% lower would put emissions at less than one ton carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight, which seems highly unlikely, given the approximate composition and emission factors for the basic materials used; a figure 40% higher would push emissions up to 2,1 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight, which would mean that materials other than steel (amounting to 500 to 600 kg per vehicle) would have an average carbon content of 2,3 tons carbon equivalent per vehicle ton, which seems quite high. We also note that this emissions figure does not include various ancillary contributions (emissions related to vehicle dealers' sales networks; upkeep and repairs, insurance, etc.) that should also be integrated. Work done by the Institut du

83 APME: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe. Information found on the organization's website, www.plasticseurope.org 84 IRSID: Institut de Recherche de la Sidérurgie 85 The steel used by the automotive sector is 60% of recycled steel, which leads to a value of 500 kg Eq.C per ton of steel for its GHG content (see § 5.1). 86 Including electronics, and its manufacturing is very intensive in greenhouse gases; the emission factor stated is a personal estimate from the author.

Bilan Carbone TM



Végétal on agricultural machinery tends to show that initial manufacture and upkeep contribute like amounts to emissions, per hour of use (and therefore in relation to distance travelled, more or less). 4.1.1.2 Calculating reference consumption for perso nal vehicles Reference consumption figures can be helpful when data on fuel purchases cannot be directly obtained for the vehicles used87. We have used data from the Observatoire de l’Energie to fine-tune these calculations. Above all, these data indicate deviation from mean values for a certain number of criteria, which enables us to establish realistic error bands for different approaches. First of all, there exist databases that list rated consumption for current-model vehicles, according to standard driving cycles:

- www.ademe.fr/auto-diag/transports/car_lab/carlabelling/ListeMarque.asp

- www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ But these sites do not list fuel consumption under real-use conditions (including traffic congestion, acceleration generally more rapid than in the reference itinerary, cold-engine starts, use of air-conditioning, etc.)...The difference between conventional driving cycles and actual consumption varies with fiscal horsepower rating of the vehicle (see §4.1.1.2.3), so no generally valid rule can be given that would apply to all vehicles (the excess consumption observed in relation to conventional driving cycles varies by vehicle category). Furthermore, these values do not take vehicle manufacturing emissions into account, and these emissions are not completely marginal, in relation to distance travelled (on the order of 15%). In addition, consumption figures for vehicles no longer on the market are not listed in this database. 4.1.1.2.1 Emissions approximated by fuel type and r esidential zone Fuel consumption data furnished by the Observatoire de l’Energie is broken down by the vehicle owner's place of residence88. The following steps are applied to obtain per-km values:

87 Keep in mind that when fuel consumption figures are available, emissions related to manufacture and upkeep must be reported elsewhere! 88 Observatoire de l’Energie /2001 Edition / Tableaux des consommations d’énergie en France.

Bilan Carbone TM



- convert consumption to emissions, using "full" emission factors for fuels, calculated in §2.2.3,

- add average emissions for vehicle manufacture, distributed over the total distance in km travelled by the vehicle during its useful life.

For this second item we assume that the average weight of a gasoline-fuelled vehicle is 1 093 kg (corresponding to the weight of gasoline vehicles sold in 2001) and 1 322 kg for diesel vehicles. These figures are derived on the basis of the average weight of vehicles by fiscal horsepower class for new cars sold in 200189, and on data regarding vehicles in use as of 31 December 200190. Even considering that vehicles have become a little heavier over the years, a 10% difference in average vehicle weight changes overall emissions (manufacture plus fuel use) by 1 gram carbon equivalent per km, or less than 2% of the total figure. We have also assumed here an average vehicle life of 150 000 km for gasoline vehicles, and 200 000 km for diesel vehicles. These are estimated averages, given that vehicle life is highly variable, depending on fiscal horsepower. With these assumptions we obtain the following values:

Residence zone

Average consumption for gasoline vehicles (litres per 100 km)

Manufacturing emissions (g C/km)

Total g C/km Deviation

from average

Towns < 2 000 pop. 7,8 10,9 68,6 -3% Pop. of 2 000 - 49 999 8 10,9 70,0 -1% Pop. > 50 000 (other than Paris metro area)

8,3 10,9 72,3 2%

Paris metro area 9,1 10,9 78,2 10% All subcategories 8,1 10,9 70,8 0%

Table 51: Emissions per km travelled for gasoline vehicles, by zone of residence

Residence zone

Average consumption for diesel vehicles (litres per 100

km)

Manufacturing emissions (g C/km)

Total (g C/km)

Deviation from

average

Towns < 2 000 pop. 6,6 9,9 63,6 -2% Pop. of 2 000 - 49 999 6,8 9,9 65,3 0% Pop. > 50 000 (other than Paris metro area)

6,9 9,9 66,1 1%

Paris metro area 6,8 9,9 65,3 0% All subcategories 6,8 9,9 65,3 0%

89 Source: ADEME. 90 Source: French Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing, Economics and Statistics Department.

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 52: Emissions per km travelled for diesel ve hicles, by zone of residence

The residential zone does not appear to be a discriminating factor for diesel vehicles, but it is significant for gasoline-vehicle emissions, with a distinction between the Paris metro area and the rest of France. This may simply reflect a vehicle pool that includes a greater number of high-powered cars, which are primarily gasoline vehicles (the pool of gasoline-powered vehicles in France includes close to 750 000 personal vehicles rated at over 11 fiscal horsepower, as opposed to "only" 200 000 diesel vehicles in this class). We can reasonably assume therefore that for standard vehicles (under 10 fiscal horsepower) the geographical area of use has little effect on average emissions per km travelled. These are annual averages, which may not be representative of home-to-work commuting. Commuting represents only 20% of the total distance travelled in France, but occurs mainly at rush hours and in cities, and therefore under conditions approaching those of urban cycle driving. The above figures suggest that the fraction of annual travel under urban cycle driving conditions is about the same, regardless of the size of the town where the vehicle owner lives. 4.1.1.2.2 Emissions approximated by fuel type and l ength of time in use The Observatoire de l’Energie also provides emission factors broken down by length of time in use.

Length of time vehicle has been

in use


Deviation from

average

Average consumption for

diesel vehicles (litres per 100 km)

Deviation from

average

1 - 5 years 7,8 -4% 6,8 0% 6 - 10 years 8,2 1% 6,8 0% 11 - 15 years 8,4 4% 6,4 -6% Over 15 years 9,4 16% 6,9 1% All subcategories 8,1 0% 6,8 0%

Table 53: Average vehicle consumption by length of time in use

Here again, average values broken down by length of time in use do not reveal any significant deviation from the mean, except for gasoline vehicles over 15 years old, which are in any event marginal in the total vehicle fleet. Vehicle weight, however, has increased over the years, and hence manufacturing emissions as well, but this probably does not involve more than a few percentage points of emissions for vehicle manufacture. The remainder of the upward shift is due

Bilan Carbone TM



to an increase in the proportion of vehicles in the highest fiscal horsepower classes. This leads us to look at a breakdown of consumption according to these readily available criteria, fiscal horsepower. 4.1.1.2.3 Emissions approximated by fuel type and f iscal horsepower rating Consumption figures by fiscal horsepower rating are given in two separate sources. For vehicles in use, the previously cited publication from the Observatoire de l’Energie lists aggregated data for three categories (5 fiscal hp and less, 6 to 10 fiscal hp, 11 fiscal hp and over). This enables us to distinguish by actual engine power, which is by definition a determining factor for energy consumption91. The OE data can be presented as follows:

Power rating (fiscal hp)


Deviation from

average

Average consumption for diesel vehicles

(litres per 100 km)

Deviation from

average

5 fiscal hp and under

7,2 -11% 6,3 -7%

6 -10 fiscal hp 8,5 5% 7 3% 11 fiscal hp and over

10,9 35% 11,1 63%

All subcategories 8,1 0% 6,8 0%

Table 54: Average consumption of gasoline and dies el vehicles by fiscal horsepower rating

The above table shows that, while fiscal horsepower is truly a significant factor for average consumption (and hence for emissions), the deviation between the overall average and the average per class does not exceed 15% for standard vehicles (i.e. 5 to 10 fiscal hp). Consequently, by taking average emissions for all vehicle classes and driving conditions, i.e. 71 grams carbon equivalent per km for gasoline vehicles and 65 grams carbon equivalent per km for diesel vehicles (tables 49 and 50), we can arrive at an approximation that is valid within 10% or 15% (i.e. give or take one litre of average fuel consumption) for a large vehicle fleet under a broad range of driving conditions. In the event that the respective proportions of diesel and gasoline-fuelled vehicles are not known, we use an average value of 65 grams carbon equivalent per km. A more detailed breakdown can be obtained, using data supplied by ADEME:

- average weight (empty) of vehicles sold in 2001 by fiscal horsepower and by fuel type,

91 The power rating is based on the actual power and CO2 emissions that correspond to a proportional energy consumption factor.

Bilan Carbone TM



- average fuel consumption under conventional driving cycles for all vehicles in the same fiscal horsepower class and using the same type of fuel.

This data is more detailed, but refer to rated consumption, not actual consumption (they are based on conventional driving cycles). They pertain to a group of vehicles that is large (over 2 million vehicles) but nonetheless only a part of the whole – vehicles sold in 2001 – representing a little under 8% of the vehicle fleet.

Yet above we observed that actual fuel consumption by fiscal class and by fuel type had varied little over the years (§4.1.1.2.2).Furthermore, we adopt the hypothesis that the mass by fiscal class and by fuel type has not varied by more than 10% over the last 10 or 15 years, that is to say since the oldest vehicles still in use first came into circulation (excepting a marginal fraction of the vehicle fleet made up of vehicles over 15 years old). Accordingly, the empty vehicle weight by fiscal class and by fuel type, calculated by ADEME for vehicles sold in 2001, are considered to be acceptable values for the entire fleet of vehicles in use (these values pertain only to emissions linked to manufacture, as direct fuel consumption is reported elsewhere). The statistics published by the Observatoire de l'Energie do not give figures for every fiscal class, but only for three groups of classes (5 fiscal hp and less, 6 to 10 hp, and 11 hp and over). These data are used to carry out the following steps:

- calculate average consumption under conventional driving cycles, for new cars sold in 2001 in each fiscal class (using ADEME's figures),

- derive an average for each group of fiscal classes and fuel type, for the OE groups,

- compare this average to actual consumption of the existing vehicle fleet, to see how much should be added to the averages calculated under conventional driving cycles, and for new vehicles only, in order to obtain actual consumption for the vehicles in the OE categories. The reference values for actual consumption refer to mixed-cycle driving, which is assumed to be closer to reality92.

As an example, conventional-cycle consumption figures for gasoline vehicles from 3 to 5 fiscal hp give the following averages:

New vehicles sold in 2001 Power rating (fiscal hp)

Total fleet vehicles in circulation

since 01-01-2002

Empty weight

(kg)

Average consumption in non-urban cycle

(litres per 100 km)

Average consumption in

mixed driving cycle (litres per 100 km)

Average consumption in

urban cycle (litres per 100 km)

3 36 672 720 4,3 4,9 6,1

92 For the purposes of an annual average, it is rare to find cars that are used only for city driving (or only for non-urban driving) as §4.1.1.2.1 might seem to suggest.

Bilan Carbone TM



4 4 563 806 881 4,9 5,8 7,4 5 3 342 309 1 011 5,4 6,6 8,7

Total or average 7 942 787 935 5,1 6,1 7,9

Table 55: Conventional-cycle consumption figures f or gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal horse power

For this category, average consumption recorded by OE for vehicles in use is 7,2 litres per 100 km travelled. In other words, to adjust from average fuel consumption (in mixed-cycle driving) for new vehicles calculated using manufacturers' data (UTAC93), i.e. 6,1 litres/100 km, it is necessary to add 17% to reach this actual consumption figure as measured (7,2 litres/100 km). It remains to be determined whether the proportions of distances per driving cycle (urban, trunk highway, motorway) are the same in "real life" situations and under the conventional driving cycles. For the time being we will assume this is so, in order to be able to correlate the OE figures with those for fuel consumption of new vehicles. Our next hypothesis is that this correction of 17% is applicable to all individual vehicle consumption in this category (5 fiscal hp and under), in order to extrapolate actual consumption for all vehicles in the fleet, from a calculation made for new vehicles alone, on the basis of conventional driving cycles. In other terms, once average consumption for new vehicles is calculated (for a given fiscal class and fuel type), it "suffices" to augment this value by 17% to obtain a good approximation of average consumption for a vehicle in the existing fleet (for the same driving cycle, naturally). The margin of error of this operation is estimated to be 10% for emissions per vehicle.km. The tables derived with this method are given in appendix 8; they are used to determine emission factors used in the spreadsheet for vehicles for which fuel type, fiscal class and driving cycle are known. 4.1.1.3 Commuting travel 4.1.1.3.1 Emission factors for people commuting by car In cases where only the number of cars used by commuting employees is known, we suggest the following emission factors to estimate emissions. Studies done by INRETS94 show that the average distance travelled to work95 for the active population is:

93 UTAC: Union Technique de l’Automobile, du Motocyle et du Cycle. 94 INRETS: Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (France). 95 J.-P. Orfeuil, La Jaune et La Rouge, April 1998.

Bilan Carbone TM



- 8,5 km if the employee lives in a city centre

- 12 km if the employee lives in the inner suburbs of Paris, or in the outlying areas of other cities,

- roughly 15 km if the employee lives in the outer suburbs of Paris.

An INSEE96 study furnishes commuting distances for the active population, with change of township, district, etc. The average commuting distances for commuters who do not leave their township, and those who leave the country, have been estimated by the author.

Commuting distances travelled (source INSEE Première N° 767, April 2001) 1999

Category Active population Average commute in km

Without leaving township 9 012 614 7,00 With change of township 14 042 588 15,10

With change of département 2 550 650 26,70 With change of region 719 847 56,90

With change of country 280 896 40,00 Total 26 606 595 14,9

Table 56: Average commuting distance travelled by type of itinerary

On this basis we assume that an active worker living in a rural area and employed in an office-based or industrial activity travels an average of 25 km to work. An employee commuting by car, travel this distance on average twice a day (four times if the employee goes home for lunch); on 220 working days per year. We also assume that the driving cycles are as follows, reflecting both the types of itinerary and the fact that this travel occurs mainly during rush hours:

- for commuting travel in outlying rural areas, average emissions per km are those of the non-urban driving cycle for the entire vehicle fleet,

- for outer suburbs in the Paris metro area, mixed cycle emissions are used,

- for city suburbs, urban cycle emissions are used,

- for urban areas, urban cycle emissions are used, augmented by 10% for rush-hour driving.

Lastly, vehicle manufacturing emissions and upstream fuel refining emissions must be added in. Using the values given in §4.1.1.1, the figure of 11 g carbon equivalent per km is computed for vehicle manufacturing emissions.

96 INSEE: Institut National de Statistiques et des Etudes Economiques.

Bilan Carbone TM



For upstream fuel emissions, as roughly half of personal car travel (in km) is driven in diesel vehicles and half in gasoline-fuelled vehicles, we add 15% compared to combustion emissions alone. The average value of supplementary emissions for diesel is 12%, and 18% for gasoline vehicles (see §2.2.3). There is one remaining assumption: that "all of France" emissions per km for commuting travel are the same as for the outer suburbs in the Paris metro area. Given that 80% of today's population lives in urban areas, this hypothesis is probably not far off. With these assumptions we can construct the following table: Commuting travel, by

driver's place of residence

Days per year

Km per day

Km per year

g C eq per km

(engine emissions)

Supplement for

upstream fuel

emissions

Vehicle manufacture

g C eq/km

kg C eq per year (engine

emissions)

kg C eq per year,

(upstream fuel

emissions)

kg C eq per year, amort.

kg C eq per car and per

year

Outlying rural areas 220 20 8 800 39,7 15% 11 350 53 97 500

Outer suburbs, Paris metro area

220 15 6 600 48,1 15% 11 317 48 73 438

City suburbs 220 12 5 280 62,8 15% 11 331 51 58 440

City centre 220 8,5 3 740 69,1 15% 11 258 39 41 339

All of France 220 15 6 600 48,1 15% 11 317 48 73 438

Table 57: Emission factors per car for commuting t ravel by type of itinerary

4.1.1.3.2 Emission factors for people commuting by car, when distance travelled is known If the distance travelled per employee and per year to commute to work, and the place of residence of each commuting employee, are known, the total distance travelled by commuting employees can be added up, and broken down by type of itinerary. It can reasonably be assumed that

- an employee who lives in a rural area will drive a non-urban itinerary to get to work,

- an employee who lives in the outer suburbs of Paris, or in the suburbs of smaller cities, will drive a mixed itinerary to get to work,

- an employee who lives in the inner Paris suburbs will drive an urban itinerary to get to work,

- an employee who lives in Paris will drive an urban itinerary + congestion (an additional 10% on top of "urban" emissions) to get to work.

Using the tables in appendix 8, we have average consumption figures for each type of itinerary, for all vehicles taken together.

Bilan Carbone TM



Type of itinerary Non-urban Mixed Urban Urban, rush-hour point

97

Emissions per km travelled, in g carbon equivalent

58 69 87 96

Table 58: Emission factors for commuting travel by driving cycle, per km travelled

Accordingly, taking distances and emission factors per type of itinerary, approximate emissions for commuting travel can be calculated. The degree of uncertainty is probably highest for estimates regarding Paris driving, where congestion and engine size have considerable impact on consumption, and hence on emissions. The margin of error is estimated to be 20%, when applied to a vehicle fleet of at least a few dozen vehicles. If the number of vehicles is much smaller, emissions must be calculated for each vehicle, using the factors listed in appendix 8. Here we encounter once again the general rule that the estimates for uncertainty ranges depend on the context in which the figures are used: the larger the application set, the more accurate default values will be. 4.1.1.4 Work-related travel by car This travel is converted to GHG emissions using the same emission factors given in §4.1.1.3 above. If this travel involves considerable distances, using many different types of vehicles, average emission factors for all types of vehicles can be used, as for commuting trips. 4.1.1.5 Travel by car for the daily mobility of a t erritory’s residents It will be necessary to have benchmarks for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM on the number of vehicle.km per person per year on average, and in a given zone. This “default” data is also proposed for other transportation modes in case no specific information about the territory will be available. The INSEE98 investigation into transportation proposes the following national averages:

ZPIU99 rural ZPIU ; 50 000 to 300 000 inhab ZPIU ; more than 300 000 inhab ZPIU in Paris Ensemble

97 An extra 10% was added to account for a cold start, congestion, etc. This may very well be much more than that: a car that consumes 25 litres per 100km (for example a large minivan, a large 4x4, a luxury car, etc, travelling in heavy traffic) emits almost twice as much: 180 grams carbon equivalent per kilometre! 98 INSEE Transport Surveys / 1993-1994 99 ZPIU means industrial or urban settlement zones, and allows the qualifying of urban fabric and town size, notably by taking the daily migration level into account. In this document, this notion will be merged with the town size.

Bilan Carbone TM



zones; less than

50 000 inhab

City Centre100

Suburbs and Outskirts

City Centre Suburbs Outskirts Paris

Suburbs and

Outskirts All

together

Number of daily trips per person 2,73 3,06 2,87 2,93 2,84 2,57 2,74 2,71 2,83

Average trip distance (in km) 9,70 6,96 9,23 7,06 7,73 10,14 6,16 9,19 8,61

Total 26,47 21,27 26,50 20,67 21,97 26,08 16,89 24,93 24,37 Distribution modal in %

Walking 12,37 20,59 12,73 23,41 14,29 12,71 30,64 19,41 16,57

Collective Transport 2,80 4,86 4,29 11,83 7,26 4,13 35,11 13,90 7,74

Cars 79,94 70,90 77,31 61,21 73,14 77,33 32,09 62,94 71,03

Two wheelers 4,64 3,56 5,34 3,54 5,24 5,67 2,01 3,57 4,47

Other 0,24 0,10 0,33 0,00 0,07 0,16 0,14 0,17 0,19

Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution moda l for daily trips From this table, it is possible to calculate the average mileage per person per day travelling in the car during 1994: a French person travelling 26.27 (km per day) x 79.94% (by car) x 365 (days per year) = 7,723 km travelled by car per person per year. Due to the absence of more recent data, this distance was kept, knowing that the increase noticed during the past years probably concerns the number of vehicles being in circulation and its mass and power being more than the annual average mileage per person. Transportation Accounts data reveals increases in passenger-km (+18%) between 1994 and 2004, but the fleet vehicle effect explains the basics: the latter increased by more than 20% over the same period101. To deduct mileage from vehicles, this distance must be divided by the average occupancy of a car, which is an average of 1.25 persons in the context of travelling to a city102. An uncertainty of 10% will be assigned to the values obtained. 4.1.1.6 Long-distance travel by car for mobility of residents in a territory As part of the "territory" Bilan CarboneTM, it will also be necessary to assess the

100 A central city that is a multi-communal urban unit (or multi-communal town) is defined as follows. If a municipality shelters more than 50% of the urban unit‘s population, it is a central city only. Otherwise, all the municipalities with a population exceeding 50% of a more densely inhabited town, also the latter, are central cities. The towns that are not central cities constitute the suburbs of the multi-communal town. 101 Energy consumption spreadsheets - Energy Observatory, 2004 / CCFA, 2005. 102 Source: SES - Service Economie et Statistique du Ministère Equipement, Transports

Bilan Carbone TM



residents’ long-distance travel by car (for leisure, family, possibly shopping or professional reasons). In order to do this, a transportation survey by INSEE was equally exploited and the following results were obtained from it:

Local travel Other short travel Long distance Passengers travelling in millions*km according to principal mode 1993 1993 1993

Bicycle 78 2 0 Moped 45 0 0

Motorcycle 48 1 14 PV household driver 4645 499 1483

PV household passenger 1422 77 964 PV outside household 1110 105 463

Bus, coach 451 35 230 Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) 231 9 0

Trains (including RET) 240 9 366 TGV 0 0 281

Plane 0 0 1472 Other 28 8 144

Total 8299 446 5415

Table 60: Total travel displacements, by method in 1993

On the basis of a population of 57 million in 1993 (56.6 in the 1990 census), the following mileages travelled per person per year can be deducted:

Travel mode Km per inhabitant, per year Bicycle 0 Moped 0

Motorcycle 13 PV household driver 1 362

PV household passenger 885 PV outside household 425

Bus, coach 211 Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) 0

Trains (including RET) 336 TGV 258

Plane 1 352 Other 132

Table 61: Mileages travelled per person per year in France in 1993

The mileage carried out in a PV and conducted per person per year will, for the Bilan CarboneTM, assimilate itself in the number of vehicle.km generated per car, per person and per year in respect of this mobility. The % increase in this mileage since 1993 must be evaluated. It appears that the number of passenger.km increased with 18% between 1994 and 2004103, but the fleet vehicles in circulation increased with 20%. In the first approximation, for 2005, the distance travelled per vehicle per year on average for 1993 will be preserved. The total displacements of vehicles in a territory can then be obtained by multiplying the mileage per car with the territory’s population.

103 Commission for Transport Accounts of the Nation (from DAEI / SESp - UTP - RATP - SNCF - DAC)

Bilan Carbone TM



4.1.2 Buses and cars 4.1.2.1 Amortization of buses and coaches The "amortization" procedure aims to report emissions linked to vehicle manufacture. It is analogous to that used for personal cars, based on empty vehicle weight. Passenger transport vehicles covered are the following:

- vans and minibuses,

- city buses,

- intercity coaches, As for personal cars, empty weight is converted into emissions due to vehicle manufacture. As the added value per unit of weight for buses is similar to that of automobiles (a bus with an empty weight of a little over 10 tons costs approximately 150 000 Euros, or 15 000 Euros per ton, as for a personal car), the factor for converting vehicle weight into manufacturing emissions could theoretically be equal to 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of bus weight. Data available on websites (bus manufacturers, or public transit services104) serves as the basis for average empty weight for vehicles, maximum authorized weight with load, and vehicle life.

Type of vehicle Average max. authorized weight with

load

Average empty weight

(tons)

Useful life in km

Manufacturing emissions g C

eq/km

Minibus (20 passengers) 5,6 3,5 300 000 17,5 City bus 19,0 11,00 1 000 000 16,5 Intercity coach (3 axles) 23,0 15,00 1 500 000 15,0

Table 62: Emission factors for the manufacture of minibuses, city buses and intercity coaches

The last column of the above table is of course a calculated value. 4.1.2.2 Emissions per vehicle.km The publication “Evaluations des efficacités énergétiques et environnementales des transports” (ADEME, 2002) supplies a value for emissions per passenger.km due to fuel combustion alone (not considering upstream emissions) for buses and coaches, and gives an average passenger load for these vehicles.

Type of vehicle g C eq per Average number of

104 Manufacturers' websites: www.heuliezbus.com, www.volvo.com, www.scania.com, www.renault.fr ; public transport websites: www.vmcv.ch, www.busparisiens.free.fr

Bilan Carbone TM



passenger.km passengers per vehicle Intercity coach 9,4 29,5 City bus Paris metro area 18,2 21,4 City bus (other than Paris) 23,3 10

Table 63: Emission factors per passenger.km for di fferent types of buses (ADEME, 2002)

Using this information, emissions per vehicle.km including upstream emissions can be derived:

- for buses and coaches, emissions per vehicle.km are equal to emissions per passenger.km multiplied by the average number of passengers per vehicle,

- for minibuses, we have assumed fuel consumption of 15 litres for 100 km (diesel), and converted this to emissions using the diesel emission factor calculated in §2.2.3,

- to obtain total emissions per vehicle.km, manufacturing emissions (independent of number of passengers) and upstream fuel emissions (proportional to bus operating emissions) are added together.

Category g C eq per vehicle.km, fuel

only, with upstream emissions

Uncertainty range for

combustion

g C eq g C eq per

vehicle.km, manufactur

e

Uncertainty range for manufactu

re

kg C eq per vehicle.km

Total uncertainty

Minibus 122,1 10% 17,5 50% 0,140 15% City bus (Paris metro area)

435,7 10% 16,5 50% 0,452 11%

City bus (other than Paris)

260,4 10% 16,5 50% 0,277 12%

Intercity coach 309,8 10% 15,0 50% 0,325 12%

Table 64: Emission factors per vehicle.km for diff erent types of buses

In the absence of data on variation in emissions with the number of passengers, we use this average value for all cases. 4.1.2.3 Emissions per passenger.km 4.1.2.3.1 General case Using the above values and passenger load figures, we can also compute total emissions per passenger.km, as follows:

- fuel combustion emissions are found in the ADEME publication cited above,

- upstream emissions are proportional to combustion emissions,

- manufacturing emissions per vehicle.km are divided by the average passenger load, to obtain a value for emissions per passenger.km.

Bilan Carbone TM



For minibuses, we have assumed that the average passenger load is the same as for buses in the Paris metro area, i.e. 20%, or 4 passengers for a 20-passenger vehicle. The calculated results are as follows (uncertainty ranges are the same as for emissions per vehicle.km).

Category g C eq per passenger.km fuel only, with upstream

emissions

g C eq per passenger.km, manufacture

g C eq per passenger.km (total)

Minibus 4,4 30,5 34,9 City bus (Paris metro area)

0,8 20,4 21,1

City bus (other than Paris) 1,7 26,0 27,7 Intercity coach 0,5 10,5 11,0

Table 65: Emission factors per passenger.km for di fferent types of buses

4.1.2.3.2 Overall factor for commuting travel For commuting travel by bus, average emissions per trip are obtained by multiplying the average home-work distance by average consumption per passenger.km for buses. Average emissions per passenger.km by bus are 85 g of CO2 for fuel combustion105, thus 93,5 g CO2 when upstream emissions for the fuel are included, or 25,5 g carbon equivalent per km. We have adopted a reference distance of a 12 km round-trip106, and to avoid making a distinction between Paris and other cities we use a median value of 25,5 g C eq per passenger.km (in fact commuting travel is most likely to occur during rush hours, and therefore with a higher than average number of passengers, but in the absence of specific figures for passenger load during rush hours we retain this estimate). Each bus commuter is thus assigned 12 (km) x 220 (days) x 25,5 (g C eq/km), or 67 kg C eq per year. The uncertainty range for the above values is estimated at 30%. It can be observed that it takes four people in a carpool to attain emissions equivalent to bus emissions (at roughly 100 g carbon equivalent per km for cars, and 25 for a bus). This figure does not apply to tramways, that generally run on electricity (see §4.1.4 below). 4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for the daily mobility of a t erritory’s residents

105 Source: ADEME. 106 Source: INRETS.

Bilan Carbone TM



To obtain reference values for bus mileages per person per year on average and the values needed for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM, the table outlined in paragraph 4.1.1.5 above will be re-used and the line of interest extracted, eg: ZPIU ; 50 000 to 300 000 inhab ZPIU ; more than 300 000 inhab ZPIU in Paris Ensemble

ZPIU107 rural

zones; less than

50 000 inhab

City Centre108

Suburbs and Outskirts

City Centre Suburbs Outskirts Paris

Suburbs and

Outskirts

Number of daily trips per person 2,73 3,06 2,87 2,93 2,84 2,57 2,74 2,71 2,83

Average trip distance (in km) 9,70 6,96 9,23 7,06 7,73 10,14 6,16 9,19 8,61

Total 26,47 21,27 26,50 20,67 21,97 26,08 16,89 24,93 24,37 Distribution modal in %

Collective Transport 2,80 4,86 4,29 11,83 7,26 4,13 35,11 13,90 7,74

Table 66 : Average distance travelled annually by t he French in 1993, and part of public transport

It is possible to deduct the following from the table above :

km per person, per year

on average rural

centre ZPIU 50 - 300.000

inhab

suburbs ZPIU 50 - 300.000

inhab

centre ZPIU > 300.000

inhab

Suburbs ZPIU >

300.000 hab

outskirts ZPIU > 300.000

inhab Paris

intramural Paris

suburbs National average

CT 270 377 415 892 582 393 2 165 1 265 689

Table 67 : Average distance travelled annually in public trans port by the French in 1993

This information does not allow – in itself – to set out kilometres by bus. In effect, the decision remains to set a rule between rail- and road methods in order to pass this global data on to those only concerned with public transport drivers. For this, one should rely on another result from the transport investigation, which gives weekly mileage totals by method, as reproduced below:

Local travel Other short travel Long distance Passengers travelling in millions*km according to principal mode 1993 1993 1993

Bicycle 78 2 80 Moped 45 0 45

Motorcycle 48 1 49

107 ZPIU means industrial or urban settlement zones, and allows the qualifying of urban fabric and town size, notably by taking the daily migration level into account. In this document, this notion will be merged with the town size. 108 A central city that is a multi-communal urban unit (or multi-communal town) is defined as follows. If a municipality shelters more than 50% of the urban unit‘s population, it is a central city only. Otherwise, all the municipalities with a population exceeding 50% of a more densely inhabited town, also the latter, are central cities. The towns that are not central cities constitute the suburbs of the multi-communal town.

Bilan Carbone TM



PV household driver 4645 499 5144 PV household passenger 1422 77 1499

PV outside household 1110 105 1215 Bus, coach 451 35 486

Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) 231 9 240 Trains (including RET) 240 9 249

Other 28 8 36 Total 8299 446 8745

Table 68: Total weekly mileages by mode, 1993

On the basis of a population of 56.6 million people, it gives the following results for kilometre per person per year by mode:

Method Km per inhabitant per year during 1993, on the basis of

daily travelling Bicycle 73 Moped 41

Motorcycle 45 PV household driver 4 725

PV household passenger 1 377 PV outside household 1 116

Bus, coach 446 Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) 220

Trains (including ter) 229 TGV 0

Plane 0 Other 33 Total 8 032

Table 69 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, 1993

Due to not having access to more recent figures, the above will be kept, which notably indicate that on national average rail transport (local + RET) and a bus are almost equal in modal parts within the CT for short trips. Furthermore, these values indicate that the RET and local rail transportation are equal, which means that in first approximation it will be considered that by default the rail and road are equal in public transport irrespective of the zone, except for Paris. For Paris, on the other hand, the modal parts of rail (subway/RER) and bus transport are 66% and 33% respectively (RATP source); percentages that will be retained for this city. As a result, the default values to be used in the “Territory” spreadsheet are:

Table 70 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, for public transport

km per person, per year on

average rural

centre ZPIU 50 - 300.000

inhab

suburbs ZPIU 50 - 300.000

inhab

centre ZPIU > 300.000

inhab

Suburbs ZPIU > 300.000

hab

outskirts ZPIU > 300.000

inhab Paris

intramural Paris

suburbs National average

CT 270 377 415 892 582 393 2 165 1 265 689 Bus modal part 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 33% 33% 50%

Bilan Carbone TM



4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for long distance mobility of a territory’s residents It is also necessary for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM to propose reference values for bus mileage per person per year on average, on the basis of long distance mobility. Another value from the aforementioned transport survey used is that of the long-distance mobility.

Method

Passengers travelling in millions*km per week, long distance

KM per person per year

Motorcycle 14 13 PV household driver 1483 1 362

PV household passenger 964 885 PV outside household 463 425

Bus, coach 230 211 Trains (including RET) 366 336

TGV 281 258 Plane 1472 1 352 Other 144 132

Total 5415 4 974

Table 71: Kilometres travelled per person per year over long distance, by mode It would then integrate a % increase in the mileage that everyone travels by bus and coach since 1993, knowing that the total number of passengers.km increased with 3% between 1994 and 2004109. For the lack of data on the number of trips, the value retained for this version of the Emission Factors Manual is 211 km by bus and car per person per year on national average. Finally, when choosing an emission factor for long distances, it is assumed that the only type of vehicle used is a coach. 4.1.3 Two-wheeled vehicles 4.1.3.1 Amortization and upstream emissions for two -wheeled vehicles In the same way as for personal cars, "amortization" is a way of accounting for the emissions related to the manufacture of mopeds and motorcycles. In the absence of specific information pertaining to two-wheeled vehicles, we use the value of 1,5 tons C eq per vehicle ton, as calculated for personal cars (see §4.1.1.1). It can also be remarked that the supplement for vehicle manufacture for small cars is slightly under 30% (in relation to emissions during a mixed driving cycle), as seen in tables 179 and 182 (appendix 8), partially reproduced below.


Bilan Carbone TM



Consumption emissions (g C eq/km) by type of itinerary

Supplement for vehicle manufacture (% of

emissions during use)

Fiscal horsepower rating

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban Non-

urban Mixed Urban

3 10,8 37,2 42,7 52,5 29% 25% 21% 4 11,0 42,8 50,5 64,4 26% 22% 17% 5 10,8 46,7 57,0 75,0 23% 19% 14%

Extract from the table situated in Appendix 8, conc erning the emission factors for gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal hp

Consumption emissions (g C

eq/km) by type of itinerary Supplement for vehicle

manufacture (% of emissions during use)


Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban Non-

urban Mixed Urban

3 9,2 29,5 32,4 37,1 31% 28% 25% 4 11,5 37,9 45,3 58,4 30% 25% 20% 5 11,2 43,7 53,0 69,3 26% 21% 16%

Extract from the table situated in Appendix 8, conc erning the emission factors for diesel vehicles, 3-5 fiscal hp

It can be seen that the smaller the car, the greater the proportion of manufacturing emissions. Extrapolating from this observation, it is reasonable to suppose that the proportion of manufacturing emissions for two-wheeled vehicles is greater than for the smallest cars (in fiscal hp), for which the emissions are on the order of 30% of combustion emissions. Upstream emissions for extraction, transport and refining of the fuel used (gasoline) are equal to 17% of combustion emissions. (see §2.2.3.2, Upstream emissions for liquid fuels). 4.1.3.2 Combustion emissions per vehicle.km Emission factors for two-wheeled vehicles (mopeds and motorcycles) can be found in the ADEME study on Energy and environmental efficiency in the transport sector in 2000 (ADEME, 2002) which distinguishes between urban and intercity travel, and specifies occupancy rates. The emission factors in this study refer only to fuel combustion (see table below).

Kg C eq / passenger.km Kg C eq / vehicle.km Urban Intercity Urban Intercity Mopeds 0.018 0.018 Motorcycles < 125 cm3 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.031

Bilan Carbone TM



Motorcycles ≥ 125 cm3 0.033 0.031 0.033 0.033 Average occupancy rate 1.02 1.07

Table 72: Combustion emission factors for two-whee led vehicles (ADEME, 2002)

The Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet includes only the emission factors for city travel, and for vehicle.km. The emission factors for urban and for intercity travel are not significantly different, and the low occupancy rate indicates that two-wheelers are most often used by just one person. The uncertainty range for two-wheeler emission factors is 20%. 4.1.4 Mass transit: suburban rail, metro and tramwa y 4.1.4.1 Emission factor Knowing that one passenger.km travelled by train corresponds to 2,6 g carbon equivalent in France (all rail systems taken together, see §4.4) and that the Paris suburban commuter rail system (RER), urban rail (métropolitain or subway systems) and tramway systems all run on electricity, carbon emissions are on the order of: 30 (km) * 220 (days) * 2,6 (g C eq/km) = 17 kg C eq per year. A study currently underway with RATP, the Paris transit authority, will furnish more accurate values for sections §4.1.2 and 4.1.4. These figures are applicable only to France. For other European countries approximate distances must be calculated, and rail transport emission factors used (see §4.4). 4.1.4.2 Kilometres travelled for daily mobility The distance travelled per person per year with rail transport will be deducted from the information set out in section 4.1.2.4: when the total distance travelled per person per year with public transport and the modal emissions of a bus is available, the balance is devoted to rail modes. If a Household Travel Survey was conducted in the municipality’s territory then data from these studies will be used. It reflects more the specifics of the territory that provided the baseline data (from national work). 4.2 Goods transport by road As for passenger transport, the best method is to start with actual vehicle fuel consumption, if this information can be obtained, and then add in emissions linked to

Bilan Carbone TM



manufacture of the truck or utility vehicle. If it is not possible to follow this procedure, various approximate emission factors, suggested below, give acceptable orders of magnitude for estimating emissions by type of truck used and distance travelled, or by ton.km of shipments. 4.2.1 Amortization of trucks and utility vehicles This "amortization" procedure aims to report emissions linked to vehicle manufacture. It is analogous to that used for personal cars, based on empty vehicle weight. Goods transport vehicles are broken down into two families:

- single-body vehicles, comprising trucks and light utility vehicles,

- articulated vehicles, made up of a road tractor and a trailer. Consumption figures for these vehicles by GWV class110 are available from the Observatoire de l'Energie (OE) that publishes yearly statistics released by the French Transport Ministry (see §4.2.2). To achieve an exhaustive accounting of transport emissions, reported figures should include emissions linked to manufacture and, theoretically, to vehicle upkeep (and even construction of roads). To derive figures on manufacturing emissions we must know the empty, or tare weight of the vehicles in question. To have figures that can be added together, the figures for average tare weight must correspond to the GVW weight classes for fuel consumption. Lastly, figures for total distance travelled are necessary, covering the total useful life for each mode of transport, in order to assign a share of manufacturing emissions to each km travelled. GVW weight classes for fuel consumption statistics are as follows:

GVW class < 1,5 tons 1,5 - 2,5 tons 2,51 - 3,5 tons

Ligh

t util

ity

vehi

cles

3,5 tons 3,51t - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons

Tru

cks

Articulated vehicles (GVW tractor + trailer) 44 t (in general)

Table 73: GVW classes for light utility vehicles a nd trucks 110 GWV: Gross Vehicle Weight.

Bilan Carbone TM



Various reasons determine how these categories are defined, including, among others:

- 3,5 t GVW is the upper limit for light utility vehicles that can be driven with a class B (tourism) driving license,

- 19 t GVW is the upper limit for two-axle motor vehicles,

- 26 t GVW is the upper limit for three-axle motor vehicles,

- 32 t GVW is the upper limit for motor vehicles with four or more axles. These articulated vehicles (commonly called tractor-trailers) are almost always composed of a tractor weighing about 7 tons, pulling a trailer with an empty weight of about 8 tons. The total freight capacity of these articulated vehicles is 25 tons, giving a total weight of about 40 tons when fully loaded. Statistics from the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing indicate the number of vehicles in operation as of 1 January 2002, by GVW weight class (see appendix 7). For example, at that date there were 1 554 trucks on the road, under 10 years of age and with a GVW of exactly six tons. Using these figures the average GVW can be calculated for the categories in table 64. It can also be observed that in each category numbers are clustered around a few vehicle weights. Graphs showing this distribution, and the deviation between the GVW for the clusters and the average weight in the category, are given in appendix 7. The important conclusion to be drawn here is that for each GVW category, the maximum deviation is 20% between the average GVW and that of the most common vehicles in the weight class (the clusters of vehicles, corresponding to the peak on the graph). This observation is significant for two reasons:

- firstly, manufacturing emissions depend on the empty vehicle weight, fairly well correlated to GVW,

- secondly, we will see below that average fuel consumption is also very closely correlated to GVW for vehicles.

In other words, in basing calculations on average GVW, the deviation between this average and values applicable to the most widely used vehicles in the weight class will never exceed 20%. To obtain empty vehicle weight from GVW, we must know the maximum useful load transported by the vehicle, in order to subtract it from the GVW figure. Useful loads have been determined as follows:

- for certain kinds of trucks the loads are well known to shippers and truckers. This is the case for articulated tractor-trailers (40 tons GVW, 25 tons maximum

Bilan Carbone TM



useful load), for 19-ton GVW trucks (13 tons maximum useful load), and for 7,5-ton GVW utility vehicles (4 tons maximum useful load).

- for vehicles with GVW equal to or less than 3,5 tons, the average GVW and average maximum useful load are listed by the Transport Ministry111,

- for other weight classes we have extrapolated the ratio between GVW and maximum useful load.

GVW class Average GVW in

the class (tons) Average empty weight (tons)

Average maximum useful load (tons)

< 1,5 tons 1,30 0,90 0,40 1,5 - 2,5 tons 1,80 1,10 0,70 2,51 - 3,5 tons 2,90 1,70 1,20 3,5 tons 3,50 2,10 1,40 3,51 - 5 tons 4,74 2,37 2,37 5,1 - 6 tons 5,67 2,84 2,84 6,1 - 10,9 tons 8,80 4,11 4,69 11 - 19 tons 16,32 6,53 9,79 19,1 - 21 tons 19,37 7,75 11,62 21,1 - 32,6 tons 26,87 10,21 16,66 Articulated (tractor-trailers)

40,00 15,00 25,00

Table 74: GVW characteristics

To derive information on how much vehicle manufacture contributes to emissions per km, we need to know the life span, or useful life, of the vehicles, expressed in km travelled. This information has been obtained in part from the Comité National Routier website; the remainder has been extrapolated.

GVW class Useful life in km112

< 1,5 t gasoline 150 000 < 1,5 t diesel 200 000 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 150 000 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 200 000 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 200 000 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel 250 000 3,5 tons 300 000 3,51 - 5 tons 300 000 5,1 - 6 tons 300 000 6,1 - 10,9 tons 380 000 11 - 19 tons 480 000 19,1 - 21 tons 550 000 21,1 - 32,6 tons 650 000 Articulated (tractor-trailers) 750 000

Table 75: Average vehicle life in km by GVW class

111 Source : L'Utilisation des véhicules utilitaires légers en 2000, French Transport Ministry, Economics and Statistics Department. 112 Source: Comité National Routier (France) for categories 6,1- 10,9 t, 11- 9 t and tractor-trailers; extrapolation for intermediate categories; author's estimate for vehicles under 6 tons GVW.

Bilan Carbone TM



It should be noted that this second-order correlation, between useful life and GVW, is very good for the values retained when statistics are not available (see graph below).

Figure 1: Correlation between life span and GVW fo r trucks and light utility vehicles As for personal cars, empty weight is converted into emissions due to vehicle manufacture. As the added value per ton of weight for trucks is half that of automobiles (a tractor-trailer with an empty weight of 15 tons costs approximately 100 000 euros, or 6 000 euros per ton, whereas a personal car costs between 12 000 and 15 000 euros per ton), the factor for converting vehicle weight into manufacturing emissions could theoretically be lower than 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of truck weight. This said, aluminium ( 3 tons C eq/ton) is often used to make trailers, and for the tractor unit (engine, cabin, etc.) there is no particular reason to think that manufacturing emissions per unit weight should be significantly lower than for cars. Until more information is available we will maintain this factor of 1,5 tons of carbon equivalent per ton of truck weight. Likewise, dividing manufacturing emissions by km travelled will give the share contributed by items other than fuel, to emissions per km travelled (excluding emissions due to upkeep and maintenance).

GVW class Average GVW

Average empty

weight (tons)

Useful life in km

Manufacturing emissions g

C eq/km < 1,5 t gasoline 1,30 0,90 150 000 9,0 < 1,5 t diesel 1,30 0,90 200 000 6,8 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 1,80 1,10 150 000 11,0 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 1,80 1,10 200 000 8,3 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 2,90 1,70 200 000 12,8 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel 2,90 1,70 250 000 10,2

y = -242,02x 2 + 24135x + 171683

R2 = 0,9959

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

800 000

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0

PTAC

Bilan Carbone TM



3,5 tons 3,50 2,10 300 000 10,5 3,51 - 5 tons 4,74 2,37 300 000 11,9 5,1 - 6 tons 5,67 2,84 300 000 14,2 6,1 - 10,9 tons 8,80 4,11 380 000 16,2 11 - 19 tons 16,32 6,53 480 000 20,4 19,1 - 21 tons 19,37 7,75 550 000 21,1 21,1 - 32,6 tons 26,87 10,21 650 000 23,6 Articulated (tractor-trailers) 40,00 15,00 750 000 30,0

Table 76: Emission factors for vehicle manufacture by GVW class

The margins of uncertainty for these data are as follows:

- 10% for empty vehicle weight (error due to a statistical bias in the sample studied)

- 50% for truck manufacturing emissions per unit weight (giving a range of 0,7 tons to 2,25 tons C per ton of truck weight),

- 10% for average distances travelled for vehicles before they are scrapped (these figures are based on observations).

The share for vehicle manufacture is therefore assigned an uncertainty figure of 70%, except for the lightest utility vehicles (GVW < 2,5 tons) for which we keep the automobile uncertainty range, i.e. 40%. In all cases these figures are clearly orders of magnitude. It would be useful to obtain more accurate information via the appropriate studies (in short, it would be a good idea to draw up the carbon balance for a utility vehicle manufacturer). 4.2.2 Average fuel consumption per vehicle.km by GV W weight class Published data on fuel consumption for goods transport generally distinguish between in-house use (when goods are transported for the company that owns the truck) and contract transport (this is the case for all shippers that work for other companies). This distinction is not made, however, in data available for small utility vehicles (under 3,5 tons GVW). In this tool we focus only on contract transport when the customer is specified, because if a company possesses its own fleet of vehicles, it is evident that the corresponding fuel consumption can be calculated, even if the company records only its motor fuel bills. As this tool is intended to establish emission factors for entities that cannot determine their fuel consumption, it seems reasonable to assume that this will involve almost exclusively contract shipping. Published data refers to average consumption per GVW weight class (this is an average for all types of trips, taking into account the fact that about 20% of trips are made by empty vehicles).

Bilan Carbone TM



GVW class litres/100 km

113

g C eq per km

< 1,5 t gasoline 8,4 62,1 < 1,5 t diesel 7,2 58,6 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 9,5 70,2 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 8,4 68,4 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 16,7 123,4 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel 10,8 87,9 3,5 tons 12,4 100,9 3,51 - 5 tons 18,5 150,6 5,1 - 6 tons 14,5 118,0 6,1 - 10,9 tons 21,9 178,3 11 - 19 tons 29,6 240,9 19,1 - 21 tons 34,2 278,4 21,1 - 32,6 tons 42,8 348,4 Articulated (tractor-trailers) 37,1 302,0

Table 77: Emission factors for vehicle fuel consum ption per km and by GVW class

As these fuel consumption figures are based on observation of a sampling of vehicles (this is how the Transport Ministry establishes its figures), the source of uncertainty is the representativeness of the sample in relation to vehicles actually on the road. This bias is probably low, and we estimate uncertainty at 5%. On the basis of fuel consumption, we can of course derive emissions linked to vehicle use, using the emission factor for fuel calculated in §2.2.3 (including upstream emissions). Integrating manufacturing emissions, with their own uncertainty range, we arrive at emissions per vehicle.km that include both fuel consumption and manufacture. Then average emissions per vehicle.km can be derived; they are summarized in the table below.

GVW class litres/100 km

114

g C eq per km

Uncertainty for fuel

consumption

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km

Uncertainty for

manufacture

g per vehicle.km

Total uncertaint

y

< 1,5 t gasoline 8,4 62,1 5% 9,0 40% 71,1 9% < 1,5 t diesel 7,2 58,6 5% 6,8 40% 65,4 9% 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 9,5 70,2 5% 11,0 50% 81,2 11% 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 8,4 68,4 5% 8,3 50% 76,6 10% 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 16,7 123,4 5% 12,8 70% 136,2 11% 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 10,8 87,9 5% 10,2 70% 98,1 12% 3,5 t 12,4 100,9 5% 10,5 70% 111,4 11% 3,51 to 5 t 18,5 150,6 5% 11,9 70% 162,4 10% 5,1 to 6 t 14,5 118,0 5% 14,2 70% 132,2 12% 6,1 to 10,9 t 21,9 178,3 5% 16,2 70% 194,5 10% 11 to 19 t 29,6 240,9 5% 20,4 70% 261,3 10%

113 These figures are an average for all owners together up to 5 tons GVW and for contract transport only (i.e. only road haulage shipping companies) for vehicles above 5 tons GVW ( figures pertain to companies that own their own fleets). Source: Energy consumption tables in France, Direction Générale de l’Energie et des Matières Premières, Observatoire de l’Energie, 2001 Edition. 114 See the same remark as above (and the same source).

Bilan Carbone TM



19,1 to 21 t 34,2 278,4 5% 21,1 70% 299,5 10% 21,1 - 32,6 tons 42,8 348,4 5% 23,6 70% 372,0 9% Articulated (tractor-trailers)

37,1 302,0 5% 30,0 70% 332,0 11%

Table 78: Average emission factors per vehicle.km and by GVW class

Let us point out right away that most of the overall uncertainty is due to manufacturing emissions. If we apply a linear regression to the above factors we obtain the curve below, which shows the relatively good correlation between GVW and emissions per vehicle.km, all factors lumped together.

Figure 2: Correlation between GVW and emissions pe r vehicle.km

There is one exception: consumption for 3,51-6 ton vehicles seems wrong115, in that it is out of line with the regression. In fact, if regression is carried out without this value, the new curve shows excellent correlation (see below). We use this curve to estimate average emissions per vehicle.km when the GVW of a given vehicle is known.

115 These classes represent very few vehicles, and straddle two complementary surveys carried out by the Transport Ministry: the one covered light utility vehicles with a useful load of <3 tons (VUL), and the other vehicles with a useful load of >3 tons (TRM). The vehicles in question appear in the categories "3,6t and over" and "6,0t and under" respectively, neither of which is strictly speaking the same as "3,6 to 5t" and "5t to 6t".

y = 0,0102x + 0,0978

R2 = 0,9769

0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

0,350

0,400

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0PTAC

Bilan Carbone TM



Figure 3: Correlation between GVW and average emis sions per vehicle.km for personal cars

This linear relationship between weight and fuel consumption is found in other studies on trucks116, and considering that displacement energy (kinetic energy) is proportional to mass, this is not so surprising after all. The formula given in the graph is included in the spreadsheet. We recommend that it be used when the exact GVW figure is known for a vehicle used to transport goods or raw materials, but vehicle fuel consumption is not. The estimated margin of error is 10%, knowing that fuel consumption by type of truck is very similar from one shipper to the next, as fuel is a major expense and profit margins are slim (if a shipper uses 10% more fuel than competitors, and fuel represents 20% of costs, the shipper will "eat up" the operator's profit margin, which is 2%). 4.2.3 Emission factors per vehicle.km taking into a ccount vehicle load and empty trips 4.2.3.1 Reasoning The preceding section proposes emission factors that correspond to an average for each GVW weight class, integrating all types of itineraries, load factors and percentage of empty trips. In practice, a road haulage vehicle makes some trips loaded, with variable load factors, and some trips empty.

116 Source : Choix logistiques des entreprises et consommation d'énergie / Christophe Rizet, and Basile Keïta / INRETS / November 2000 / page 33.

y = 0,0095x + 0,1138

R2 = 0,9963

0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

0,350

0,400

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0

PTAC

Bilan Carbone TM



In this section we make the commonly accepted assumption that vehicle consumption (and therefore the GHG emissions which are proportional to this consumption) is a linear function of the load transported117.

Thus, in order to evaluate GHG emissions related to vehicle fuel combustion (Ev), data must be obtained for five parameters :

- emissions per km for the vehicle when empty Evv

- emissions per km when fully loaded Evpc

- tonnage corresponding to full load (maximum useful load CU)

- percentage of empty trips Tdv (i.e. the fraction of its trip travelled by the vehicle when empty)

- average tonnage transported (load factor) Tr m for the part of the trip travelled when loaded.

The first three elements are vehicle characteristics, and the last two pertain to how the vehicle is used. If follows that there are only two variables for a given vehicle. Emissions per vehicle.km (Ev) are expressed in the following formula:

Total emissions = emissions for trips when empty + emissions for trips when loaded

Or

Ev = (emissions for trips when empty + emissions for trips when loaded)/distance Or

Ev = (emissions for trips when empty)/distance + (emissions for trips when loaded)/distance Or Ev = (emissions per km when empty)*(distance when empty)/(total distance) + (emissions per

km when loaded)*(distance when loaded)/(total distance) Or

Ev = Evv * (distance when empty/total distance) + (emissions per km when loaded)*(distance when loaded/total distance)

Or

Ev = Evv * Tdv + (emissions per km when loaded) * (1 - Tdv) Assuming that consumption rises linearly with load factor Tr m, we obtain

Emissions per km when loaded = emissions per km when empty + load differential

117 This is how consumption is modelled in the COPERT III programme methodology.

Bilan Carbone TM



Or

Emissions per km when loaded = Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * Tr m In this way we arrive at the formula

Ev = Evv * Tdv + [Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * (Tr m ] * (1 - Tdv) This can also be written

Ev = Evv + [(Evpc - Evv)] * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m

The transport variables Tdv and Tr m are thus individualized for specific vehicles in the formula, when the parameters Evv and Evpc are known. It remains to find or calculate consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles. In fact we will proceed in inverse fashion. The figures given in §4.2.2 are based on vehicles in actual use, that is vehicles that make some of their trips empty and the rest with variable loads. Data on consumption when empty and when fully loaded is thus not directly available from this information. From average consumption figures, and emissions for empty vehicles and fully loaded vehicles, we must construct a system with as many equations as there are unknowns. Then the equations can be solved. 4.2.3.2 Determining consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles We have used the COPERT III118 methodology to compare consumption of empty and fully loaded vehicles, stipulating

- no variation in consumption for light utility vehicles, whatever the load,

- consumption 44% greater for fully loaded trucks (GVW >3,5t) compared to empty.

We can thus write:

Evpc = a * Evv (where a is the coefficient = 1 for light utility vehicles and 1,44 for vehicles > 3,5 t GVW).

The formula given above for calculating Ev

Ev = Evv + [(Evpc - Evv)] * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m Shows how to calculate Evv if the other values are known:

118 November 2000 - See all the information on the Internet : http:// vergina.eng.auth.gr/mech/lat/copert/copert.htm

Bilan Carbone TM



Evv = Ev ÷ [1 + (a - 1) * (1 - Tdv) * Trm]

On the right-hand side of this equation

- a is known

- there remain Tdv and Tr m, which are published annually, with the following values:

GVW % empty trips

(Tdv)119

Maximum

useful load Average tonnage per

vehicle (T m)120

Average load factor

121

< 1,5 t gasoline 20,0% 0,40 0,12 30% < 1,5 t diesel 20,0% 0,40 0,12 30% 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 20,0% 0,70 0,21 30% 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 20,0% 0,70 0,21 30% 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 20,0% 1,20 0,36 30% 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 20,0% 1,20 0,36 30% 3,5 t 20,0% 1,40 0,42 30% 3,51t to 5 t 20,0% 2,37 0,71 30% 5,1 to 6 t 20,0% 2,84 0,85 30% 6,1 to 10,9 t 19,0% 4,69 1,65 35% 11 to 19 t 17,8% 9,79 4,24 43% 19,1 to 21 t 15,0% 11,62 4,93 42% 21,1 - 32,6 tons 29,9% 16,66 8,27 50% Articulated (tractor-trailers)

21,1% 25,00 14,31 57%

Table 79: Characteristics of goods transport by GV W class

The average load factor, Tr m in the last column above, is calculated by dividing average load transported (Tm) by maximum useful load (CU).

Tr m = Tm ÷ CU

For vehicles under 3,5 tons GVW, the average load factor has been set at 30% of maximum useful load, in the absence of any published data. Since we have no formula for adjusting consumption to the load transported, this makes no difference for emissions per vehicle.km (but will have an effect on average emissions per ton.km). In summary, here are the characteristic data for these vehicles.

Emissions kg C eq/vehicle km GVW Travel w/o load (Evv) Fully loaded (Evpc )

Maximum useful load (CU)

< 1,5 t gasoline 0,062 0,062 0,40 < 1,5 t diesel 0,059 0,059 0,40 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 0,070 0,070 0,70 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 0,068 0,068 0,70 0,123 0,123 1,20

119 Source : Utilisation des véhicules de TRM, année 2001 (transport pour compte d'autrui), French Transport Ministry, DAEI-SES. 120 Based on the SITRAM-TRM database of 2000 (combining wholly owned accounts and others). 121 This corresponds to average vehicle tonnage (Tm) divided by maximum payload (CU).

Bilan Carbone TM



2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 0,088 0,088 1,20 3,5 t 0,101 0,101 1,40 3,51 to 5 t 0,136 0,196 2,37 5,1 to 6 t 0,107 0,154 2,84 6,1 to 10,9 t 0,158 0,228 4,69 11 to 19 t 0,208 0,300 9,79 19,1 to 21 t 0,240 0,346 11,62 21,1 - 32,6 tons 0,302 0,435 16,66 Articulated (tractor-trailers) 0,252 0,363 25,00

Table 80: Emission factors for goods transport, em pty and fully loaded vehicles

With this data the emission factor applicable to a given trip can be found when the following are known:

- % empty trips

- average load factor (Tr m) If the reporting company knows these two figures, they can be inserted in the formula given above.

Ev = Evv + [(Evpc - Evv)] * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m For companies that do not have these figures, the values given in table 68 should be used. 4.2.3.3 Reintegrating manufacturing emissions The above line of reasoning considers only emissions linked to fuel use. "Complete" emissions per vehicle.km are obtained using the following formula.

Ev = Efab + Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m Efab designates manufacturing emissions per km, according to the calculations given in §4.2.2. The spreadsheet uses the complete formula, with the result that the applicable emission factor is automatically adjusted in keeping with available information, i.e. percentage of distance travelled when empty and load factors. 4.2.4 Emission factors per ton.km taking into accou nt vehicle load and empty trips The emission factors outlined in this section pertain to transport of merchandise by outside service companies, whether shipments contracted with shipping companies, or deliveries by suppliers. In the transport company this is called contract shipping: the truck is used to carry goods of another company, and not merchandise of the company that owns the truck.

Bilan Carbone TM



In these circumstances the information readily available to the reporting entity is the weight of goods shipped, and distances, based on point of departure and point of arrival. ADEME commissioned a specific study to develop a simple solution using this information to determine emissions, in the form of a freight-route-t.km utility122 furnished as a complement to the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet. This utility calculates the breakdown of ton.km by vehicle type for all merchandise transported. 4.2.4.1 Typology of goods transport The information that companies will find most easily is total ton.km for its shipments, by destination. This figure is obtained simply by multiplying the weight of shipments by the distance travelled. Tonnage shipped per destination is generally already known or easy to ascertain, as is the distance involved for each destination (if the distance is not known it can be found easily using the tools cited for each mode of transport, notably the Infotrafic website mentioned in §4.2.6 below). One initial element is a good place to start; the shipping and trucking industries are fairly standardized, and it is possible to establish relationships linking variables (these links are applicable for all of Europe):

- the type(s) of vehicles used and the unit weight of a shipment

- average load coefficients, vehicle type and the goods shipper. Different transport solutions are available, and the solution chosen depends primarily on the unit weight of the shipment. 4.2.4.2 Determining emissions per ton.km in Bilan C arbone™ In section §4.2.3 emission factors per vehicle.km are established. This information can be used to derive emission factors per ton.km. To do se we use the following equation, valid if the truck transports only the reporting company's merchandise:

vehicle.km = (ton.km) ÷ (average shipment weight) For example, 1 000 ton.km transported by a truck with an average load weight of 4 tons per trip, means the truck has travelled 250 km. More generally, if the truck is loaded with merchandise from different senders, the following equation is used:

vehicle.km = [(ton.km) ÷ (average shipment weight)] * (percentage of total load occupied by the company's merchandise)

122 All information on using this utility can be found in the Utility Manual of the Bilan_Carbone.xls spreadsheet.

Bilan Carbone TM



Average shipment weight can be expressed as follows:

Average load = maximum load of fully loaded truck * average load factor The spreadsheet incorporates a formula for converting ton.kilometres to vehicle.kilometres as follows:

(i) kg C eq per ton.km = kg C eq per vehicle.km ÷ (maximum useful load weight * average load factor for the entire itinerary)

But

Average load factor for the entire itinerary = (transported load * distance travelled with load) ÷ (maximum load * total distance)

i.e.

Average load factor for the entire itinerary = transported load * (distance travelled with load ÷ total distance) ÷ maximum load

Or, using the symbols from §4.2.3 above:

(ii) Average load factor for the entire itinerary = Tr m * (1 - Tdv) Combining the equations (i) and (ii) above we obtain

kg C eq per ton.km = Ev ÷ (CU * Tr m * (1 - Tdv)) Finally we obtain the equation

Et = [Ev ÷ (1 - Tdv)] ÷ (CU * Tr m Et = [Ev ÷ (1 - Tdv)] ÷ Tm

where Et represents emissions per ton.km, that can also be expressed in terms of emissions per vehicle.km, the percentage of itinerary travelled when empty, and the average load transported when loaded. In order to implement the above approach it is necessary to know the average load factors for the trucks used. Either the reporting company has access to this information, or national average rates as indicated in §4.2.3.2 can be used by default. For national averages, emission factors per ton.km are the following:

GVW class g C eq per ton.km < 1,5 t gasoline 740,4 < 1,5 t diesel 680,8 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 483,4

Bilan Carbone TM



1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 456,1 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 472,8 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 340,7 3,5 t 331,7 3,51 to 5 t 285,4 5 to 6 t 194,2 6,1 to 10,9 t 145,1 11 to 19 t 74,9 19,1 to 21 t 71,4 Over 21 tons 64,1 Articulated (tractor-trailers) 29,4

Table 81: National average emission factors for go ods transport by GVW class

4.2.5 Uncertainties in the methods described in §4. 2.3 and 4.2.4 A number of national averages are considered in order to achieve the desired results:

- fuel consumption and emissions by type of vehicle,

- distribution of vehicle types or ton.km across the vehicle fleet,

- etc. It is also important to remember that

- some national figures (for light utility vehicles) make no distinction between in-company transport and contract or commercial transport; in-company transport is on average less efficient.

- Outside of full load shipments, it is not possible to determine exactly the composition of each vehicle load, which includes merchandise from companies other than the reporting company.

- the data to be supplied by the reporting company are usually readily available for the downstream side (shipment of merchandise), or more generally when the company is the initiator, but often less accessible when the company is not the ordering customer (transport of goods by suppliers for example).

In light of all these factors, the uncertainty linked to use of these formulas is estimated at 20%. 4.2.6 Accurate calculation of road distances To accurately determine ton.km and vehicle.km for shipments it can be useful to have exact figures for road distances. Various websites, among them www.infotrafic.com, www.mappy.fr and http://www.viamichelin.fr/, give exact distances between a departure location (municipality or township) and any destination in Europe.

Bilan Carbone TM



4.2.7 Tons.km per capita and region It may be useful, within the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM, to obtain the tonnes.km shipped or received per inhabitant, and per region. 4.2.7.1 Tons.km shipped per capita and region Statistics from the Ministère de l’Equipement (Source: MTETM/SESP, TRM Survey, 2004) provide millions of tonnes.km loaded and unloaded per region and level of GVW. From these data, simply divide the population of the region to achieve the following values (the data are separated into two tables simply for reason of space): t.km shipped by road, per capita and by region Alsace Aquitaine Auvergne

Basse-Normandie Bourgogne Bretagne Centre

Champagne-Ardenne Corse

Franche-Comté

Haute-Normandie Ile-de-France

de 5 t à 6 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 de 6,1 t à 10,9 t 12 21 35 14 17 16 10 13 7 18 11 16 de 11 t à 19 t 330 360 291 251 375 289 355 264 75 291 325 172 de 19,1 t à 21 t 0 11 62 11 32 21 4 17 0 9 10 4 21,1 à 32,6 t 200 161 242 164 161 255 201 209 199 203 119 61 Tractor-trailers 3 450 3 255 2 302 2 847 3 227 3 347 3 202 4 301 499 2 760 4 630 1 231

.km shipped by road, per capita and by region

Languedoc-Roussillon Limousin Lorraine

Midi-Pyrénées

Nord-Pas-de-Calais

Pays de la Loire Picardie

Poitou-Charentes

Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur

Rhône-Alpes Moyenne nationale

5 t to 6 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,1 t to 10,9 t 23 43 25 16 8 19 19 29 9 22 17 11 t to 19 t 193 324 289 285 228 324 255 454 243 308 272 19,1 t to 21 t 7 13 5 30 2 17 9 29 14 17 13 21,1 to 32,6 t 118 205 181 187 137 274 186 225 94 193 158 Tractor-trailers 2 400 2 355 3 289 2 223 2 968 3 549 3 643 3 857 2 219 2 808 2 711

Table 82 : t.km shipped by road, per capita, per ye ar and by region

The same statistics from the Ministère de l’Equipement, with the same division by population in the region can achieve the following values (the data are separated into two tables simply for reason of space): t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region Alsace Aquitaine Auvergne

Basse-Normandie Bourgogne Bretagne Centre

Champagne-Ardenne Corse

Franche-Comté

Haute-Normandie

Ile-de-France

5 t to 6 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,1 t to 10,9 t 17 15 40 9 22 14 8 14 7 18 12 16 11 t to 19 t 343 388 305 269 370 305 317 253 85 302 306 181 19,1 t to 21 t 2 16 39 8 32 24 7 6 0 9 9 7 21,1 to 32,6 t 195 184 247 162 169 237 206 194 202 233 150 70 Tractor-trailers 3 048 3 247 2 490 2 917 3 425 3 568 3 202 3 875 395 2 822 3 811 1 421

t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region

Languedoc-Roussillon Limousin Lorraine

Midi-Pyrénées

Nord-Pas-de-Calais

Pays de la Loire Picardie

Poitou-Charentes

Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur

Rhône-Alpes total

5 t to 6 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,1 t to 10,9 t 23 45 21 21 9 24 19 22 9 18 17 11 t to 19 t 255 318 271 314 184 354 262 326 248 296 272 19,1 t to 21 t 7 12 3 24 5 22 3 25 12 18 13 21,1 to 32,6 t 125 178 149 184 135 286 139 242 96 176 158 Tractor-trailers 2 066 3 093 2 989 2 461 5 751 3 553 3 274 3 428 2 269 2 747 2 711

Table 83 : t.km received by road, per capita, per y ear and by region

Bilan Carbone TM



4.3 Air transport As with road haulage, air freight transport uses fossil fuel, and contributes to GHG emissions123. Below we give emission factors by type of itinerary and by ticket class for passenger transport. The data used are from the Airbus124 and Boeing websites accessed in October 2002 (see appendix 9). 4.3.1 Fuel consumption per passenger.km The table below gives pertinent information for commercial aircraft in service:

- flight range (maximum range carrying only passengers)

- the number of seats in each ticket class. . The airliner configurations are the standard configurations outlined by manufacturers in their documentation.

Aircraft Maximum fuel (litres)

Action range

125 (km)

Seats (econo

my class)

Seats (business

class)

Seats (1st

class)

Total seats

Equivalent (economy-class)

126

A300 62 000 7 408 240 26 266 298 A310 75 470 9 630 212 28 240 247 A318 23 860 5 278 99 8 107 117 A319 29 660 6 852 116 8 124 134 A320 29 660 5 649 138 12 150 164 A321 29 660 5 371 169 16 185 199 A330-200 (2 classes)

139 090 12 316 263 30 293 333

A330-200 (3 classes)

139 090 12 316 205 36 12 253 331


97 530 10 371 305 30 335 375


97 530 10 371 241 42 12 295 381


155 040 270 30 300 340


155 040 14 816 213 36 12 261 339


141 500 13 520 305 30 335 375


141 500 13 520 241 42 12 295 381

A340-500 (2 214 810 13 520 329 30 359 399

123 Emissions from planes taking off from French airports, over the whole of their itineraries, amounted to 50% of emissions from passenger cars in France in 2001. 124 www.airbus.com 125 The operational range is the maximum distance the aircraft can travel carrying the maximum passenger load, without cargo. 126 This is the total number of economy-class seats that the aircraft could hold; the actual number of seats is lower, because business-class and first-class seats take up more space than economy-class seats.

Bilan Carbone TM



classes) A340-500 (3 classes)

214 810 13 520 259 42 12 313 399


194 880 13 890 383 36 419 467


194 880 13 890 314 54 12 380 482

A380 310 000 14 816 439 96 20 555 733 747-400 216 840 13 446 416 416 B777 1 class only 171 160 11 019 550 550 550

Table 84: Baseline characteristics for the main ty pes of aircraft

We make the following assumptions in our calculations:

- the average rate of aircraft occupancy is 75%, for all classes,

- in economy-class, each seat is assigned an emissions figure equal to the emissions of the entire aircraft divided by the number of "equivalent economy-class seats" it could theoretically hold,

- for business-class seats, a supplement of 88% to 133% compared to economy class is assigned, depending on the aircraft (based on the ratio of seats in each class, as given on airline websites),

- for first-class seats, a supplement of 250% compared to economy-class seat emissions is assigned (same basis).

Aircraft emit CO2 of course, which is easily accounted for using the fuel emission factors calculated in §2.2.3, but they also emit other greenhouse gases: eg water vapour127, condensed water in various forms, NOx and methane that together produce ozone, etc., (see the graph below, obtained from an IPCC document128).

127 Water vapour is taken into account here because it is in part emitted in the stratosphere, which is not the case for water vapour from the use of fossil fuels on the ground. 128 Aviation and Global Atmosphere, Summary for Policymakers / International Panel on Climate Change / 1999.

Bilan Carbone TM



Figure 4: Radiative forcing by aircraft in 1992

The last line of this graph specifies the degree of understanding of the physical and chemical processes involved (which has a direct impact on the size of the error band, represented by the line segment set on top of the bars). It is easy to see that the "minor" gases and water vapour lead to a total radiative forcing on the order of 0,04 W/m², while CO2 alone produces only 0,02 W/m², that is half as much radiative forcing. Total forcing can vary between 0,02 and 0,1 W/m², however, meaning that the following results may be either excessive, or on the contrary well below actual emissions. For each type of aircraft, emissions for an economy-class passenger are calculated using the formula

Emissions per economy-class passenger = 2 * total fuel * kerosene emission factor ÷ (total number of "equivalent economy-class" seats * total distance travelled * average rate of occupancy)

For business-class and first-class passengers we apply the coefficients given above. The results for emissions per passenger.km are as follows (taking into account upstream emissions for kerosene).

Bilan Carbone TM



Aircraft Range with all seats occupied (km)

g C eq per passenger.km in economy class

g C eq per passenger.km

in business class

g C eq per passenger.km in first class

Average per seat

A300 7 408 58 130 - 65 A310 9 630 66 82 - 68 A318 5 278 80 180 - 88 A319 6 852 67 151 - 72 A320 5 649 66 144 - 73 S

hort

-ran

ge

airc

raft

A321 5 371 58 108 - 62 A330-200 12 316 71 165 247 93 A330-300 10 371 52 121 182 58 A340-200 14 816 64 149 224 83 A340-300 13 520 57 133 199 74 A340-500 13 520 83 193 289 105 A340-600 13 890 60 141 211 77 A380 14 816 59 138 207 78 747-400 13 446 Information on disposition of seats by class is not

available 80

Long

-ran

ge a

ircra

ft

B777129

11 019 59 - - 59

Table 85: Emission factors per passenger.km for pa ssenger air travel

In this table it can be observed that the range of values around the value of 60 g C eq per economy-class passenger.km is on the order of 40%. For the two most commonly used long-range aircraft (B 747 and A 340-600) the two values are very close, on the order of 60 g C eq per economy-class passenger.km. It should also be noted that the difference by ticket class is highly significant in all cases. For short-range aircraft, it should be remembered that:

- as a general rule these aircraft are used for only a fraction of their maximum range (a flight from Paris to Nice, for example), and it therefore induces more important expenditures in fuel use per passenger.km, because take-off and landing consume proportionally more fuel.

- aircraft generally carry some freight when they are not flying to a city located at the outer limit of their operational range with only passengers on board,

- In this calculation we have not taken into account emissions linked to manufacture of aircraft, airport activity, maintenance and upkeep etc. These other factors would probably add a few grams of carbon equivalent per passenger.km, notably for short-distance trips that use proportionally more airport services per km travelled.

Considering emissions calculated for the maximum operating range and these remarks, the emission factors retained for the spreadsheet are the following:

- 80 g C eq per passenger.km for an economy-class passenger on a short-distance trip,

129 One class of seats only.

Bilan Carbone TM



- 180 g C eq per passenger.km for a business-class passenger on a short-distance trip,

- 60 g C eq per passenger.km for an economy-class passenger on a long-distance trip,

- 140 g C eq per passenger.km for a business-class passenger on a long-distance trip,

- 210 g C eq per passenger.km for a first-class passenger on a long-distance trip.

The margin of error is estimated at 20%. This uncertainty is probably highest on "intermediate" flight ranges (between 1 500 and 3 000 km). The only way to reduce this uncertainty figure would be to obtain statements from airlines giving fuel consumption and distance travelled for each flight reported. 4.3.2 Fuel consumption per ton.km for freight Some of the aircraft listed above exist in cargo or mixed passenger/cargo configurations. Using the conversion tables supplied by Airbus, giving aircraft range by tonnage aboard, we have derived the following table.

Aircraft Maximum fuel (litres)

Cargo (tons)

Range (km) for load on-board

kg C eq per ton.km

130

A318 23 860 16 2 778 0,835 A318 23 860 10 5 186 0,716 A319 29 660 18,5 4 593 0,544 A319 29 660 11 6 852 0,612 A320 29 660 20 2 675 0,863 A320 29 660 15 4 116 0,748 A300F 68 150 52 5 062 0,403 A300F 68 150 43 6 297 0,392 A310 75 470 32,9 6 482 0,551 A330-200 139 090 104 8 149 0,255 A330-200 139 090 68 11 112 0,286 A340-600 194 880 147,4 10 371 0,198 A340-600 194 880 80 13 890 0,273 A380 310 000 150 10 408 0,309 747-400 216 840 113 13 446 0,222

Table 86: Theoretical emission factors per ton.km for air freight

The above table applies to fully loaded aircraft, and assumes that the maximum operational range for the load on-board is in fact attained. If an additional 20% are added to the results, to account for distances that are generally shorter than the maximum operating range, aircraft that are not entirely full,

130 These figures take into account upstream emissions for kerosene as mentioned in §2.1.1 and the factor of 2 linked to reporting of cases other than CO2.

Bilan Carbone TM



particularly in the case of cargo transported in planes also carrying passengers, etc., we come up with new values, which will serve as reference values.

Category Aircraft Maximum fuel (litres)

Range (km) for load on board

Cargo (tons) kg C eq per ton.km

131

A318 23 860 2 778 16 1,044 A318 23 860 5 186 10 0,895 A319 29 660 4 593 18,5 0,680 A319 29 660 6 852 11 0,765 A320 29 660 2 675 20 1,078 S

hort

-ran

ge

A320 29 660 4 116 15 0,934 A300F 68 150 5 062 52 0,504 A300F 68 150 6 297 43 0,490

Med

ium

ra

nge

A310 75 470 6 482 33 0,689 A330-200 139 090 8 149 104 0,319 A330-200 139 090 11 112 68 0,358 A340-600 194 880 10 371 147 0,248 A340-600 194 880 13 890 80 0,341 A380 310 000 10 408 150 0,386 Lo

ng-r

ange

747-400 216 840 13 446 113 0,278

Table 87: "Real” emission factors per ton.km for ai r freight

An average value can be retained for each category, from which the other values diverge by no more than 20%. For short distances, i.e. flights of under 1 000 km, this value is 0,9 kg C eq per ton.km.

Average value retained for short-range flights: 0,900 Kg C eq/t.km Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km Deviation from mean

A318 1,044 14% A319 0,765 -18% A320 - occupancy rate 1 1,078 17% A320 - occupancy rate 2 0,748 -20%

Table 88: Emission factors for short-range air fre ight

For medium distances, i.e. flights of between 1 000 and 4 000 km, this value is 0,57 kg C eq per ton.km.

Average value retained for medium-range flights: 0,570 Kg C eq/t.km Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km Deviation from mean

A300F- occupancy rate 1 0,504 -13% A300F- occupancy rate 2 0,490 -16% A310 0,689 17%

Table 89: Emission factors for medium-range air fr eight

131 These figures take into account upstream emissions for kerosene, as mentioned in §2.2.3.

Bilan Carbone TM



For long distances, i.e. flights of over 4 000 km, this value is 0,32 kg C eq per ton.km.

Average value retained for long-range flights: 0,320 Kg C eq/t.km Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km Deviation from mean

A330-200 0,358 11% A340-600 0,341 6% A340-600 0,273 -17% A380 0,386 17% 747-400 0,278 -15%

Table 90: Emission factors for long-range air frei ght

The margin of error for all these coefficients is set at 20%. The conventional aspect of multiplying CO2 emissions by 2 to obtain emissions for other greenhouse gases makes it legitimate to use conventional coefficients here as well. 4.3.3 Determining distances travelled per trip 4.3.3.1 General case When departure and arrival locations are known, the distance travelled between them can be obtained using the websites mentioned below. These sites calculate the shortest distance between two points on the globe (the shortest distance follows the arc of the circumference, also called orthrodromic arc), which is more or less the route followed by aircraft, that have no obstacles to avoid (fly-over bans are few in number).

- www.amadeus.net lists airports serving a given city,

- www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm gives distances between two cities,

- http://www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/rel-calc.html gives distances between two airports (that can be located using Amadeus for departure and arrival airports).

4.3.3.2 Long distance mobility mileage By default, in case of the absence of specific territory information, the distance travelled per person per year in aircraft will be deducted from the same information outlined in paragraph 4.1.2.4, which is reproduced below for aerial emissions:

Mode

Passengers travelling in millions*km per week for long

distance Km per person per year Plane 1472 1 352

Table 91 : Kilometres travelled per person and by p lane in 1993

Bilan Carbone TM



Moreover, available statistics show the following: - A stagnation in domestic traffic between 1994 and 2004 (source: Transportation Accounting, 2004), - An increase of 80 to 90% of passengers transported (not passenger-km) between 1995 and 2005 by international flights from the metropole. Finally, 80 million passengers have used a French airport in 2005, primarily estimated as 40 million in each direction, with: - 50 million passengers on European flights, - 10 million passengers for America, - 13 million passengers for Africa, mainly the North, - 7 million passengers for Asia (including the Middle East). On the basis of approximate distances, it is possible to draw the table below.

Passengers in

millions Average distance

Total distance in million kms

Asia 7 5 000 35 000

Europe 50 500 25 000

Africa 13 3 000 39 000

America 10 6 500 65 000

Total 80 2 050 164 000

Table 92 : Average distance travelled per passenger per plane

The average distance per passenger is therefore approximately 2000 km. Furthermore, if we presume that 50% of the passengers were French, then it shows an average travelling distance by the French - for long distance flights - of 40/60 * 2000 = 1360 km. As a first approach, we will therefore conserve the 1352 km transport from the survey. 4.3.4 Adding accuracy Unlike road transport where actual consumption deviates relatively little from average values, for air transport actual consumption figures show significant deviation from average values, depending on the aircraft and distances travelled. The reasons for this are structural: the range of aircraft types is much broader than for trucks; distance has a very strong impact on mean figures, because take-off and landing consume significant amounts of fuel, regardless of the distance travelled; etc.

Bilan Carbone TM



The only way to achieve more accurate estimates of emissions per flight is to obtain information from the operator. 4.4 Rail transport 4.4.1 General information GHG emissions linked to rail transport are due to:

- manufacture of infrastructure (in part production of rail track, but also civil engineering works that are required)

- manufacture of rolling stock,

- traction energy employed by trains: this may be diesel fuel, which emits direct emissions when combusted, or electricity, which emits more or less GHG depending on the primary energy132 source used for power generation (see §2.4).

The emission factors given below do not account for emissions linked to manufacture of rolling stock and to infrastructure, unless specified otherwise. This decision is logical, without much debate, as far as infrastructure (generally built some time ago, excepting high-speed rail installations) is concerned. It is more debatable for rolling stock that must be built and maintained. 4.4.2 Passenger travel 4.4.2.1 Passengers travelling by train in France Our data was obtained from the Strategy Division of the French National Railways (SNCF), which used its in-house statistics to evaluate the energy efficiency of the company's passenger trains (Train Rapide National-TRN, Train à Grande Vitesse-TGV, Train Express Régional-TER) and traction modes (diesel and electric). We combine the energy efficiencies calculated by SNCF (koe133/passenger.kilometre) with diesel (see §2.2.3) and electricity (see §2.4.5) emission factors, to obtain emission factors for each mode. The results are as follows:

électricité diesel global

total voyageurs 0.0009 0.0252 0.0026

TGV - Train à Grande Vitesse 0.0007 - 0.0007 TRN - Train Rapide National 0.0008 0.0246 0.0035 TER - Train Express Régional 0.0014 0.0259 0.0102 Train Ile-de-France 0.0013 0.0181 0.0015

VOYAGEURSémissions moyennes (kg eqC/voyageur.km)

132 Primary energy is the energy used in an electricity generating plant. 133 koe: Kilogram oil equivalent

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 93: Emission factors per passenger.km for tr ain travel in France

One passenger.km in France corresponds to 2,6 g C eq on average (not including emissions for train manufacture). The large difference between the emission factors for TGV and TER trains is due to the high proportion of diesel engines used for regional trains, and to the energy resource used for the electricity that powers the high-speed TGV trains. These data also take average occupancy rate into account. These figures are slightly different from those published by ADEME in December 2002134 (2,8 g C eq per passenger.km, on average). This difference stems from the breakdown and analysis of the SNCF data for the purpose of highlighting emissions to be attributed to urban travel and intercity passenger travel. 4.4.2.2 Passengers travelling by train in Europe The study of external effects carried out by the Union Internationale des Chemins de fer (UIC), commonly known as the "INFRAS – IWW study", was updated in October 2004135, taking 2000 as its reference year. Emission factors for passenger rail travel in different European countries can be derived from this study.

Country g C eq per passenger.km

Germany 18,2 Austria 6,4 Belgium 13,2 Denmark 31,1 Spain 14,0 Finland 12,3 Greece 18,1 Ireland 10,6 Italy 8,7 Luxembourg 10,8 Norway 10,9 Netherlands 20,8 Portugal 16,8 United Kingdom 20,4 Sweden 3,5 Switzerland 1,0 European average (EU 17) 12.0

Table 94: Emission factors per passenger.km for tr ain travel abroad

134 ADEME, Explicit, 2002, Evaluations des efficacités énergétiques et environnementales des transports en 2000. 135 UIC, INFRAS – IWW, July 2004, External costs of transport.

Bilan Carbone TM



4.4.2.3 Long distance mobility mileage The distance travelled per person per year by train is being deducted from the same information as outlined in paragraph 4.1.2.4, which is reproduced below for railway emissions:

Travelling in millions of passenger*km per week by principal mode

Long distance 1993

trains (including RET) 366 TGV 281 total 647

Table 95 : Long distance travelling in millions of passengers*km per week and by rail

From this table it is possible to calculate distances averaged per person as follows:

Km per person per year, averagge Long distance

1993 trains (including RET) 336

TGV 258 total 594

Table 96 : Average long distance travelled per pers on per year and by rail

Finally, the total number of passengers.km increased with 25% between 1994 and 2004136 while, at the same time, the French population increased with 5%. However, some of these kilometres are travelled by foreign visitors (who do not contribute to the average distance travelled by a French resident) – keep in mind to, in first approximation, increase the mileage travelled with 15% or 683 km per person per year on average. 4.4.3 Freight 4.4.3.1 Rail freight in France The source for these figures is the same as in §4.4.2.1. One ton.km in France corresponds to 2,0 g carbon equivalent. This figures takes into account the way in which electricity is produced in the country, average load factor for trains, and the proportion of diesel-powered locomotives in the train system.

Average emissions (kg C eq/ton.km) FREIGHT

Electricity Diesel fuel Overall Total for freight 0,0005 0,015 0,0020

Entire train 0,0004 - 0,0020


Bilan Carbone TM



Combined route/rail transport

0,0005 0,012 0,0007

Remaining freight 0,0008 0,022 0,0034

Table 97: Emission factors per ton.km for rail fre ight in France

4.4.3.2 Rail freight in Europe The same INFRAS report as above (§4.4.2.5) is the source for the following figures.

kg C eq/ton.km Germany 0,0087 Austria 0.0034 Belgium 0.0051 Denmark 0.0103 Spain 0.0094 Finland 0.0055 Greece 0.0121 Ireland 0.0159 Italy 0.0079 Luxembourg 0.0069 Norway 0.0022 Netherlands 0.0083 Portugal 0.0121 United Kingdom 0.0112 Sweden 0.0012 Switzerland 0.0010 European average (EU-17) 0.0062

Table 98: Emission factors per ton.km for rail fre ight abroad (UIC – INFRAS – IWW, 2004)

4.4.4 Accurate calculation of rail distances In the absence of a statement from the railway company (that has these figures), the exact distances between the departure and arrival stations are not known. These distances can be approximated, however, using the website for road distances (§4.2.6), insofar as railway lines are often near roadways, as both are generally built in valleys. With this website an international itinerary (for freight, or even simply for passenger travel in the Paris-Brussels TGV) can be broken down into distances travelled in separate countries (by calculating distances from point of departure to the border crossing, and from the border crossing to the next border, and so on to the destination). This breakdown is necessary because emissions per unit of distance vary widely from one country to the next. 4.5 Sea and waterway freight Emissions related to sea and waterway transport are due to:

Bilan Carbone TM



- manufacture of ships, and their upkeep,

- propulsion energy, which is always a fossil fuel (generally heavy fuel oil). 4.5.1 Emissions linked to ship manufacture Data for empty weight is available for certain ships:

Type of ship Empty weight (tons) Small roll-on/roll-off 1.268 Large roll-on/roll-off 4.478 Small tanker 844 Large tanker 18.371 Small bulk cargo carrier 1.720 Large bulk cargo carrier 14.201

Table 99: Empty weight for the main ship types

A large bulk cargo carrier, for instance, weighs 14 000 tons, empty. To the extent that this kind of ship is made mostly of steel, manufacturing emissions can be roughly estimated to be the same as for steel (800 kg C eq/ton, without accounting for recycling, if any). If the ship operates 300 days a year, for 20 years (in fact, ships are often in operation for 30 years), manufacturing emissions, per day, are on the order of 2 tons carbon equivalent, compared to over 50 tons carbon equivalent for fuel emissions (see below). Manufacturing emissions are thus just "a drop in the ocean" compared to operating emissions, and in any event are lower than the margin of error tied to the load factor and above all to ship speed, which is the preponderant factor for overall fuel consumption in operation. Therefore we do not take manufacturing emissions into account here. 4.5.2 Specific emissions linked to fuel consumption The shipowners' association Armateurs de France has furnished a breakdown of commercial shipping vessels by type of ship. There are five major categories:

- oil tankers and similar vessels (for transport of chemicals, natural gas) that represent nearly half the world fleet of large ships, in tonnage. They are used only by one specific category of shipper (oil companies), and therefore we have not attempted to calculate emission factors for these ships. This category is not listed in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet.

- container ships

Bilan Carbone TM



- conventional cargo ships (freighters)

- roll-on/roll-off vessels, i.e. ships that transport goods "on wheels": truck trailers, automobiles, military vehicles etc. are loaded directly on-board.

- ferry boats, for passenger traffic only, or mixed (roll-on/roll-off). 4.5.2.1 Container ships Container ships are ships that transport merchandise already packed in containers, i.e. regularly shaped (parallelepiped) metal containers that are extremely simple to load and unload. These ships are used primarily to transport manufactured goods (home appliances, electronics, processed foodstuffs, etc.). Only very large items (automobiles, for instance) are not transported by this type of ship. The transport capacity of container ships is measured in "twenty-foot equivalent units" or TEU. The payload capacity, in number of containers, is measured by the unit volume of containers; the standard container is 20 feet long (6 meters) by 2,44 m wide by 2,50 m high. The TEU is a measure of volume, equal to 6 m * 2,44 m * 2,50 m = 36,6 m3. Fuel consumption for merchant ships is generally not specified in relation to distance travelled, but for the number of days at sea; indeed this number is variable for the same itinerary, depending on weather conditions. Each ship thus has two daily energy consumption figures:

- energy for propulsion engines, used only when the ship is at sea,

- energy for other uses (electricity and heating onboard, etc.) that is consumed both at sea and in port.

For container ships Armateurs de France gives the data presented in the following table.

Capacity in TEU

Capacity in m 3 Commercial speed (knots)

Heavy fuel oil consumption at sea (tons/day)

Diesel fuel consumption

(tons/day

Emissions per day at sea

tons C eq 500 18 300 16 20 1,5 21,5

1 000 36 600 17,5 30 1,5 31,5 1 500 54 900 20 50 2 52 2 500 91 500 20,5 70 2 72 3 500 128 100 22,5 110 2 112 5 000 183 000 22,5 150 3 153

Table 100: Emission factors for container ships

Bilan Carbone TM



It can be observed that daily emissions for a container ship at sea are highly correlated to payload capacity, as shown by the linear regression below, carried out with the data we were given.

Figure 5: Correlation between daily emissions for a container ship at sea and its payload capacity

In the case of container ships of intermediate capacity, we determine daily emissions at sea using the following formula:

Emissions per day at sea in tons C eq = 0,0288*TEU+ 4,1706

An important point is that these daily emissions are relatively independent of the weight of the cargo being transported. If the ship is empty or only partly loaded, the seawater ballast chambers will be filled, to increase the ship's stability. As a result the drag (the friction of seawater against the hull) which increases with the submerged surface area, will be more or less identical whatever the weight of the freight on board. In the first approximation, drag is the prime factor governing the ship's fuel consumption. Furthermore, according to Armateurs de France the proportion of ships travelling empty or lightly loaded is very small. In this way, daily consumption – without regard for cargo weight in the first approximation – can be converted to consumption per km with knowledge of the ship's commercial speed (relatively standard), and then to consumption – hence emissions – per m3.km, as the volume of containers on board is always equal to maximum volume (in the first-order approximation). To calculate emissions per ton.km from emissions per m3.km, the cargo tonnage must be converted to volume, which means knowing mass per unit volume for the

y = 0,0288x + 4,1706

R 2 = 0,9938

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

evp

Bilan Carbone TM



merchandise being shipped. This comes down to knowing the weight of the merchandise that can be loaded into a container. This can usually be ascertained using data available to the sender. If the merchandise is shipped on pallets, whose weight and dimensions are known, a quick calculation will give the amount of the goods, and hence the weight, that can be loaded into a container. Unit emissions are then obtained using the formula:

Emissions per ton.km = Daily emissions ÷ [(ship speed in km/h*24) * volume * weight per unit volume]

These emission factors are included in the spreadsheet; the data to be entered for the carbon balance are:

- capacity of the ship used (in TEU),

- mass per unit volume for the freight shipped, correlated to a full container (this mass per unit volume may be less than one pallet, if the dimensions of the container and the pallets do not allow for a completely filled container).

The uncertainty range for these emissions per ton.km is estimated to be about 20%. 4.5.2.2 Bulk cargo carriers Bulk cargo carriers transport freight in bulk such as minerals, grains or other raw materials that can be loaded directly into a ship's hold. As for container ships, readily available data are daily consumption, commercial speed and payload capacity. This data, supplied by the shipowners' association Armateurs de France, gives us the following table.

Ship model

Years in service

Dead-weight (tons)

Speed (knots)

Tons of fuel oil

consumed per day

Tons of diesel fuel

consumed per day

Daily itinerary

(km)

Consumption per ton.km (g)

emissions per ton.km (kg C

eq)

1970 20 000 13 30 1,5 578 2,7 0,00264 1980 20 000 13 29 1,5 578 2,6 0,00255

Handysize

1990 20 000 13 21 1,5 578 1,9 0,00188 1980 40 000 15 30 1,5 667 1,2 0,00114 Handymax 1990 40 000 15 22,5 1,5 667 0,9 0,00087 1970 70 000 15 50 2 667 1,1 0,00108 1980 70 000 15 36 2 667 0,8 0,00079

Panamax

1990 70 000 15 32 2 667 0,7 0,00070 1970 150 000 15 65 2 667 0,7 0,00065 1980 150 000 15 50 2 667 0,5 0,00050

Capesize

1990 150 000 15 47,5 2 667 0,5 0,00048

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 101: Emission factors for bulk cargo carrier s

More generally, emissions per ton.km for a loaded bulk carrier can be obtained from the speed, weight of cargo and daily fuel consumption figures, all of which are known to shipowners, using the formula

Emissions per ton.km = (Tons of fuel oil per day * emissions per ton of fuel oil) / (speed in knots * 1,852 * 24 * cargo in tons)

The uncertainty for these emissions per ton.km is estimated to be about 20% (in fact it will be lower if the above variables are accurately determined). 4.5.2.3 Cargo Carriers Cargo carriers transport large-sized goods (cars, large machinery etc.). No standard data are available, so fuel consumption and deadweight must be obtained from the owners of the ships used. 4.5.3 Calculating sea routes As for road and air travel distances, there is a website that gives distances for sea routes when the departure and arrival ports are known. www.dataloy.com. This site has a database covering over 4 000 commercial ports around the world, so that shipping distances between two ports can be calculated. These calculations naturally take into account navigation around continents, and all other constraints to which ships are subject. 4.6. River and waterway goods transport River and waterway transport in France concerns five river basins and two types of motorized units (self-propelled boats, and towboats used to push barge trains). Various parameters influence energy consumption by the boats, in particular navigation characteristics in the river basin (flood and high water periods, wind, currents, etc.) and load factor. ADEME and Voies Navigables de France (VNF) have recently completed a full study of this subject137, with detailed CO2 emission factors by river basin and by type of boat, as well as consolidated emission factors (see tables below). These emission factors assume 31% empty trips and a load factor between 80% and 100%. They refer only to emissions for fuel consumption.

137 ADEME, VNF, T&L Associés, July 2005, Etude sur le niveau de consommation de carburant des unités fluviales françaises.

Bilan Carbone TM



The first table below gives consolidated indicators, i.e. averages by boat type for all river basins combined, and averages by river basin for all boat types combined. Energy

consumption per unit (g eq p/t.km

Emission factors (g CO2/t.km)

Emission factors (kg C eq/t.km)

Boats < 400t 14.0 44.3 0.0121 400 – 650 t 13.8 43.4 0.0118 650 – 1000 t 12.3 38.8 0.0106 1000 – 1500 t 11.5 36.3 0.0099

Self-propelled

> 1500 t 9.5 30.0 0.0099 295 – 590 kW 8.6 27.1 0.0074 590 – 880 kW 7.8 24.4 0.0067 Towboats 295 – 590 kW 6.8 21.5 0.0059

River basin Seine 9.5 30.1 0.0082 Rhône 9.3 29.4 0.0080 Nord Pas de Calais 13.6 42.9 0.0117 Rhine 11.5 36.2 0.0099 Moselle 12.0 37.9 0.0103 Interbassin 12.1 38.2 0.0104 TOTAL 10.8 34.0 0.0093

Table 102: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport

Consolidated data by boat type and by river basin (ADEME, VNF, T&L Associés, 2005)

The inter-basin category in the above table designates the network of small canals that links the main waterways (essentially rivers - see below). This low-clearance network (< 400 tons) is situated principally in central and in north-eastern France, and today comprises over 60% of navigable waterways, in length.

Bilan Carbone TM



Map 2: Map of navigable waterways and clearances i n 2003 in France (VNF)

Detailed data, taking both boat type and navigation basin into account, are presented in the table below:

River basin Boats

Energy consumption

per unit (g eq p/t.km

Emission factors

(g CO2/t.km)

Emission factors

(kg C eq/t.km)

< 400t 14.9 47.0 0.0128 400 – 650 t 13.7 43.1 0.0118 650 – 1000 t 12.0 37.8 0.0103 1000 – 1500 t 6.6 20.7 0.0056

Self-propelled

> 1500 t 5.9 18.5 0.0050

295 – 590 kW 8.3 26.3 0.0072 590 – 880 kW 7.5 23.6 0.0072

Seine

Towboat > 880 kW 5.2 16.5 0.0045

1000 – 1500 t 13.9 43.8 0.0119 Self-propelled

> 1500 t 11.9 37.4 0.0102 Rhine

Towboat > 880 kW 8.7 27.3 0.0074

< 400t 15.0 47.2 0.0129 400 – 650 t 13.8 43.5 0.0119 650 – 1000 t 12.7 40.1 0.0109 1000 – 1500 t 11.7 37.0 0.0101

Self-propelled

> 1500 t 10.8 34.1 0.0093

295 – 590 kW 8.5 26.6 0.0073

590 – 880 kW 7.2 22.6 0.0062

Nord Pas de Calais

Towboat

> 880 kW 6.1 19.2 0.0052

1000 – 1500 t 13.4 42.2 0.0115 Moselle Self-propelled

> 1500 t 11.4 36.0 0.0098

Bilan Carbone TM



Towboat > 880 kW 8.4 26.3 0.0072

< 400t 16.9 53.2 0.0145 400 – 650 t 14.8 46.6 0.0127 650 – 1000 t 12.8 40.5 0.0110 1000 – 1500 t 7.1 22.4 0.0061

Self-propelled

> 1500 t 6.7 21.0 0.0057

295 – 590 kW 9.6 30.2 0.0082 590 – 880 kW 8.9 27.9 0.0076

Rhône

Towboat > 880 kW 5.9 18.7 0.0051S

Table 103: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport

Detailed data by navigation basin (ADEME, VNF, T&L Associés, 2005)

We have assigned a 10% uncertainty factor to these emission factors, because the study used is based on detailed and actual consumption figures by boat and by basin.

Bilan Carbone TM



5 - Accounting for inputs: purchased materials and

services 5.0 Preliminary remarks on inputs The greenhouse gases emitted in production of primary materials (glass, steel, other metals, plastic, etc.) come essentially from the fossil fuels used in industrial manufacturing processes (coal used to make steel, for instance). Emission factors for these materials have been obtained in one of two ways:

- via life-cycle analyses published in the literature, which are cited,

- or by direct calculation when data is available for energy expenditures broken down by energy source.

These emissions factors are intended to be updated as progress is made in the industries involved, and as new knowledge is acquired (particularly sectoral carbon balances for various materials-producing industries). The emission factors are used in two cases:

- accounting for inputs,

- to derive approximations for other emission factors, as we have seen for amortisation of vehicles in the case of transport.

5.1 Steel and ferrous metals Making steel causes GHG emissions primarily due to CO2 emissions from coal used to smelt iron ore, and emissions due to combustion of coke-oven gas. The Swiss Journal Cahiers de l'environnement138 gives atmospheric emissions inventories for the following GHG: CO2, N2O, CH4, and halocarbons (the latter are emitted in marginal amounts) for two grades of ferrous metals:

- electrolytic chrome coated steel (ECCS)

- tinplate.

138 Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), 1998, Cahiers de l'Environnement, N° 250-I, Déchets, inventaires écologiques relatifs aux emballages, volume I.

Bilan Carbone TM



These metals are produced mainly for packaging, and the inventories take the recycling rate into account. The values obtained for these two grades of ferrous metals are very similar. on average 870 kg carbon equivalent are emitted in producing one ton of new ECCS or new tinplate (i.e. produced entirely from iron ore). When the products are made entirely from scrap metal (reprocessed steel) emissions are 300 kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel produced. The following figures are also available:

- the energy content of one ton of pig iron (CEREN, 1999): 0,25 toe,

- the energy content of one ton of worked steel (CEREN, 1999): 0,5 to 1,5 toe

- the energy content of one ton of raw steel (Enerdata): 0,4 toe,

- the energy content of one ton of raw steel (Observatoire de l'Energie, Sessi):

0,52 toe, broken down as follows:

- 289 kWh of electricity,

- ,0,72 tons of mined coal and oven coke,

- 138 kWh of natural gas,

- 5,3 kg of heavy fuel oil,

- 1,6 kg of home heating oil,

which corresponds to emissions of 0,55 tons carbon equivalent, excluding transport and secondary transformation (new and reprocessed steel together).

We also note that the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has published a report139 giving a value ranging between 790 kg and 970 kg carbon equivalent per ton for steel cans (without specifying the GHGs considered), a range which is consistent with the figures mentioned above. Based on these figures that are all of the same order of magnitude, we have adopted the reference values published by the Swiss journal, i.e. 870 kg C per ton of steel from virgin ore, and 300 kg C for a ton of steel made entirely from reprocessed steel (recycled or scrap metal). For one ton of steel that includes some reprocessed steel, assuming that the proportion of recycled/scrap metal is known (X%), we use the following formula:

kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel = 300 * X% + 870 * (1-X%)

It should be noted that with a reprocessed steel content of 50% (i.e. the raw materials for the steel produced includes 50% scrap metal and 50% iron ore) we obtain a value

139 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.

Bilan Carbone TM



of 585 kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel. This value is very close to those derived from the OE data for French production, which does indeed include roughly 50% of scrap metal in the feedstock used (the rest being iron ore, of course). Given the good agreement between these values, and consistency with another publication cited in §5.3 below140, the uncertainty for this emission factor is set at 10%. 5.2 Aluminium Production of aluminium is a source of GHG emissions, due to:

- energy used (heat generated in the process, and electricity generated elsewhere)

- release of perfluorocarbons (in particular CF4) during electrolysis of alumina (fluoridated additives are incorporated during this process).

Figures for these emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons, especially CF4) are drawn from the same Swiss journal, Cahiers de l'Environnement, 250-I. These data take into account the reprocessed metal content (for aluminium can be produced from aluminium scrap) and a distribution of primary energy for power generation that roughly corresponds to a European average. These figures apply to aluminium ingots (before transformation into finished products). Data for sheet aluminium vary from those for bars by only a few percentage points (i.e. less than the variation due to electricity source). We use the following figures for all "raw" aluminium (sheets, ingots, bars). Emission factors range from 2,89 t C eq per ton of aluminium produced entirely from bauxite, to 0,67 t C eq per ton of aluminium made from 100% reprocessed aluminium. As demonstrated above, an interpolation can be carried out for aluminium made partly from reprocessed metal, with the following formula, where X% represents the proportion of reprocessed material (i.e. the amount of aluminium scrap in the raw materials, the remainder being smelted from bauxite):

kg carbon equivalent per ton of aluminium = 670 * X% + 2890 * (1-X%) As aluminium production requires large amounts of electricity, and emission factors for electricity may vary by a factor of 10 from one country to another (see §2.4), actual emissions for production of one ton of aluminium can vary widely, depending on circumstances. For example, in Australia, where the reprocessed metal content is

140 CSIRO, August 2003, Sustainability Network, Update 30E.

Bilan Carbone TM



22%, but electricity is generated using only coal, emissions are over 6 t C eq per ton of aluminium. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that oversees environmental issues141, specifies the following values for aluminium beverage cans made in the US:

- 3,9 tons C eq per ton of aluminium if the latter is made entirely from ore,

- 0,7 tons C eq per ton of aluminium if the latter is made entirely from recycled materials142.

Knowing that average emission factors for electricity in the United States are 30% higher than the European average, a figure of approximately 3 tons C eq per ton of aluminium seems to be an acceptable value for aluminium made entirely from bauxite in Europe. In addition, we note that electricity is produced with few GHG emissions in Switzerland, as in France (Switzerland has practically only nuclear or hydroelectric power plants, see appendix 1). The Swiss journal therefore includes local production using electricity with an emission factor close to that of France. Accordingly we have retained the value used in the Swiss inventory: 2 890 kg C eq per ton of aluminium from ore only; 670 kg C eq per ton of aluminium from 100% recycled scrap. This value is valid for all aluminium produced in Europe, but not for that made in Asia. The above formula will give an intermediate value for aluminium that is made partly from reprocessed aluminium scrap. 5.3 Other metals Few life-cycle analyses are readily available for other metals. The following average values for some common metals, including steel and aluminium, are taken from an Australian publication143. They are calculated on the basis of coal-fired electricity generation (corresponding to the situation in Australia).

141 www.epa.gov 142 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 143 CSIRO, August 2003, Sustainability Network, Update 30E.

Bilan Carbone TM



Metal kg carbon

equivalent per kg of metal

Recycling rate taken into account (Australian rate for steel and

aluminium, worldwide rate for the other metals)

Steel 0,63 36% Aluminium 6,11 22% Copper, process 1 0,90 40% Copper, process 2 1,69 40% Lead, process 1 0,57 47% Lead, process 2 0,87 47% Zinc, process 1 1,25 36% Zinc, process 2 0,90 36% Nickel, process 1 3,11 34% Nickel, process 2 4,39 34%

Table 104: Emission factors for different metals p roduced in Australia (CSIRO, 2003)

For France, CEREN publishes energy consumption figures by sector of activity (based on NAF standard codification)144, distinguishing between fossil fuels and electricity, and expressed per ton of metal produced or processed. Considering that each ton oil equivalent of fossil fuel used in industry engenders 0,76 tons carbon equivalent of GHG emissions145, and assuming that each kWh of electricity used engenders 96 g carbon equivalent in emissions (corresponding to the European average), we arrive at the following values per ton of metal:

NAF code

Exact activity designation Fuel consumption in

toe/ton

Fuel CO2 emissions in

t C/ton

Electricity consumption in

toe/ton146

Electricity CO2

emissions in t C/ton

Total CO 2 emissions in

t C/ton

27.4F Lead (first and second melt) 0,17 0,13 0,02 0,02 0,15 27.4F Zinc 0,29 0,22 0,25 0,28 0,50 27.4J Copper 0,16 0,12 0,05 0,05 0,18 27.4M Nickel 0,88 0,67 0,45 0,50 1,17 27.4G Lead and zinc (first

transformation) 0,19 0,14 0,03 0,03 0,18

27.4K Copper (first transformation) 0,06 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,09

Table 105: Emission factors for metallurgical acti vities (CEREN – 1999)

Merging all the activities for a given metal, we can derive another approximation, as follows. This is necessarily a lower limit, as it does not account for mining (there are practically no metal ore mines in France, excepting nickel mines in New Caledonia).

144 CEREN, July 1999, Contenu énergétique des produits de base de l'industrie, les matériaux de construction. 145 Carbon content based on an average energy mix for industry: 19% coal, 27% fuel oil, 49% natural gas, 5% renewable and other. 146 On a final energy basis, i.e. 1 toe = 11 600 kWh.

Bilan Carbone TM



Metal Total CO 2 emissions in t C/ton

Lead 0,33 Zinc 0,68 Copper 0,27 Nickel 1,17

Table 106: Emission factors for different metals ( excluding ore)

Elsewhere, a Memo for Policymakers from the French Interministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect (MIES)147 gives the figure of 280 kg C eq per ton for copper. This same memo lists 436 kg C eq per ton of steel and 1,8 t C eq per ton of aluminium. Collating all the suggested values, we have compiled the following table, noting the share of electricity (leading to the most significant deviations) for CEREN figures.

Metal Lower limit

(CEREN) Lower limit (Australia)

Upper limit (Australia)

% of electricity in energy consumption (for CEREN figures)

Lead 0,33 0,57 0,87 10% Zinc 0,68 0,9 1,25 40% Copper 0,27 0,9 1,69 25% Nickel 1,17 3,11 4,39 34%

Table 107: Recapitulation of emission factors for production of different metals

Knowing that the CEREN figures do not take upstream mining or transport into account, and that inversely a significant share of these metals are imported as products (not as ore), we can opt for values in between the CEREN figures and the "low" values for Australia (where electricity is produced essentially from coal). The results are compiled in the table below (we have retained a median value for a broad range of values with an uncertainty factor reflecting the amplitude of this range).

Metal Value retained (kg

carbon equivalent per kg of metal

Uncertainty range

Lead 0,57 30% Zinc 0,80 20% Copper 0,80 50% Nickel 2,50 30%

Table 108: Summary of emission factors retained fo r production of different metals

147 MIES: Mission Interministérielle de l’Effet de Serre (French Interministerial Task-Force on Climate Change).

Bilan Carbone TM



Clearly, these are approximate values, and it would be advisable to carry out more in-depth carbon balances by sector of production. Metals not listed above are assigned, tentatively, an emission factor of 1 000 kg C eq per ton, and an uncertainty factor of 80%. 5.4 Plastics The Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME)148 has published life-cycle analyses giving atmospheric releases of CO2, methane, N2O and halocarbons linked to production of a certain number of basic chemicals and plastics (halocarbon emissions are generally negligible, and are not included below). 5.4.1.1 Polystyrene Atmospheric releases related to polystyrene production (non-expanded, before transformation to finished product) are given below149 :

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polystyrene

Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions

(g/ton) kg C eq per ton

produced Methane 21 11.000 63,00 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 2.600.000 709,09 Total kg carbon equivalent 772,09

Table 109: Emission factors for polystyrene produc tion (APME, 1997)

The GWP figures used for methane and N2O are those for 1995, but using 2001 figures changes the final value by only about 1%. In the absence of other sources of information, we use this value for polystyrene: 770 kg carbon equivalent per ton. According to the same source styrene has emissions of 737 kg carbon equivalent. 5.4.1.2 Polyvinyl chloride A document issued by the same association150 gives the following values for the main GHG emissions for production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), before transformation:

148 www.plasticseurope.org 149 Dr. I. Boustead, April 1997, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry – report 4: polystyrene (2nd edition). This report covers general purpose polystyrene (GPPS): pure polystyrene, with few additives, a clear and brittle product. 150 Dr. I. Boustead, May 1998, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry – report 6: polyvinyl chloride (2nd edition).

Bilan Carbone TM



Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polyvinyl chloride Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions

(g/ton) kg C eq per ton produced

Methane 21 6.300 36,08 N2O 310 0,00 CO2 1 1.800.000 490,91 Total kg carbon equivalent 526,99

Table 110: Emission factors for polystyrene produc tion (APME, 1998)

As above, we retain the suggested value of 520 kg carbon equivalent per ton . An interpolation formula is used to account for variable reprocessed content, identical in principle to that used for steel and aluminium (see §5.1 and 5.2). 5.4.1.3 High-density polyethylene Another APME publication (available on their website151) indicates that production of one ton of high-density polyethylene causes 500 kg carbon equivalent of emissions per ton (before transformation to finished product).

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of high-density polyethylene Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions


Methane 21 5.700 32,65 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 1.700.000 463,64 Total carbon equivalent 496,28

Table 111: Emission factors for high-density polys tyrene production

(APME, 1999) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted two separate life-cycle analyses for high-density polyethylene152, establishing emissions at 500 and 790 kg carbon equivalent per ton respectively (but without specifying which GHG are taken into account). We opt for the rounded APME value for high-density polyethylene: 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton. EPA also gives a value of 250 kg carbon equivalent per ton for 100% reprocessed high-density polyethylene: we will retain this value, for lack of other information.

151 Dr. I. Boustead, 1999, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (reference year 1995). 152 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.

Bilan Carbone TM



Once again, a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content. 5.4.1.4 Low-density polyethylene The same APME publication indicates a emissions value of 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton of low-density polyethylene (before transformation to finished product) as shown below.

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of low-density polyethylene Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions


Methane 21 5.800 33,22 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 1.900.000 518,18 Total carbon equivalent 551,40

Table 112: Emission factors for low-density polyet hylene production (APME, 1999)

The EPA studies cited above suggest respectively 630 and 1 050 kg C eq/ton. We have retained the APME value, i.e. 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton . The EPA document also gives a value of 230 kg carbon equivalent per ton for reprocessed low-density polyethylene: we will retain this value, for lack of other information. Once again, a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content. 5.4.1.5 Polyethylene terephtalate (PET) The 1999 APME publication mentioned above gives figures for atmospheric emissions linked to production of one ton of polyethylene terephtalate (PET).

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polyethylene terephtalate (PET) Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions


Methane 21 10.000 57,27 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 4.100.000 1 118,18 Total carbon equivalent 1 175,45

Table 113: Emission factors for production of amor phous polyethylene terephtalate (APME – 1999)

Bilan Carbone TM



Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of bottle-quality PET Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions



Table 114: Emission factors for production of bott le-quality polyethylene terephtalate (APME, 1999)

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of PET film Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions



Table 115: Emission factors for production of poly ethylene terephtalate film (APME – 1999)

Lastly, as above, the previously cited EPA studies list respectively 980 and 1 290 kg carbon equivalent per ton, for production of one ton of PET. Tentatively we retain the following values:

- amorphous PET: 1 175 kg carbon equivalent per ton,

- bottle-quality PET: 1 230 kg carbon equivalent per ton,

- average value for PET: 1 200 kg carbon equivalent per ton,

- PET film: 1 600 kg carbon equivalent per ton (after processing to film). For recycled PET we use the only available value (from the EPA publication), i.e. 400 kg carbon equivalent per ton . Here again a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content. 5.4.1.6 Nylon We include atmospheric emissions linked to production of Nylon, from the APME153 reports, to give an idea of emissions for a product that is more sophisticated than basic plastics.

Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of Nylon 66 Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions


Methane 21 24.000 137,45

153 Dr. I. Boustead, 1999, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry.

Bilan Carbone TM



N2O 310 740 62,56 CO2 1 6.900.000 1 881,82 Total carbon equivalent 2 081,84

Table 116: Emission factors for Nylon 66 productio n

5.4.1.7 Average values In drawing up a carbon balance it may not be easy to break down plastics used by category (as an example, in reporting emissions due to plastic packaging for purchased products, for which the plastics composition is not given). In such cases average values must be used, representing average emissions for production of one ton of plastic material. This mean is based on respective tonnages of different plastics and on emission factors by type of plastic. The Memo for Policymakers from the French Inter-ministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect (MIES)154 gives an average value of 640 kg carbon equivalent per ton for plastic . As this figure is consistent with the values obtained above for the most common plastics, it is used, for the lack of anything better, in cases in which the type of plastic is not determined. The MIES memo does not specify the greenhouse gases taken into account. 5.5 Glass The first set of data at our disposal for estimating GHG emissions per ton for glass manufacture is the database compiled by CEREN listing the energy content of basic products (reference year 1995)155. The energy content of glass can be converted to carbon equivalent content for CO2 alone, using the average mix of primary energy sources other than electricity156 in France. This gives the following table:

Type of product Tons carbon equivalent per ton of glass

hollow glass bottle, demijohn, cylinder glass 0,145 plate glass 0,171 handblown glass 1,612 technical glassware 0,555 fibreglass 0,228

Table 117: Emission factors for different glass pr oducts (CEREN 1999)

154 Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mémento des décideurs. 155 CEREN, 1999, Energies par produit. 156 19% coal, 27% fuel oil, 49% gas, 5% renewable resources and others.

Bilan Carbone TM



CEREN also lists average energy consumption on the order of 0,35 toe/ton for the NAF industry code corresponding to glassworks157. Using the standard energy mix for the industry, this figure gives 226 kg carbon equivalent per ton, for CO2 alone, an order of magnitude which is consistent with the figure obtained above. Another source, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), furnishes life-cycle analyses for several types of glass, without indication of their shapes or uses; these studies cover all greenhouse gases (not only CO2) and include average recycling rates for each type of product.

Type of glass Tons carbon equivalent per ton

Green glass (99% recycled content) 0,163 Brown glass (61% recycled glass content) 0,213 Colourless glass (55% recycled content) 0,209

Table 118: Emission factors for different glass pr oducts (OFEFP)

A linear interpolation based on the above values gives a value of around 280 kg carbon equivalent per ton of glass, for glass made entirely from virgin materials (without any recycled glass). The MIES Memo for Policymakers158 also gives average values, without specifying the GHG covered.

Type of product Tons carbon equivalent per ton

plate glass 0,414 glass wool 0,580

Table 119: Emission factors for plate glass and gl ass wool production (MIES, 1999)

Lastly, the US EPA159 gives a value of 120 kg carbon equivalent per ton of bottle glass, without specifying the GHG involved; this figure can be compared to the CEREN figures based on energy use. We have retained the following figures:

- bottle glass: 120 kg carbon equivalent per ton (EPA), - plate glass: 414 kg carbon equivalent per ton (MIES),

- glass wool: 580 kg carbon equivalent per ton (MIES),

- default average value: 280 kg carbon equivalent p er ton (OFEFP)

157 This is the average energy consumption per ton of manufactured product sold for all companies in the "glassworks" sector. 158 Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mémento des décideurs. 159 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.

Bilan Carbone TM



- recycled glass (other than bottles): 165 kg carbo n equivalent per ton (OFEFP)

For technical glassware , we have made an interpolation based on the other glass products, observing that there is a difference of a factor of about 2,5 between GHG emissions on energy consumption alone for companies located in France (CEREN) and emissions (presumably all GHG) given by MIES. While remaining prudent about this extrapolation, we arrive at a figure of about 1 000 kg carbon equivalent per ton for this product category. 5.6 Building materials 5.6.1 Cement, concrete 5.6.1.1 Some definitions Cement is a hydraulic binder , a finely ground inorganic material that when mixed with water forms a paste that sets and hardens in reaction to hydration. After hardening, this paste keeps its resistance and stability, even in water. Cement is a prime component of concrete. The generic term "concrete " designates a construction material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete made of aggregate (sand, gravel) held together by a binder. The binder is "hydraulic" (called cement) when it sets in reaction to hydration, yielding a cement concrete. Hydrocarbon (bitumen) binders may also be used, yielding a bituminous concrete. 5.6.1.2 Emission factors According to Enerdata, a consulting firm specialised in energy issues160, one ton of cement requires an energy expenditure of about 0,1 toe, which corresponds to CO2 emissions equal to roughly 100 kg carbon equivalent per ton, based on combustion of carbon-rich fuels (old tires, coal, heavy fuel oil, etc.). On the basis of product energy content as compiled by CEREN161, we can calculate that one ton of clinker (the main component of cement) causes CO2 emissions on the order of 70 kg carbon equivalent, similar to the above value. In both cases, an approach by energy expenditure alone does not account for the non-energy emissions of this industry. The raw material of the cement industry is obtained by de-carbonation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), a process that engenders non-energy CO2 emissions, i.e. not caused by energy use.

160 http://www.enerdata.fr/ 161 CEREN, 1999, Energies by product.

Bilan Carbone TM



The MIES Memo for Policymakers gives a value of 235 kg carbon equivalent per ton (including de-carbonation)162, without specifying the GHG taken into consideration. Rapid calculations based on documents from the GHG Protocol Initiative163 give a figure of roughly 250 kg carbon equivalent per ton (assuming that all GHG are taken in account here). We have retained the value of 235 kg carbon equivalent per ton proposed by MIES. It can be noted, in passing, that non-energy emissions are slightly higher than energy emissions (135 kg C eq per ton, compared to 100 kg C eq per ton, roughly speaking). Emission factors for specific types of concrete, in particular bituminous concrete used in road building, are given in §9.2 (roadway materials). 5.6.2 Other materials 5.6.2.1 Quarried stone According to CEREN stone extraction has low energy consumption per unit weight164. Emissions for this activity are due primarily to transport, and building materials are classically materials that travel little (excepting very rare materials). Considering values obtained for roadway construction gravel materials (see §9.2.1), on the order of 5 kg C eq per ton excluding transport, and the fact that gravel usually requires more treatment than stone, we tentatively assume a figure of 3 kg C eq per ton , excluding transport. These figures are only first approximations, and therefore carry an uncertainty factor of 80%. 5.6.2.2 Wood As wood stores carbon, wood used as a building material qualifies as a "carbon sink", so that instead of reporting positive emissions, a company using wood is credited with negative emissions. In such cases, the wood contains carbon that was removed from the atmosphere as the trees grew. The carbon content of felled trees is not returned to the atmosphere, as it remains in the things built with the wood. At the same time other trees grow, replacing those that have been harvested, and pulling CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding more.

162 Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mémento des décideurs. 163 www.ghgprotocol.org 164 CEREN, 1999, Energies par produit.

Bilan Carbone TM



There are however two explicit condition that must be fulfilled for carpentry wood to qualify as a carbon sink. Firstly, the wood must come from well managed forests, i.e. a forest where replanting compensates for harvested trees. In the absence of replanting (or natural regeneration), cutting a tree to make a building frame only shifts an existing carbon store from one place to another, without reconstituting a new store. Tropical and exotic woods generally come from forests that are not managed in this way, and where harvested trees are not compensated by planting (the land area of tropical forest is diminishing) there is no carbon sink. In fact exploitation of one ton of tropical wood probably leads to significant overall emissions: to harvest the tree species that have commercial value (no more than a few individuals per hectare), forestry operators build tracks that then allow farmers to clear the rest of the forest, causing significant CO2 emissions. The only case in which wood is a carbon sink is when the operator replants trees; in practice, in the absence of information on what the operator does, this tool considers only wood from European forests to qualify as a carbon sink (European forests are fairly well managed, overall). The second condition pertains to the fundamental sustainability of the object made of wood. If the wood is used to construct a building frame that will last over a century it is appropriate to call it a sink; but if the wood is made into short-lived furniture (20 to 30 years), the existence of a sink is debatable, for the carbon resides only briefly in the wooden object (that will eventually be incinerated). Subject to these two conditions, the value retained comes from the MIES Memo for Policymakers, i.e. -(minus) 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of wood 165. 5.6.2.3 Other building materials Emission factors for building materials and products are available in the INIES database166. This database, accessible free of charge on the Internet167, contains environmental and health statements from which information on the GHG emissions of materials can be extracted. The emission factors from this database are explained in §9.1 and included in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet.

165 Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mémento des décideurs. 166 INIES: Information sur l’Impact Environnemental et Sanitaire. 167 www.inies.fr

Bilan Carbone TM



5.7 Paper and cardboard According to the Swiss OFEFP168 publication cited above, atmospheric emissions (all GHG combined) due to manufacture of one ton of paper/cardboard finished product are on the order of several hundred kg of carbon (the amount varies with the type of paper or cardboard), not counting methane emissions due to wastewater treatment. Papermaking yields wastewater with high organic matter content, which farther down the line will release methane emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency gives a value of 0,55 tons carbon equivalent per ton of paper (without recycling) and 0,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of cardboard169, without indicating which GHG are included. EPA values for paper pulp from recycled materials on the same order of magnitude: 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton. In some instances they are even higher, probably due to preparation processes (de-inking) that use as much energy as making paper pulp from wood. Knowing that most of the energy used for papermaking comes from fossil resources (4/5 of the total170), we have tentatively retained the EPA figures, assuming that they include methane emissions related to wastewater treatment:

- 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton of paper (regardless of type: newsprint, ream paper, etc.).

- 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of cardboard. We note that the GHG content of paper used for paper towels and paper napkins is roughly twice this amount, according to the EPA. Once again, an industry carbon balance for GHG emissions would be a very good thing. 5.8 Miscellaneous purchases and supplies, default f actor 5.8.1. Small supplies This chapter is devoted to small supplies (other than paper products) that are always required, whatever the activity. As it is not practical to report pens etc. one by one, we propose an overall emission factor for these supplies, lumped together, which is in fact the average emission factor for French industry.

168 Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), 1998, Cahiers de l'Environnement, N° 250-I, Déchets, inventaires écologiques relatifs aux emballages, volume I. 169 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 170 Energies par produit, CEREN, 1999

Bilan Carbone TM



The gross domestic product (GDP) of France currently stands at about 1 600 billion Euros, and domestic emissions at 170 million tons carbon equivalent. This gives a "greenhouse gas content" on the order of 100 tons carbon equivalent for 1 million Euros of GDP. As GDP is nothing other than the value of products and services available for final use, the average "carbon content" of products and services is on the order of 100 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure. This factor, for lack of better, is applied to miscellaneous purchases and small supplies with an uncertainty range of 50%. 5.8.2. Consumable office equipment supplies For consumable office equipment supplies (e.g. toner and ink cartridges for printers) the average factor for computer equipment is applied (see §9.3.3.6), as ink cartridges are now made of semiconductors and special inks, with a very high cost per unit weight. This factor is on the order of 250 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure (uncertainty 50%). 5.9 Services 5.9.1 Preliminary remarks The Services category covers a broad range of support services: computers and information technology, security, telephone, hotel accommodations, even childcare provided by the reporting company. For the purpose of this tool the accounting is designed to establish an order of magnitude for outside services commonly used for office work (computer maintenance, insurance, banking etc.). For "up-scale" services (advertising, consultants, etc.) that require significant air travel or "luxury" hotel accommodations the ratio given here will most probably not be valid. The emission factor suggested here is given with just one objective in mind: to enable users to see whether or not services constitute major items in the total count. If not, the absolute value is of little importance, but if the answer is positive, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the company must ask its main service providers to conduct their own carbon balances.

Bilan Carbone TM



5.9.2 Suggested ratio In an analysis of energy demand the CNRS concludes that in 1990 the postal and telecommunications sector consumed 1 188 000 toe for sales of roughly 15 000 million Euros. This figure includes inputs (vehicles, transport). Knowing that electricity represents 40% of primary energy consumption in France, we assume a ratio of 50% electricity for this sector (the tertiary sector consumes proportionally more electricity than transport or industry). As electricity is assigned zero emissions (in a first approximation), it results that one ton oil equivalent consumed in the commercial sector engenders 0,38 tons carbon equivalent in emissions. Thus 150 000 € of postal and telecommunications services corresponds to 4,4 tons carbon equivalent of emissions. By analogy, this gives us an idea for services in general. On the basis of 1 188 000 toe for 15 000 million Euros, we have roughly 76,1 toe/M€, or 3 toe annually per employee overall (assuming that each employee generates around 38 000 € turnover in this sector). This is consistent with orders of magnitude observed elsewhere, and with the first Bilan Carbone™ carbon balance carried out by a commercial company. 5.9.3 Information technology expenditures, miscella neous services In the absence of carbon balances for service sectors, we use the postal and telecommunications ratio for other services: information technology (where the factor is probably higher, due to significant emissions related to manufacture of computers), professional services, training, etc.

Bilan Carbone TM



6 - Accounting for other inputs: products used in

agriculture, livestock raising and food

processing

6.1 Preliminary remarks For these activities emission factors have been derived essentially by attempting to draw up simplified carbon audits for the production chains, comprising preponderant CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, and other GHG if any. Non-fossil CO2 emissions are not taken into consideration in these calculations. For example, they do not include:

- animal respiration (CITEPA estimates that breathing by human and animals represents about one-third the amount of fossil emissions171),

- rapid rotation organic carbon fluxes, stemming from annual crops (a plant is grown and then consumed by animals or humans, and the corresponding carbon is returned to the environment within a year in the form of breathing and excrements, as a first approximation),

- carbon fluxes from perennial crops (forestry crops in particular) when felled wood is replaced by new planting (inversely deforestation gives rise to nett emissions).

This is of course an approximate line of reasoning, that is acceptable for a first approach, but many factors are included here on a tentative basis. It would be highly useful to conduct carbon balances by production chain, to refine the emission factors set forth in this chapter. It is all the more important to audit carbon in agriculture, knowing that in France agriculture ranks as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (all gases together), before transport or industry172. The carbon content figures obtained are used for the most part in the two following cases:

- for inputs used in food processing industries173,

- for the carbon balance of corporate and staff restaurants.

171 CITEPA, August 1999, La France face à ses objectifs internationaux. 172 CITEPA, 2005, Inventaire des émissions de polluants atmosphériques en France, Format SECTEN. 173 A note published by IFEN indicates also that the food industry is "the worst student in the class" for the increase in its own GHG emissions compared to the rise in added value.

Bilan Carbone TM



All the emission factors listed here in chapter 6 are assigned an uncertainty figure of 30%. 6.2 Fertilizer A publication from the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Technology (FAT)174 inventories atmospheric emissions linked to manufacture of the main types of fertilizer used in modern agriculture, nitrogen-based or not. These data are compiled in the table below:

Emission in mg of gas per unit Type of fertilizer Unit CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

Urea kg N 2,19E+06 9480 12000 10300 0,022 0,172 Ammonia nitrate phosphate kg N 1,41E+06 21 3140 9420 0,018 0,142 Ammonia nitrate kg N 9,69E+05 9450 8880 9190 0,014 0,111 Urea - Ammonia nitrate kg N 1,60E+06 9460 10500 9590 0,017 0,139 Trisuperphosphate (TSP) kg P 2,46E+06 58,8 15200 3790 0,029 0,235 Ammonia nitrate phosphate (ASP) kg P 1,54E+06 40 13300 2490 0,024 0,193 Thomas slag kg P 1,10E+06 22,6 3080 1440 0,010 0,079 Potassium kg K2O 6,30E+05 8,29 1390 1720 0,004 0,030 Lime kg CaO 1,41E+05 3,25 429 359 0,003 0,028 Bulk manure ton 2,94E+06 64,7 12700 9120 0,028 0,227 Pig slurry m3 2,92E+06 98,8 10300 6960 0,054 0,430

Table 120: Emission factors for fertilizer product ion, broken down by greenhouse gas

Using the carbon equivalent of the various gases covered here, we obtain the following figures:

Carbon equivalent in kg/unit Type of fertilizer Unit

CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

TOTAL

Urea kg N 0,597 0,765 0,033 0,065 7E-05 3E-04 1,46 Ammonia nitrate phosphate kg N 0,385 0,002 0,009 0,059 6E-05 2E-04 0,45 Ammonia nitrate kg N 0,264 0,763 0,024 0,058 5E-05 2E-04 1,11 Urea - Ammonia nitrate kg N 0,436 0,764 0,029 0,06 6E-05 2E-04 1,29 Trisuperphosphate (TSP) kg P 0,671 0,005 0,041 0,024 1E-04 4E-04 0,74 Ammonia nitrate phosphate (ASP) kg P 0,42 0,003 0,036 0,016 8E-05 3E-04 0,48 Thomas slag kg P 0,3 0,002 0,008 0,009 3E-05 1E-04 0,32 Potassium kg K2O 0,172 7E-04 0,004 0,011 1E-05 5E-05 0,19 Lime kg CaO 0,038 3E-04 0,001 0,002 1E-05 4E-05 0,04 Bulk manure ton 0,802 0,005 0,035 0,057 9E-05 4E-04 0,90 Pig slurry m3 0,796 0,008 0,028 0,044 2E-04 7E-04 0,88

Table 121: Emission factors for fertilizer product ion, broken down by greenhouse gas

174 Source : Gaillard et al. 1997, Inventaire environnemental des intrants agricoles en production végétale, Comptes rendus de la FAT.

Bilan Carbone TM



Ammonia nitrate, also called ammonitrate, engenders manufacturing emissions of 1,11 kg carbon equivalent per kg of nitrogen (fertilizer is generally measured in kg of nitrogen, or in nitrogen units). Uncertainty factors for these values – applicable for Europe – are set at 30%. 6.3 Phytosanitary (plant protection) products The same FAT publication includes life-cycle analyses that can be used to derive atmospheric emissions linked to production of phytosanitary products that are widely used in agriculture (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.). 6.3.1 Herbicides Plant health products used in agriculture are generally measured in terms of "kg of active matter". The only significant value is the weight of the active ingredient, which may be diluted or dispersed in one or more excipients (sometimes simply water) to obtain a commercial formulation. The FAT figures for herbicides are compiled in the table below.

Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient Active herbicidal ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

kg carbon equivalent per kg of

active ingredient Amidosulfuron 9,59E+06 258 25500 31500 0,131 1,05 2,91 Asulame 8,03E+06 222 20800 28500 0,113 0,901 2,45 Atrazine 5,02E+06 126 13600 21000 0,059 0,469 1,55 Bifenox 2,63E+06 76,5 6560 6920 0,04 0,319 0,79 Carbétamide 8,03E+06 222 20800 28500 0,113 0,901 2,45 Chlortoluron 9,59E+06 258 25500 31500 0,131 1,05 2,91 Dinosèbe 2,21E+06 43,2 6560 7710 0,016 0,128 0,67 Ethofumesate 8,64E+06 231 22600 25900 0,114 0,91 2,60 Fluroxypyr 2,00E+07 538 50700 49000 0,258 2,06 5,95 Glyphosate 1,59E+07 495 38800 44700 0,273 2,19 4,77 Ioxynil 8,64E+06 231 22600 25900 0,114 0,91 2,60 Isoproturon 9,59E+06 258 25500 31500 0,131 1,05 2,91 MCPA 4,22E+06 103 11500 11900 0,047 0,375 1,27 MCPB 7,86E+06 208 20400 20400 0,1 0,802 2,35 Mecoprop P 7,86E+06 208 20400 20400 0,1 0,802 2,35 Metamitrone 8,16E+06 208 21600 25500 0,096 0,769 2,46 Metolachlore 9,03E+06 233 24100 25500 0,114 0,91 2,71 Pendimethaline 3,59E+06 104 9440 13500 0,058 0,463 1,10 Phenmediphame 8,03E+06 222 20800 28500 0,113 0,901 2,45 Pyridate 8,64E+06 231 22600 25900 0,114 0,91 2,60 Rimsulfuron 9,59E+06 258 25500 31500 0,131 1,05 2,91 Tébutame 8,63E+06 226 22900 24900 0,112 0,893 2,59 Terbuthylazine 8,16E+06 208 21600 25500 0,096 0,769 2,46

Table 122: Emission factors for herbicide products

Bilan Carbone TM



Barring specific information on the herbicide used, we use as a default value the figure of 2 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle), with an uncertainty factor equal to 50% (which gives a range of 1 to 3 tons C eq, covering most of the values above). 6.3.2 Fungicides The same publication gives the following figures for these active ingredients:

Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient Active fungicidal ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

kg carbon equivalent per kg of

active ingredient Carbendazime 1,39E+07 367 36100 38800 0,175 1,4 4,17 Chlorothalonil 3,26E+06 104 8400 10800 0,063 0,5 0,99 Fenpropimorphe 5,53E+06 150 14400 18400 0,075 0,598 1,68 Flusilazole 5,53E+06 150 14400 18400 0,075 0,598 1,68 Mancozèbe 2,46E+06 65 6510 12100 0,031 0,247 0,77 Manèbe 2,56E+06 70,4 6880 13100 0,037 0,293 0,81 Prochloraze 5,53E+06 150 14400 18400 0,075 0,598 1,68 Tebuconazole 5,53E+06 150 14400 18400 0,075 0,598 1,68

Table 123: Emission factors for fungicide products

In the absence of other more specific information, we use 1,7 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle) as a default value, with an uncertainty factor of 50%. 6.3.3 Insecticides The same publication gives the following figures for the two active ingredient studied:

Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient Active insecticide ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

TOTAL

Cypermethrine 2,37E+07 627 60000 54300 0,291 2,32 7,02 Lambda-cyhalothrine 2,37E+07 627 60000 54300 0,291 2,32 7,02

Table 124: Emission factors for insecticide produc ts

In the absence of other more specific information, we use 7 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle) as a default value, with an uncertainty factor of 20%. 6.3.4 Molluscicidal agents The same publication gives the following figures for the active ingredient studied:

Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient Active molluscicidal ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

TOTAL

Bilan Carbone TM



Methiocarbe 8,03E+06 222 20800 28500 0,113 0,901 2,45

Table 125: Emission factors for molluscicide produ cts

This value also serves as the default value if other active ingredients are reported, with an uncertainty factor of 50% in this case. 6.3.5 Growth regulators The same publication gives the following figures for the three active ingredients studied:

Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient Growth regulator active ingredients CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4

TOTAL

Chlormequat (CCC) 7,86E+06 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37 Ethephon 7860000 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37 Trinexapac-éthyle 7860000 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37

Table 126: Emission factors for different growth r egulators

This value of 2,4 tons carbon equivalent also serves as the default value if other active ingredients are reported in this category, with an uncertainty factor of 50% in this case. 6.3.6 Default value When only the weight of active ingredients is known, without distinction between type of product (herbicide, fungicide, etc.), the default value corresponds to the proportion of these active ingredients used for a standard major crop, i.e. 10% insecticide and 90% herbicide plus fungicide. This assumption gives an approximate value of 2,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredients, with an uncertainty factor of 30%. 6.4 Grains, flour Grain crops grown in France are used mainly to feed animals. Bread flour and grains for direct human consumption (pasta, grain maize, etc.) are minority markets compared to total production. For this reason the yields below refer to animal feed and not to products for human consumption. The sources of GHG emissions covered here are the following:

- N2O releases linked to use of nitrogen fertilizer,

- direct fuel use in farm machinery,

- energy expenditure related to manufacture and maintenance of farm machinery, manufacture of phytosanitary products and fertilizer, etc.

Bilan Carbone TM



6.4.1 Wheat The values for fuel consumption per hectare of wheat crop are drawn from the analysis of Biofuel175 production conducted by Ecobilan for ADEME. The Ecobilan study uses reference values supplied by the Institut du Végétal.

Energy uses for crop cultivation Value Unit Tractor fuel consumption 14 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Tractor hours per hectare 3,37 Hours Hourly fuel consumption for other motorized machinery 17 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours per hectare for other motorized machinery 1 Hours Hourly consumption for other hitched machinery 3,2 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours per hectare for other hitched machinery 13,3 Hours Total diesel fuel consumption per hectare 106,74 litres

Kg carbon equivalent per hectare for crop cultivation176

86,9

Table 127: Energy emission factors for fuel consum ption in wheat cultivation, per hectare (ADEME – ECOBILAN, 2003)

The values furnished for inputs in this same study are as follows:

Inputs Value Unit Ammonia nitrate 184 kg of N per hectare (ha) P fertilizer 46 kg of P205 per hectare (ha) K fertilizer 76 kg of P205 per hectare (ha) Fungicides 0,3 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Herbicides 0,9 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Insecticides 0,2 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Growth regulators 1,5 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha)

Table 128: Emissions from products used for wheat cultivation (ADEME- ECOBILAN, 2003)

Applying the emission factors for these compounds (§6.3 above) we obtain GHG emissions of 235 kg carbon equivalent per hectare, for the manufacture of these inputs. In addition, the spreading of nitrogen fertilizer causes emissions equal to 3,1% of the nitrogen applied (see §3.2). Given the weight of nitrogen applied per hectare, the N2O emissions from fertilizer amount to 460 kg carbon equivalent per hectare. Emissions due to the manufacture of farm machinery must also be reported, on a pro rata basis correlating hours of use to the useful life of the machinery. The Institut du

175 ADEME – ECOBILAN, 2003, Bilans énergétique et gaz à effet de serre des filières de production de biocarburants. 176 The emission factors are those given in §2.2, taking into account upstream emissions from fuel refining.

Bilan Carbone TM



Végétal has estimated emissions for the manufacture and upkeep of farm machinery per hour of use. In the case of wheat the values are as follows:

Equipment Hours per hectare

kWh per hour kg carbon equivalent

Tractor 3,37 13,1 0,5 Motorized machinery

177

1 33,3 1,3

Tools 13,3 110,8 4,2 Total per hectare 6,0

Table 129: Emission factors for manufacture of mac hinery for wheat cultivation

On this basis emissions per hectare are as follows:

CO2 363 kg équ. C par hectare N2O 460 kg équ. C par hectare Carbon equivalente total 824 kg équ. C par hectare

Table 130: Emissions per hectare of wheat crop

The mass yield for wheat is approximately 9 tons per hectare and per year178. Therefore producing one ton of wheat engenders 92 kg carbon equivalent of GHG emissions. Given a humidity index of 15% at harvest, these emissions are equal to 108 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter. 6.4.2 Maize for fodder The energy expenditure related to use of farm machinery is broken down as follows:

Energy uses for crop cultivation Value Unit Hourly fuel consumption for tractor 15,1 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours per hectare 5 Hours Hourly fuel consumption for other motorized machinery

15,6 Diesel fuel per hour (litres)

Hours per hectare 1 Hours Hourly consumption for other hitched machinery 5,3 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours per hectare 15 Hours Total diesel fuel consumption per hectare 170,6 litres Cultivation emissions (kg carbon equivalent/ha) 92,0

Table 131: Energy emission factors for maize culti vation, per hectare

For inputs, the values given in the abovementioned Ecobilan/ADEME study179 are the following:

177 Harvesting combine. 178 Institut du Végétal. 179 ADEME – ECOBILAN, 2003, Bilans énergétique et gaz à effet de serre des filières de production de biocarburants.

Bilan Carbone TM



Inputs Value Unit

Ammonia nitrate 120 kg of N per hectare (ha) P fertilizer 8 kg of P205 per hectare (ha) K fertilizer 20 kg of P205 per hectare (ha) Fungicides 0,1 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Herbicides 3,8 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Insecticides 0,2 kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha) Growth regulators - kg of active ingredients per hectare

(ha)

Table 132: Emissions from products used for maize cultivation

The pro rata share for the manufacture of farm machinery gives the following values:

Equipment Hours per hectare

kWh per hour kg C eq per hectare

Tractor 5 0,9 0,9 Other motorized machinery 1 1,5 1,5 Tools 15 5,5 5,5 TOTAL 7,8

Table 133: Emission factors for manufacture of mac hinery for maize cultivation

On this basis emissions per hectare are as follows:

CO2 268 kg C eq per hectare N2O 300 kg C eq per hectare Total carbon equivalent 568 kg C eq per hectare

Table 134: Emission factors per hectare of maize c rop

The mass yield for this crop is approximately 37 tons of maize fodder per hectare and per year180. Therefore producing one ton of maize fodder engenders 15 kg carbon equivalent of GHG emissions. Given a humidity index of 70% at harvest181, these emissions are equal to 51 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter. When maize fodder is stored as silage, we add an extra 20% to cover transport between the place of harvest and storage silos, the energy for milling and other operations, construction and upkeep of the silo, etc. Our calculations give the following values:

- 108 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter for wheat (average humidity 15%)

180 Institut du Végétal. 181 Source: Arvalis – Institut du Végétal, informal exchange, 2003.

Bilan Carbone TM



- 59 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter for s ilage. 6.4.3 Flour One ton of wheat yields 760 kg of flour. We assume that this production requires 300 km of intermediate transport in tractor-trailers.

Carbon equivalent per ton of wheat 92 Rate of extraction 76% Wheat emissions per ton of flour 120

Transport emissions182

7,8

Flour mill emissions183

5

Total emissions per ton of flour 133

Table 135: Emission factors for wheat flour

Flour is therefore to be recorded with 133 kg carbon equivalent per ton (ex mill). 6.5 Fruits and vegetables Vegetable crops represent 1,6% of arable land in France (0,3 million hectares out of 18,1) and 1% of all farm lands taken together (see appendix 5). As this activity is marginal in agriculture it is not covered in this edition of the Bilan Carbone™ tool. Likewise, fruit crops are marginal in terms of cultivated lands. It would nonetheless be useful to obtain carbon balance assessments for fruits and vegetables that would enable us to add an emission factor for this type of production to Bilan Carbone™. 6.6 Beef and veal Production of meat from cattle is a source of GHG emissions:

- directly, in the form of methane (CH4) released during digestion by ruminant animals, and methane emissions from fermenting animal excrement;

- indirectly, via cultivation of various plants and crops (hay, oilseed plants, etc.) for animal feed.

Slaughtering, including transport of live animals and carcasses, is not accounted for here. In a first-order approximation animal excrement is assimilated to grassland fertilizers, and hence the related N2O emissions (but not methane emissions) are already included in the carbon equivalent content assigned to hay.

182 300 km at 26 grams carbon equivalent per ton.km; cf. §4.2.2. 183 According to CEREN; this is mostly electricity.

Bilan Carbone TM



We have not made any distinction between free-range animals and barn-raised animals, for the following reasons:

- In France, free-range livestock generally graze in pasturelands that have been fertilized, and that therefore have N2O emissions that are identical (or higher) than those of hay.

- The mass yield per hectare (in dry matter) is more or less the same for hay and for pasture grasses.

- Energy expenditures per hectare come essentially from fertilizer and fuel for farm machinery (plant protection products do not make much of a difference from this point of view), in short from sources that exist for fodder and pasture alike.

This reasoning is not applicable, however, to extensive grazing on non-fertilized land:

- mountain pastures

- Pampa in Argentina, Australian steppes, etc. (but in these cases transport and refrigeration would have to be included in the inventory).

6.6.1 Annual livestock emissions The emission categories below are found in various publications; by consolidating them we can obtain annual emissions for the different types of cattle that make up domestic herds. We assume, in the absence of more specific information, that all the dry matter consumed by livestock is in the form of fodder (maize fodder or fertilised prairie grass). This is of course an approximation, because animal feed regimens also include proteins (peas, beans), press cakes from other products, etc. Annual emissions for digestion, excrement and feed are compiled in the tables below.

Annual emissions per animal Enteric fermentation CH4 (kg)

184

Excrement CH4 (kg)

185

Carbon equivalent

(kg) for CH 4

Dairy cows 100,67 51,82 956,49 Nursing cows 80,00 33,44 711,60 Bulls 76,67 32,05 681,95 Yearlings, young bulls 46,67 19,51 415,10 Yearlings, calves 15,33 6,41 136,39 Steers 53,33 22,30 474,40

Table 136: Annual livestock emissions (feed, diges tion, excrement)

184 Académie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz à effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus, vol. 85. 185 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure.

Bilan Carbone TM



kg C eq per t of fodder

Fodder, kg C eq per head and per year

CH4 per year kg C eq

kg C eq per head and per

year

Animals Feed per day (kg dry matter)

CO2 emissions N 2O emissions CO2 emissions N2O emissions

Dairy cows 16 32 27 188,36 158,00 956,49 1 302,85 Nursing cows 16 32 27 188,36 158,00 711,60 1 057,95 Bulls 15 32 27 176,58 148,12 681,95 1 006,65 Yearlings, young bulls 15 32 27 176,58 148,12 415,10 739,80 Yearlings, calves 3 32 27 35,32 29,62 136,39 201,33 Steers 15 32 27 176,58 148,12 474,40 799,10

Table 137: Emission factors for livestock, per hea d and per year

6.6.2 Imputation of nursing cows A nursing cow is assumed to follow the following stages:

- milk-fed calf for six months

- grass-fed calf for six months

- immature yearling for one year

- mature reproducing cow that produces calves (four calves186)

- each nursed calf is slaughtered when it weighs 181 kg alive187

- lastly the cow is sent to the abattoir to be slaughtered for meat188, with an average live weight of 680 kg, yielding a 340 kg carcass (meat and bone).

The four years of the reproducing cow are assigned to the calves, and the two preceding years to the meat from the adult cow.

Carbon equivalent per year Total carbon equivalent Animal life span CO2 from growing fodder

N2O from growing fodder

Methane, fermentation

and excrement

Number of years CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL

Milk-fed calf, 6 months 35 30 136 0,5 18 15 68 101 Grass-fed calf, 6 months 35 30 136 0,5 18 15 68 101 Yearling, one year 177 148 415 1 177 148 415 740 Nursing cow, 4 years 188 158 712 4 753 632 2 846 4 232 Nursing cow - lifetime 436 365 1 399 965 810 3 398 5 173 Share per calf (4 calves) 47 39 178 188 158 712 1 058 Kg carbon equivalent per kg of carcass from slaughtered cow

0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77

Table 138: Emission factors for nursing cows sent to slaughter

This gives a total of 2,77 kg carbon equivalent per ton of carcass meat from dairy cows. 186 Gestation lasts a little less than twelve months. The first calf if born when the cow is three years old (2 years old when bred, plus a little under a year for gestation). 187 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 188 The least expensive beef sold in supermarkets is generally meat from dairy or nursing cows slaughtered at the end of their useful life.

Bilan Carbone TM



6.6.3 Milk-fed calves In light of the preceding information, we assign to milk-fed calves:

- emissions from the mother cow during gestation and nursing (one year for a nursing cow)

- the calf's own emissions during this same period. The calf is slaughtered at the age of six months, at a live weight assumed to be 181 kg. The carcass weight (meat and bone) represents around 50% of the live weight189.

Milk-fed calves Total carbon equivalent

Emissions from mother cow (share above) 1 058 Milk-fed calf, 6 months 101 Total per calf 1 159 Live weight 181 % of carcass 50% Weight of carcass 91 Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 12,80

Table 139: Emission factors for milk-fed calves

This gives an emission factor of 12,8 kg carbon equivalent per ton of calf carcass. 6.6.4 Dairy cows and milk A dairy cow grows to sexual maturity in two years, carries its first calf for one year, produces milk over three years, and ultimately is sent to slaughter. A dairy cow produces 5 500 litres of milk on average during its period of lactation190, thus yielding a total of 16 500 litres over its full life span. We distribute emissions between meat and milk by mass, using the following formula:

- the three-year period of milking cow are assigned to the milk produced,

- the three preceding years are assigned to the butchery meat. Dairy cows also produce calves that consume some of the milk produced. Assigning emissions entirely to milk does not lead to error, however, because the milk effectively available is the milk that the calves do not drink, and the "GHG content" of the calves corresponds to the GHG content of the milk they drink, as in §6.5.3. With these assumptions we can construct the following table:

189 Source: reference site for red meat, www.mhr-viandes.com. 190 Source: INRA.

Bilan Carbone TM



Carbon equivalent Dairy cows

CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL Milk-fed calf, 6 months 18 15 68 101 Grass-fed calf, 6 months 18 15 68 101 Yearling, one year 177 148 415 740 Dairy cow, 4 years (3 as milking cow) 753 632 3 826 5 211 Total for dairy cow over full life span 965 810 4 3 77 6 153 kg C eq per kg of milk 0,046 0,038 0,232 0,316 Kg C eq per kg of meat from dairy cow 0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77

Table 140: Emission factors for whole milk

The calculations give the figure of 316 g carbon equivalent per litre of milk, or as a first approximation, 316 kg carbon equivalent per ton of whole milk . In addition, milk is subject to several processes (sterilization, skimming) that introduce energy expenditures and secondary products (notably butter). For the sake of simplicity we use the above value for the time being, but an assessment of the dairy industry would be useful (this would require imputation of fungible emissions). 6.6.5 Steers 6.6.5.1 Beef cattle A steer raised for beef, butchered at the age of 36 months, will "contain" the sum of emissions for a milk-fed calf (§6.6.3 above), emissions for the six-month grass-fed period and 24 months of feed, and methane emissions from the young animal. A steer is assumed to weigh 680 kg live weight at the time of slaughter191. Like calves, steers yield about 50% nett weight with bone per kg of live weight192. We have not taken byproducts into account (hides for tanning).

Carbon equivalent Steers

CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL Adult steer, 24 months 353 296 949 1 598 Grass-fed calf, 6 months 18 15 68 101 Calf (see §6.6.3)) 206 173 780 1 159 TOTAL 577 484 1 797 2 857 Per kg of carcass 1,70 1,42 5,28 8,40

Table 141: Emission factors for steers (beef cattl e)

191 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 192 Source: reference site for red meat, www.mhr-viandes.com.

Bilan Carbone TM



This gives a total of 8,4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of beef with bone for beef cattle raised on fodder. This figure does not apply to extensive range grazing. 6.6.5.2 Average values Red meat effectively consumed in France comes, in a rough approximation

- one-third from beef cattle,

- one-third from butchered dairy cows,

- one-third from butchered nursing cows. On this basis an average value can be derived for beet of unspecified origin, equal to 4,74 tons carbon equivalent per ton of meat, as follows:

kg carbon equivalent per m² Provenance

tons sold CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL

Beef cattle 478 624 1,70 1,42 5,28 8,40 Dairy cows sent to slaughter 464 485 0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77 Nursing cows sent to slaughter 422 260 0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77 Total or average 1 365 369 1,00 0,84 2,91 4,74

Table 142: Average emission factors for beef

6.7 Dairy products 6.7.1 Boiled cheese It takes 11.5 litres of milk to make one kg of gruyere cheese. Leaving aside heating energy (quite secondary compared to milk emissions) we obtain the following values:

Cheese litres of milk per kg of cheese

kg carbon equivalent

Gruyere 11,43 3,61

Table 143: Emission factor for boiled cheese

We retain the figure of 3 610 kg carbon equivalent per ton of boiled cheese. 6.7.2 Fresh cheeses, yoghurt It takes slightly over one litre of milk to make one kg of yoghurt. Including heating energy (non-negligible in this case), transport and packaging, we assume emissions of 470 g carbon equivalent per kg of yoghurt, or 470 kg carbon equivalent per ton of yoghurt .

Bilan Carbone TM



6.7.3 Raw milk cheeses These cheeses require an amount of milk per kg of cheese that is in between the quantity needed for boiled cheese and that needed for yoghurt. On the basis of the above data we estimate approximately 1 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of raw cheese . 6.7.4 Butter, cream Butter is made up of milk fat. Milk contains about 40 g of lipids per litre. Therefore around 25 litres of milk are needed to make one kg of butter. But in practice most butter is made with fat obtained by partial skimming of milk. Thus a greater quantity of milk is required to make one kg of butter, and the issue of assigning emissions between different products of the same process arises. If it is assumed that one kg of butter represents 10 litres of milk used only to make butter, we obtain the figure of 3 160 kg carbon equivalent per ton of butter, which we will use for lack of a better figure. 6.8 Industrial swine A milk pig is weaned at 28 days, at which time it weighs 7 kg193. Then it is fattened for 161 days, attaining 105 kg on average194. Each kg of live weight195 represents 3,21 kg of feed (essentially grain; wheat is taken as the proxy for calculations here), and this feed is a source of fossil CO2 and of N2O emissions. Pig slurry (excrement) emits methane and N2O. Methane emissions from excrement are equal to 9,89 kg per animal and par year, on average196, i.e. 62 kg carbon equivalent per animal and per year, or 27,4 kg carbon equivalent per animal over its entire life span, representing 0,26 kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight at time of slaughter. N2O emissions are estimated to average 1 kg per animal per year, equal to 0,34 kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight. Lastly, the ratio of useful weight to live weight at the time of slaughter is 76%197. In the absence of any data we do not include emissions from the sow during gestation and nursing.

193 Source: INRA. 194 Source: INRA. 195 Source: INRA. 196 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 197 Source: INRA.

Bilan Carbone TM



All these elements are compiled in the table below.

Industrial swine emissions CO 2 N2O CH4 TOTAL Emissions from excrement per kg of live weight

0,00 0,34 0,26 0,60

Feed emissions per kg of live weight 0,14 0,18 0,00 0,33 Total per kg of live weight 0,14 0,52 0,26 0,93 Total per kg of nett weight 0,19 0,69 0,34 1,22

Table 144: Emission factors for industrial swine

We retain the figure of 1 220 kg carbon equivalent per ton of pork with bone. 6.9 Poultry and poultry products 6.9.1 Industrial chicken For industrially raised chicken, the weight of feed per kg of live weight is approximately 1,9 kg (chicken slaughtered at 42 days, i.e. 6 weeks, at a weight of about 2 kg)198. As for swine, poultry excrement are a source of methane emissions. The above-mentioned publication gives the figure of 0,15 kg of methane per animal and per year for poultry199. The useful weight/live weight ratio is 66%200.

Industrial chicken emissions CO 2 N2O CH4 TOTAL Emissions from excrement per kg of live weight

0,00 0,00 0,05 0,05

Feed emissions per kg of live weight 0,08 0,11 0,00 0,19 Additional emissions for heating, slaughter,

etc201

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02

Total per kg of live weight 0,10 0,11 0,05 0,26 Total per kg of nett weight 0,15 0,16 0,08 0,40

Table 145: Emission factors for industrial chicken

Emissions due to energy consumption for poultry raising (buildings are frequently heated and lit around the clock; transport, energy used for slaughtering, etc.) is set at a flat rate of 10% of the total.

198 Source: INRA. 199 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 200 Source: INRA. 201 Author's estimate.

Bilan Carbone TM



We retain the figure of 400 kg carbon equivalent pe r ton of industrial chicken with bone. Information on other fowl is given in appendix 6. 6.9.2 Eggs For industrially raised hens, 2,13 kg of feed is required to produce one kg of eggs202. An average egg weighs 63 grams203. We assume that poultry excrement per kg of eggs is the same as per kg of industrial chicken meat. Here also we add 10% to cover "other" operations: egg gathering, building heating and upkeep, etc. These factors give the values in the table below.

Eggs kg carbon equivalent per

kg Feed 0,22 Including excrement 0,05 Subtotal 0,27 10% additional processes 0,03 Carbon equivalent per kg 0,30 Carbon equivalent per egg 0,019

Table 146: Emission factors for one egg

We retain the figure of 19 g carbon equivalent per egg, or 300 kg carbon equivalent per ton of eggs . 6.10 Sheep Sheep are ruminants, like cows. Emissions reporting must therefore include:

- methane (CH4) released by digestion,

- methane emissions due to fermentation of excrement,

- the GHG content of fodder used to feed animals. As the metabolism of sheep digestion is the same as for cows, and their excrement also sources of methane, we tentatively retain the same figures for methane emissions per unit of weight with bone. But as sheep are often grazed in mountain pastures, and hence on non-fertilized land, we count emissions from feed as zero.

202 Source: INRA. 203 Source: INRA

Bilan Carbone TM



As a result this first-order approximation focuses only on methane, with the following figures204:

Animals Digestion CH 4 per year (m 3)

Digestion CH 4 per year (kg)

Excrement CH 4 per year (kg)

Total kg carbon equivalent per

year Nursing ewes 16,5 11,00 2,85 86,89 Milking ewes 20 13,33 3,46 105,32 She-lambs 8,2 5,47 1,42 43,18 Rams 21 14,00 3,63 110,59 Grass-fed lambs 2,6 1,73 0,45 13,69 Milk-fed lambs 1 0,67 0,17 5,27

Table 147: Emission factors for sheep

Use of sheep's wool is ignored in this initial approximation. This is almost legitimate in terms of allocation of emissions by weight, and is legitimate in terms of economic allocation for France, where use of wool is marginal. This is probably less true in other European countries. 6.10.1 Milk-fed lambs We make the assumption that a nursing ewe produces 1,7 lambs per year205. In the same way as for cattle, we assign to the lamb all the mother's emissions during gestation and nursing, assuming that the nursing ewe is kept only to have lambs. The values below refer only to methane emissions, as specified above.

Milk-fed lambs CH4 Kg C eq for share of mother's emissions 87 Kg C eq for milk-fed lamb, 2 months 1 TOTAL 88 Live weight 22 % of carcass 50% Weight of carcass 11 Kg C eq per kg of carcass 7,98

Table 148: Emission factors for milk-fed lambs

6.10.2 Grass-fed lambs These are the same animals, two months later.

Grass-fed lambs CH4 Kg C eq for the milk-fed lamb 88 Kg C eq for grass-fed lamb, 2 months 2 TOTAL 90 Live weight 47 % of carcass 50%

204 Académie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz à effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus, vol. 85. 205 Source: INRA.

Bilan Carbone TM



Weight of carcass 24 Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 3,83

Table 149: Emission factors for grass-fed lambs

6.11 Fish IFREMER reports that French fishing fleets consume around 250 million litres of diesel fuel, bringing in about 500 000 tons of fish. In a first estimation, emissions linked to harvesting one ton of fish will be equal to 407 kg carbon equivalent. Adding 10% to account for emissions linked to transport, handling, refrigeration etc. we obtain an emission factor of 440 kg carbon equivalent per ton for fish. This value is doubled for tropical fishing (tuna) which uses twice as much energy, and involves long-distance transport by air or refrigerated ship. For shrimp, harvesting efficiency is only 20%, compared to 70% for fishing in general. The percentage of the catch thrown overboard is on the order of 30% for "normal" fishing (trawling for instance), but for shrimp it is closer to 80% (in weight), as shrimp boats keep only the shrimp and discard all the rest of the catch206. For shrimp fishing, fuel consumption per ton of catch can be roughly estimated to be 3,5 times the standard rate (ratio of 70% yield to 20%), and consequently direct fuel emissions amount to 1,2 ton carbon equivalent per ton of shrimp, as an order of magnitude. This applies only to fished shrimp, and excludes downstream transport emissions (a significant fraction of shrimp is shipped by air) and diesel refinery emissions. Adding in approximate emissions to account for these items, we reach the value of 1,5 ton carbon equivalent per ton of shrimp. 6.12 Alcoholic spirits, sugar Preliminary inquiries made of companies in the spirits trade give us orders of magnitude, that remain to be verified.

- Pure alcohol engenders emissions on the order of 0,4 ± 0,1 ton carbon equivalent per ton of alcohol (this depends to a large extent on the form of energy used for distilling).

- Sugar engenders emissions on the order of 0,2 ± 0,05 ton carbon equivalent per ton.

More study is needed for all these figures, and some investigations are already underway.

206 Conversation with Loïc Antoine, IFREMER.

Bilan Carbone TM



6.13 Other products Data collection is planned to estimate emissions for other common foodstuffs or processed foods. Some examples are:

- fats and oils

- chocolate (or cocoa)

- common vegetable (potatoes, beets, etc.)

- etc. 6.14 Consolidated emission factors for farms 6.14.1 Emissions per hectare for the main crops When the Bilan Carbone™ method is applied to a local authority, with the objective of estimating emissions for cultivated farmlands, it will often be easier to ascertain the number of hectares per crop than the harvested weight for each crop. In this case emission factors per hectare can be used, based on average values:

- fertilizer use per hectare for each crop (distinguishing between nitrogen fertilizer and potassium fertiliser), which determines nitrous oxide emissions and emissions due to manufacture of fertilizers,

- hours of farm machinery use per hectare for each crop, which determines direct CO2 emissions due to the use of diesel fuel.

6.14.1.1 Nitrous oxide emanations Based on various sources (notably Prolea207, Institut du Végétal208, Ecobilan209, ADEME210, INRA) average values for nitrogen fertilizer per hectare (conventional agriculture) are listed in the table below.

Type of Crop Average nitrogen units per hectare

Standard wheat 184 Standard grain maize 175 Standard maize fodder 120 Sorghum 150 Standard beets 87 Vineyard 200

Non-intensive vineyard211

50

Sunflower 40 Oilseed rape 170

207 Exchanges with Benoît Carrouee, Prolea, 2003. 208 ITCF – ADEME, 2003, Référentiel pour le calcul des bilans énergétiques. 209 AGPM – Ecobilan, 1998, Analyse de cycle de vie de l'amidon de maïs, de maïs grain et de maïs ensilage. 210 ADEME – Ecobilan, 2003, Bilans énergétique et gaz à effet de serre des filières de production de biocarburants. 211 These are "quality" vineyards with production ceilings (for example in Champagne country), meaning that high yields are not an objective.

Bilan Carbone TM



Fertilized pasture 94 Potatoes 160

Table 150: Average nitrogen units per hectare, by crop

Nitrogen units refer to the weight, in kg, of the nitrogen content of fertilizer compounds. Farmers rarely compute the total weight of fertilizer, and generally measure only the nitrogen in the compounds used (so that blending fertilizer with a non-nitrogen compound does not change the amount of nitrogen applied). For cases where the crop type is not known, the default value is set at 100 nitrogen units per hectare. Unfortunately no data are available for fruit and vegetable farming. A conventional factor is available for nitrous oxide emissions in relation to the amount of nitrogen applied to soil (see §3.2). Using this factor we obtain emissions per hectare for each crop type, listed below:

Type of Crop Average N 2O

emissions, in kg C eq per hectare

Standard wheat 460 Standard grain maize 438 Standard maize fodder 300 Sorghum 375 Standard beets 218 Vineyard 501 Non-intensive vineyard 125 Sunflower 100 Oilseed rape 425 Fertilized pasture 235 Potatoes 400

Table 151: Average N 2O emission factor by crop

6.14.1.2 Manufacture of fertilizer Once the quantities of nitrogen applied are known, emissions attributable to the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer can be derived using the data given in §6.2. Potassium fertilizer is also taken into account, even though it counts for far fewer emissions (potash is a mined product, much less energy-intensive per ton than chemical products)212.

212 IFEN, J-M Jancovici, 2004, Indicateurs de développement durable.

Bilan Carbone TM



Crop Manufacture of fertilizer

Average values, in kg C eq per hectare

Standard wheat 231 Standard grain maize 220 Standard maize fodder 151 Sorghum 189 Standard beets 109 Vineyard 252 Non-intensive vineyard 63 Sunflower 50 Oilseed rape 214 Fertilized pasture 118 Potatoes 201

Table 152: Emission factors for fertilizer manufac ture

The default value here is 125 kg carbon equivalent per hectare (corresponding to the manufacture of 100 nitrogen units applied per hectare). 6.14.1.3 Farm machinery The same sources as in §6.1.4.1.1 give average figures for the use of farm machinery by crop type, in hours of use, and the emissions due to fuel use, as well as the emissions due to the manufacture and upkeep of the machinery in question. Although relatively marginal in total emissions, these emissions are nonetheless counted, and calculated per hectare of cropland, giving the following values:

Carbon equivalent per hectare Crop Direct fuel use Manufacture and

upkeep of machinery

Standard wheat 87 6 Standard grain maize 81 7 Standard maize fodder 92 8 Sorghum 63 5 Standard beets 159 7 Vineyard 280 30 Sunflower 144 9 Oilseed rape 163 9 Fertilized pasture 6 0,1 Potatoes 131 6

Table 153: Emission factors for farm machinery (co nsumption, upkeep, manufacture) per hectare of cropland

Bilan Carbone TM



6.14.2 Methane emissions from livestock All livestock operations have methane emissions, due to:

- enteric fermentation of ruminants,

- intestinal fermentation of other herbivores,

- fermentation of organic material in excrement (slurry and manure). If the Bilan Carbone™ user wants to obtain emissions directly generated by livestock, without considering emissions related to feed production, it is advisable to estimate methane emissions separately, as they are the only animal emissions to be taken into consideration in the framework of anthropogenic disruption of the climate. On the basis of various studies, methane emissions per head of livestock are described in §6.6 to 6.10 and compiled below.

Animal kg methane per head and per year

Dairy cows 152 Nursing cows 113 Bulls 109 Yearlings, young bulls 66 Yearlings, calves 22 Steers 76 Nursing ewes 14 Milking ewes 17 She-lambs 6,9 Rams 17,5 Grass-fed lambs 2,2 Butchery lambs 0,84 Goats 16 He-goats 19 She-goats 5,73 Geldings, non-carrying mares 51 Foaling mares, stallions 54 Colts 29 Work horses 51 Swine 9,9 Chickens 0,15 Guinea fowl 0,15 Ducks 0,20

Table 154: Methane emissions from livestock

On the basis of a GWP of 23 for methane, the carbon equivalent per head and per year is as follows:

Bilan Carbone TM



Animal Kg carbon equivalent

per head and per year Dairy cows 956 Nursing cows 712 Bulls 682 Yearlings, young bulls 415 Yearlings, calves 136 Steers 474 Nursing ewes 87 Milking ewes 105 She-lambs 43 Rams 111 Grass-fed lambs 14 Butchery lambs 5 Goats 102 He-goats 121 She-goats 36 Geldings, non-carrying mares 322 Foaling mares, stallions 338 Colts 184 Work horses 322 Swine 62 Chickens 0,9 Guinea fowl 0,9 Ducks 1,3

Table 155: Methane emissions from livestock in kg C eq

These values can be used to calculate annual emissions when herd size is known.

Bilan Carbone TM



7 - Accounting for direct waste and sewage

7.0 Preliminary remarks The sections below aim to assign a "GHG content" to processes designed for end-of-life treatment of waste (landfilling, incineration, recycling/reprocessing). Whatever the type of treatment or disposal, we assume that one ton of waste engenders 80 ton.km of transport in a rubbish truck with a GVW of 20 tons, half full for its entire trip (the truck starts out empty and finishes full). This transport causes 4 kg carbon equivalent of emissions. Regarding energy recovery from waste that is not recycled as raw material for reprocessing into a new material, we use the avoided impacts method. Calculation of value obtained from energy and/or materials recovery depends on the type of waste and the information available. Generally speaking energy recovery from incineration can be calculated from the heat value of waste and incinerator boiler output (estimated at 86%). The GHG emissions avoided due to energy recovery can be evaluated using the emissions factors given in chapter 2. The data given below refer to waste directly produced by the company conducting the carbon balance, and to end-of-life disposal of products or services marketed by this same entity213. 7.1 Inert waste Inert waste is waste that is not subject to any significant physical, chemical or biological alteration that does not decompose, does not burn and triggers no physical or chemical reaction. In practice this category includes all materials that do not contain organic compounds, i.e.

- metals

- other minerals (glass, stone, rubble, etc.). 7.1.1 Inert waste materials – landfill disposal and incineration 213 As most reporting entities do not know precisely what becomes of their products or services, the default figure (or average French "mix") can be used to evaluate end-of-life emissions for this products/service.

Bilan Carbone TM



Inert materials do not cause GHG emissions, whether they are disposed of in landfill or by incineration. We must take a closer look, however:

- in case of landfill disposal, the only emissions linked to inert materials are the emissions for waste transport to landfill, and for maintenance of the landfill. The amount of energy involved is negligible compared to the energy required to make the materials214. To avoid entering a zero value, we propose assigning 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton, corresponding to 80 km of truck transport;

- In the case of incineration, some of the material is recovered after combustion (aluminium or steel in bottom ash, which is sometimes used in roadway construction). As this is an example of closed-loop recycling (the scrap is recovered to make new steel) it is not taken into account for end-of-life treatment, for the reasons elaborated in the methodological guidelines.

Likewise, for the reporting entity's direct waste occurrences and packaging used for products sold or supplied, by convention end-of-life emissions for minerals are limited to transport, i.e. 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton. 7.1.2 Inert waste materials – default value The breakdown of inert waste disposal by activity branch in France is as follows215:

Waste arisings % sent to landfill without methane

recovery

% sent to landfill with

methane recovery

% incinerated without energy

recovery

% incinerated with energy recovery

% materials recovery

Steel, aluminium packaging Copper, zinc, nickel, lead

32% 14% -- 1% 53%

Glass packaging, glass, construction materials

33% 16% -- -- 51%

Table 156: Breakdown of inert waste disposal by br anch of activity (ADEME, 2004)

As emission factors per ton of inert waste are the same for all treatment processes, and the factor for end-of-life disposal of mineral waste is 4 kg C eq per ton (§7.1.1), the average value for the carbon content of inert waste at end-of-life disposal is 4 kg C eq per ton, for all waste treatment methods.

214 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 215 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France.

Bilan Carbone TM



It should be remarked that this value is very low in relation to the carbon content linked to the manufacture of inert materials. 7.2 Non-fermentable but combustible materials This category comprises essentially plastics (paper is fermentable)216. 7.2.1 Plastic sent to landfill Plastic sent to landfill is not subject to any chemical reaction (in particular it does not ferment). The only emissions for end-of-life disposal are linked to transport, i.e. 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton; as above, this value is marginal compared to emissions caused by manufacture of the material. The emissions assigned to plastic sent to landfill are therefore 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton. 7.2.2 Plastic incinerated without energy recovery When plastics are incinerated their fossil carbon content (for plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, therefore their carbon is fossil) is released by combustion, and must be accounted for. For combustion alone, the emission factor calculated in §2.2.5 is applied by default to all types of plastic. This material must also be transported, representing 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of plastic waste. Thus 474 kg carbon equivalent per ton are imputed to incineration of plastic without energy recovery. 7.2.3 Plastic incinerated with energy recovery Energy recovery consists in using the energy of incineration combustion, to produce electricity or steam (which is then used for heating). The conventional method of accounting for energy recovery is to estimate the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted to generate the same quantity of electricity or steam from natural gas, and then to subtract this quantity of CO2 from the total combustion emissions, to obtain the nett emissions correspondent to incineration with energy recovery.

216 Paper is an organic compound that decomposes in landfill.

Bilan Carbone TM



For this operation we make the following assumptions:

- the majority of energy recovery installations generate electricity,

- avoided fossil carbon emissions are estimated on the basis of the annual emissions average for the country's power plants, for an equivalent amount of electricity.

On this basis the values for the United States217 are the following:

Nature of incinerated material Emissions avoided by energy recovery (kg C eq per ton of material incinerated)

Polyethylene (high and low density) -510 Polystyrene, PVC -510 PET 510 Plastic, conventional average value -510(218)

Table 157: Emission factors for incineration of pla stic with energy recovery (USA)

If the same reasoning is applied to France, avoided emissions have a much lower carbon content (23 g of C per kWh in France, as opposed to 167 g in the United States for the year covered the study). It also seems logical to conserve an annual average, and not a value restricted to certain months or times of day, as incinerators operate all year round. To adapt this figure for France the US value for avoided emissions should be multiplied by the fraction 23/167, assuming that the energy efficiency of generating electricity from incineration combustion is more or less the same in the United States and in France (a reasonable assumption). Clearly, in estimating the avoided impact for electricity production, the avoided emissions are greater if the alternative is coal, rather than nuclear or hydro-electric power. Accordingly we impute avoided emissions for incineration energy recovery representing the following savings.

Nature of incinerated material Savings linked to energy recovery in kg C eq per ton of material incinerated

Plastic, conventional average value -73

Table 158: Emission factors for incineration of pla stic with energy recovery (Europe)

217 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 85. 218 The default value will apply to practically all plastic encountered.

Bilan Carbone TM



Therefore materials incinerated with energy recovery are reported with the following nett values:

Nature of incinerated material kg carbon equivalent per ton of material incinerated with energy recovery

Plastic, conventional average value 401

Table 159: Emission factors for incineration of pla stics with energy recovery

7.2.4 Recycled plastic As in the case above, savings due to recycling are not included in end-of-life disposal, because most recycling is closed-loop recycling. One ton of recycling plastic is thus assigned emissions due to transport to a materials recovery facility, set at 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton. 7.2.5 Breakdown of types of disposal in France and average values For 2002 end-of-life plastics are broken down as follows, by type of treatment (this refers only to packaging, but as explained above this category will be preponderant in waste for which the disposal destination is not known)219:

% sent to landfill without methane

recovery

% sent to landfill with methane

recovery


recovery



32% 15% 2% 36% 15%

Table 160: Breakdown of plastic waste disposal by type of treatment (France)

The average value is by definition the sum of the unit values divided by the number of occurrences of the unit values. This calculation gives average values for the carbon content of end-of-life plastics in France, using the following formula.

47%*4+2%*474+36%*401+15%*4 = 156220 This is the value used when the final disposal destination for food waste is not known. 7.3 Fermentable and combustible materials This category includes materials not covered in other categories, primarily

219 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France. 220 As written this formula would give a slightly lower figure, because the percentages have been rounded off. The exact calculation gives 165.

Bilan Carbone TM



- food waste

- paper and cardboard 7.3.1 Materials sent to landfill without energy or materials recovery 7.3.1.1 Paper and cardboard If paper and cardboard are sent to landfill, they ferment, engendering methane and CO2 emissions. In addition, a proportion of the carbon – non-fossil, as paper and cardboard are made from wood – is sequestered in soil. A study published by the US EPA221 gives the following values for methane emissions (in carbon equivalent) for paper and cardboard (discarded dry, but dampened by contact with other waste) per ton of dry waste, taking into account methane emissions and carbon sequestration in landfills.

Material sent to landfill without methane recovery

End-of-life disposal carbon equivalent by type of material (kg C per ton)

Discarded office paper (average) 400 Cardboard 280

Table 161: Emission factors for waste paper and ca rdboard landfilled without methane recovery (EPA, 1998)

Accordingly paper sent to landfill is assigned an emission factor of 400 kg carbon equivalent per ton . Data from the same source lead to a figure of 280 kg carbon equivalent per ton for cardboard sent to landfill. 7.3.1.2 Food waste Fermentation of food waste sent to landfill engenders methane emissions as well as nitrous oxide (N2O); the latter are for the most part marginal. As for paper, some of the carbon – non-fossil – contained in this waste is sequestered in landfill soil. Total methane emitted less sequestered carbon gives roughly 290 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste sent to landfill 222. 221 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 108. 222 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 108.

Bilan Carbone TM



7.3.2 Material sent to landfill with energy or mate rials recovery Energy recovery from landfills consists in recovery methane released by fermentation of waste, and using it in the same way as natural gas. In this case two types of savings are achieved compared to disposal without energy recovery:

- the recovered methane is not released to the atmosphere,

- combustion of methane can be used to supply energy. 7.3.2.1 Food waste Methane produced by one ton of food waste represents 290 kg carbon equivalent (see §7.3.1.2 above), corresponding to emission of about 50 kg of methane223. When converted to electricity this methane will lead to 37 kg of CO2, but this is not fossil CO2. This non-fossil CO2 replaces fossil CO2, however, that would have been emitted if fossil methane were used in the power plant in question, and thus avoided fossil CO2 emissions should be taken into account in referring to this methane used to produce electricity. In comparison with landfilling without energy recovery, methane recovery yields the following savings:

- 290 kg carbon equivalent for methane not emitted to the atmosphere,

- 37 kg carbon equivalent of CO2. The carbon equivalent figure associated with disposing of one ton of food waste in a landfill with methane recovery is thus minus 37 kg carbon equivalent per ton (that can also be written -37 kg C-eq/t) - in other words a savings. 7.3.2.2 Paper and cardboard The carbon equivalent for nett methane emissions (total methane less sequestered carbon) produced by one ton of paper is 400 kg carbon equivalent according to the data given in §7.3.1.1. This corresponds to around 69 kg of methane, and following the same reasoning as above (as paper and cardboard come from biomass) this avoids fossil CO2 emissions amounting to 52 kg carbon equivalent. Compared to landfilling without energy recovery, the savings are the following:

- 400 kg C per ton, for combustion of methane,

223 This calculation was done at a time when the GWP for methane was 21. The quantity of methane is thus obtained by the operation (290/21)*44/12.

Bilan Carbone TM



- 52 kg C per ton, for CO2 emissions avoided in producing electricity from natural gas.

The carbon equivalent figure associated with disposing of one ton of paper in a landfill with methane recovery is thus - (minus) 52 kg carbon equivalent per ton. For cardboard, using the same reasoning, the savings are 36 kg carbon equivalent per ton. 7.3.3 Incineration without energy recovery 7.3.3.1 Food waste Incineration of food waste leads to non-fossil carbon emissions. Furthermore this is a rapid-rotation cycle: plants grown for food absorbed the carbon discharged to the atmosphere within a year, more or less (for meat the cycle is bit longer, but not much224). The only emissions from incinerated food waste are transport emissions, set at 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of waste. 7.3.3.2 Paper and cardboard Incineration of paper and cardboard also leads to carbon dioxide emissions. Combustion of paper returns organic carbon to the environment, because paper is made from trees (notably pine trees) and from recycled cloth (cotton fibre). Even so, combustion of wood from stable forestry plantations is considered to be neutral from a climate point of view, because the emissions from burned wood are offset by CO2 sequestration by standing trees and the replanted plots225. Likewise, combustion of paper and cardboard is also taken to be climate-neutral, considering that this is burning wood that has previously been made in to paper. Incineration of paper is therefore neutral, and only transport to the incinerator is taken into account, on the basis of 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of paper or cardboard. 7.3.4 Incineration with energy recovery 7.3.4.1 Food waste

224 Poultry and swine are slaughtered after a few months; only cattle "survive" for several years, a short period in comparison to the time scale of climate change. 225 Strictly speaking, neutrality from a climate point of view is achieved when the amount burned in the year corresponds to new growth in the year.

Bilan Carbone TM



The US EPA indicates an avoided emissions value of 60 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste226 incinerated with energy recovery. But as outlined above, this savings figure is based on a carbon equivalent of 167 g per kWh (because the recovered energy is used to generate electricity), whereas in France the figure is 23 g carbon equivalent per kWh. The corrected figure for these savings by convention is 60*23/167 = 9 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste incinerated with energy recovery. Deducting transport to the incinerator from these savings, food waste incinerated with energy recovery is assigned - (minus) 5 kg carbon equivalent per ton. 7.3.4.2 Paper and cardboard Here again our only reference data comes from the already cited EPA document. Following the same reasoning as in §7.2.3, we arrive at emissions credits as follows.

Nature of material kg carbon equivalent of emissions avoided by energy recovery

per ton of waste (USA)

kg carbon equivalent of emissions avoided by energy recovery

per ton of waste (France) Paper -180 -26 Cardboard -190 -27

Table 162: Savings achieved by incineration of pap er and cardboard with energy recovery, in the United States and in France

Accordingly, emission factors for incineration of paper and cardboard with energy recovery are equal to the sum of this negative value and a value of 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton for transport. 7.3.5 Recycling As above, recycling is by convention assigned zero emissions, excepting transport emissions. 7.3.6 Statistical average for waste disposal in Fra nce Regarding food waste we assume that negligible amounts are sent to landfill with methane recovery, giving the following breakdown227:

226 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 91. 227 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France.

Bilan Carbone TM




recovery


recovery


recovery


Composting or energy recovery

36% 18% 2% 32% 12%

Table 163: Breakdown of food waste disposal by typ e of treatment (France)

On this basis the average GHG emission value for disposal of food waste is 96 kg carbon equivalent per ton. This is the value used when the final disposal destination for food waste is not known. For paper and cardboard the breakdown by type of disposal is the following228:


recovery


recovery


recovery



17% 8% 2% 21% 52%

Table 164: Breakdown of paper and cardboard waste disposal by type of treatment (France)

This gives the following average values:

- 61 kg carbon equivalent per ton for paper, - 42 kg carbon equivalent per ton for cardboard.

These values are used when the final disposal destination of paper/cardboard waste is not known. 7.4 Hazardous industrial waste The environmental impacts of hazardous waste storage at multi-user sites in France are evaluated in a study229 conducted by FNADE230 and ADEME in 2001-2002 (published in 2003). This study uses life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology. This is a technique that counts up potential environmental impacts generated throughout the life cycle of a product or service. This inventory data was based on average values representing the situation in France in 2000. A repository231 is a place designed for waste storage, above or below ground. Waste repositories are classed in three categories in France:

228 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France. 229 ADEME – FNADE, 2003, Eco-profil du stockage des déchets dangereux en sites collectifs en France. 230 FNADE: Fédération Nationale des Activités de Dépollution et de l’Environnement 231 Formerly called "centre d’enfouissement technique" (CET) in France, now "centre de stockage de déchets ultimes" (CSDU).

Bilan Carbone TM



- class I: hazardous waste (stabilized final waste)

- class II: non-hazardous waste (household and assimilated waste)

- class III: inert waste (rubble and excavated material). The study is devoted exclusively to class I waste repositories. The waste accepted at these repositories originates with industrial processes or pollution clean-up installations (for instance, incineration residues). For the most part these wastes are solid or mineral, with very low reactivity and solubility, and unlikely to evolve over time. These repositories do not accept fermentable waste, liquids, radioactive substances, infectious or potentially infections items, wastes that cannot be pelletized, unprocessed powdered waste, explosive, inflammable or hot substances, or items with dioxin content greater than 50 ppm by mass. Once incoming waste is analysed and accepted, it is subject to stabilization and solidification treatment before being stored in cells. The chemical compounds in the waste are retained by cold stabilization treatment. Some wastes are already stable when they arrive at the site and do not require this treatment. Solidification enhances the mechanical resistance of the waste. The aim of these operations is to prevent transfer of pollutants from the waste to the surrounding environment. The waste is stored in watertight cells to limit interaction between the waste and the environment, in particular leaching. The LCA study covers only the above stages, and is based on a sample group of 11 sites, typical of the average situation in France in 2000. The study finds that for one ton of waste in storage 124 kg of CO2 are emitted, coming primarily from the manufacture of the raw materials used for stabilization treatment. This process also emits methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx), respectively 160 g, 359 g and 289 g for one ton of waste. The table below shows the breakdown of emissions for each phase of the waste repository life cycle.

Waste stabilization

Construction of site and storage

facility Raw

materials Process

Transport of waste to site

Waste storage

Site closure (10 000 years)

Aftercare TOTAL

CO2 (g) 5 439 110 517 762 760 994 5 073 123 545

CH4 (g) 9 142 2 1 0,7 8 159

NOx 50 248 2 9 5 46 359

SOx 8 256 3 0,6 5 17 289

Bilan Carbone TM



Table 165: Life cycle inventory data for the stora ge of one ton of hazardous waste, by life cycle stages (ADEME – FNADE, 2003)

By adding up the different greenhouse gases emitted, we found an average emission factor of 125 kg carbon equivalent per ton of waste. Note that the aforementioned values may vary by a factor of 1 to 4 depending on the site, which explains why we assign a 50% uncertainty range to this emission factor. The above values consolidate data for all the waste taken in at the storage sites and the values cannot be extrapolated for any particular type of dangerous waste. 7.5 End-of-life non-energy emissions and leakages The emission factors used for non-energy emissions and leakages at end-of-life are explained in §3.1 of this manual. Likewise, section 3.3 is devoted to the data used in the Bilan Carbone™ utility (called "Clim_froid") for estimating emissions of refrigerant fluids, during use and at the time of disposal232. 7.6 Wastewater In theory the emissions related to wastewater come from two sources:

- a stay in anaerobic conditions (marshes, ponds, lagoons, river cut- off...) and water-laden organic matter (ie containing carbon), which leads to methane emissions in so far as it remains for a long time (a few weeks at least, or more if this matter is diffused in slightly damp form),

- a breakdown of nitrogen compounds, in aerobic conditions or not, which leads to N2O emissions.

Since, in practice, a minimum stay in anaerobic conditions and a minimum concentration of wastewater organic matter is required for the emissions to be significant, the following is not applicable:

- Water discharged in a non-stagnant milieu (water moving or flowing in a river, for example), where anaerobic conditions are not met, - Water discharged into a network that leads to a purification plant, because the continued anaerobic conditions of organic matter in suspension (which takes only time to arrive at the station) is much too short for significant emissions to take place. Only water exiting the station, and rejected in a stagnant milieu, if any, are to be taken into account.

232 For further information refer to appendix 2 of the User's Manual for the Bilan_carbone_V4.xls spreadsheet.

Bilan Carbone TM



Finally, the emission factors below concerning methane emissions: the N2O released by the decomposition of nitrogen compounds is a minor factor in wastewater emissions, and applies above all to swine excrement in agriculture. The perfect matching of the emission factors to reality should result in the use of differentiated factors, according to the type of treatment (which determines whether decomposition is more or less aerobic) and climate conditions (that govern rapidity of fermentation). Also in this context, a greater or lesser amount of available carbon is effectively converted to methane. For the lack of literature currently available, we have simply supplied the upper limit value for possible emissions for cases that fall under this approach, and this is 0,25 kg of methane per kg of biodegradable organic carbon contained in the waste233. The weight of organic carbon is also the weight of what is classically called biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), a standard indicator of the fermentable content of wastewater. In the absence of site-specific data (direct measurements, or a method tailored to the circumstances, etc.), the formula used by default is

kg NH4 produced = 0,25 * kg BOD Consequently the carbon equivalent is

kg carbon equivalent from wastewater = 0,25 * kg BOD * 6,27234 If this entry is significant in the total (which will probably rarely be the case), more detailed investigation, and possibly direct measurements, will be necessary. Furthermore, for certain activities that discharge wastewater with a high organic material content, there are applicable average values if direct measurement is not possible. NB: these average values apply only to untreated wastewater discharged to the environment. In no case can they be applied to an industry that purifies wastewater before discharge, or an industry that discharges its wastewater - directly or via a sewer - to a treatment plant that purifies the effluent shortly after discharge. By definition these values do not apply to tertiary-sector activities.

Source of wastewater kg carbon equivalent per m3 of wastewater

Sugar refinery wastewater 154 Alcoholic beverage distillery wastewater 63

233 Environment Ministry, Australia, 1997, A Quick Reference Guide, Estimating Potential Methane Production, Recovery and Use from Waste. (www.environment.gov.au). 234 The figure 6,27 is the value approaching (23*12÷44), i.e. the carbon equivalent of one kg of methane.

Bilan Carbone TM



Brewery wastewater 16 Organic chemicals industry wastewater 47 Starch wastewater 16 Dairy product wastewater 3 Food and vegetable processing industries 6 Edible oil manufacturing wastewater 78 Papermaking wastewater 6 Tannery wastewater 8 Food processing, default value 5

Table 166: Emission factors for wastewater treatme nt

Bilan Carbone TM



8 - End-of-life disposal of packaging

Packaging for products sold is distinguished from other types of waste in this tool, for the following reasons:

- unlike other input materials reported, this packaging is waste by nature: after use it is necessarily discarded,

- unlike waste that arises directly within the reporting company, for which it is possible to know, roughly speaking, what disposal methods are used (landfilling, incineration), for product packaging it is hard to know exactly how a given piece of packing will be disposed of at the end of its life.

- given the large amounts of packaging produced and the often quite large geographic area within which they will be disposed of, it makes sense to use a statistical approach to end-of-life treatment for these particular items,

- lastly, the management of packaging is often entrusted to a few clearly identified individuals within companies.

As explained above, it is impossible to know where a given piece of packaging will finish its life. Inversely, as companies generally package large numbers of products, that will be sold over a large area, we have opted for a statistical approach: It is assumed that end-of-life disposal of packaging reflects the proportion of different kinds of waste treatment in France.

- Incineration with energy recovery

- Incineration without energy recovery

- Material sent to landfill with methane recovery

- Material sent to landfill without methane recovery

- Recycling In other words, for end-of-life treatment of packaging, we use the average emissions values given in §7.1.2, 7.2.5 and 7.3.5 above.

Material End-of-life emissions in kg C eq per ton

Metals 4 PET 168 Other plastics 282 Glass 4 Cardboard 42 Paper 61

Table 167: Emission factors for disposal of packag ing waste

Bilan Carbone TM



Manufacture of packaging materials is handled as an item in the category of Input materials, and thus manufacturing and end-of-life emissions can be aggregated for this packaging (the carbon balance spreadsheet automatically proposes this aggregation). The spreadsheet supplies a graph representing "Total packaging emissions", using the above values plus those given in §5. The table below recapitulates this consolidation.

Material

kg C eq for manufacturing and end-

of-life disposal "on average

Steel or tinplate produced from ore 874 Steel or tinplate produced 100% reprocessed scrap 304 Aluminium produced from ore 2 894 Aluminium produced from 100% reprocessed scrap 674 High-density polyethylene (new) 782 High-density polyethylene (100% recycled) 532 Low-density polyethylene (new) 832 Low-density polyethylene (100% recycled) 512 PET (new) 1 368 PET (100% reprocessed) 568 Polystyrene (new) 1 052 PVC (new) 802 Plastic - average 932 Composite - polyurethane 1 482 Polyethylene plastic film 1 768 Plate glass 418 Bottle glass 124 Container glass 404 Glass (100% reprocessed) 169 Technical glassware 1 004 Fibreglass 584 Copper 804 Zinc 804 Nickel 2 504 Lead 574 Other common metals 1 004 Cardboard (unprinted) 542 Paper (unprinted) 611

Table 168: Emission factors for packaging producti on

These values are used to establish an explanatory graph in the spreadsheet to illustrate the impact of packaging from one end of the chain to the other.

Bilan Carbone TM



9 - Accounting for amortized assets

9.0 Preliminary remarks The main objective in this chapter is to derive emission factors enabling reporting companies to estimate GHG emissions for construction of capital goods and assets (buildings, machinery, etc.). Buildings and machinery are made of basic materials, then transported and assembled, and all of these stages engender GHG emissions. In this chapter we propose an approximate accounting method, based on surface area, a variable that is usually easy to determine. The distinctive methodological feature for this category is the use of amortization, exactly as in financial accounting. We have chosen linear amortization, over the same period of time as for financial accounts. In effect emissions corresponding to construction of machinery or a building are spread over several years. Emission factors will be refined by successive iterations when accurate calculations have been carried out by builders and manufacturers of capital goods. 9.1 Buildings 9.1.1 Rough approach for building surface area NB: The values suggested below are derived from energy expenditures for construction of different types of buildings, and therefore refer only to fossil CO2. A CNRS study (ECODEV programme) carried out in 1998 gives the distribution of new construction started in 1990, by type of use, and indicates overall energy expenditure by type of building. Intermediate consumption (transport, manufacture of materials etc.) is taken into account in this study. Buildings are divided into concrete structures (for example, an office building) and metallic structures (a hangar or industrial building). The study estimates the proportional share for these two types. Lastly, a metallic structure requires roughly three times less energy to build than a concrete structure.

Bilan Carbone TM



Type of building total surface area

(m²) thousands of toe corresponding

to construction % of metallic

structures Housing 25 080 000 4 050 0% Farm buildings 12 733 000 2 056 50% Industrial buildings 17 495 000 2 825 70% Garages 1 854 000 299 50% Commercial buildings 5 553 000 897 30% Office space 6 981 000 1 127 10% Schools 2 536 000 410 0% Healthcare facilities 2 599 000 420 0% Leisure facilities 2 213 000 357 20%

Table 169: Energy expenditures for building constr uction by type of activity

Using this data, the energy expenditure per m² of building construction can be calculated (see table below).

Type of building total surface area (m²)

m² in metallic structures

m² concrete koe235

/m2 metallic

structure

koe/m 2 concrete structure

Housing 25 080 000 0 25 080 000 54 161 Farm buildings 12 733 000 6 366 500 6 366 500 81 242 Industrial buildings 17 495 000 12 246 500 5 248 500 101 303 Garages 1 854 000 927 000 927 000 81 242 Commercial buildings 5 553 000 1 665 900 3 887 100 67 202 Office space 6 981 000 698 100 6 282 900 58 173 Schools 2 536 000 0 2 536 000 54 162 Healthcare facilities 2 599 000 0 2 599 000 54 162 Leisure facilities 2 213 000 442 600 1 770 400 62 186

Table 170: Energy expenditures for building constr uction by material

It remains to calculate the emission factor for one kilo-oil-equivalent (koe) in construction, taking minor GHG into account if possible. The method used is described below.

- The CNRS study gives energy consumption in tons-oil-equivalent (toe) by sector of activity.

- CEREN data include the share of electricity in total energy use, by NAF code.

- Combining the two, we obtain the share of electricity in energy use for each sector (see below).

- We assume that CO2 emissions for electricity generation are negligible (an acceptable assumption, considering other emissions).

235 koe = kilo oil equivalent, toe = ton oil equivalent.

Bilan Carbone TM



- The remaining energy use, in fossil fuels, is assigned the standard value of 0,76 tons carbon equivalent per toe236, which allows energy GHG emissions to be calculated.

- Non-energy emissions are added for cement (ratio of 1,35 to 1) and for non-ferrous metals (ratio of 1 to 1 for aluminium).

This gives the following table:

Products Upstream consumption

in toe

% electricity

toe fuel tons C/toe for

remainder

tons C for energy

emissions

tons C for non-

energy emissions

total tons C

Non-ferrous metals 330 000 50% 165 000 0,76 125 400 125 400 250 800 Ferrous metals 1 427 000 20% 1 141 600 0,76 867 616 867 616 Building materials 3 020 000 15% 2 567 000 0,76 1 950

920 2 633 742 4 584

662 Glass 358 000 40% 214 800 0,76 163 248 163 248 Metallurgy 1 088 000 50% 544 000 0,76 413 440 413 440 Plastic 206 000 25% 154 500 0,76 117 420 117 420 Electrical equipment 992 000 50% 496 000 0,76 376 960 376 960 753 920 Machinery 3 864 000 50% 1 932 000 0,76 1 468

320 1 468

320 Household goods 131 000 50% 65 500 0,76 49 780 49 780 Parachemicals 140 000 50% 70 000 0,76 53 200 53 200 Wood 263 000 80% 52 600 0,76 39 976 39 976 TOTAL 11 819 000 7 403 000 5 626

280 3 136 102 8 762

382

Table 171: Emissions for building construction, by activity sector in France

On this basis of 8 800 000 tons C eq in emissions (including some minor gases) for energy consumption of 11 819 000 toe, a first approximation (for use in further calculations) gives us the figure of 0,74 tons C eq per toe used in construction. Emission factors per m2 can then be derived fairly easily using the data above, by assigning the factor of 0,74 tons C eq per toe in construction, to the "energy content" in the table 134.

kg carbon equivalent per m 2 Type of building Metallic structure (hangar,

etc.) Concrete structure (office

building) Housing 40 119 Farm buildings 60 179 Industrial buildings 75 225 Garages 60 179 Commercial buildings 50 150 Office space 43 128 Schools 40 120 Healthcare facilities 40 120

236 Carbon content of the average mix of fossil fuels used by the industry.

Bilan Carbone TM



Leisure facilities 46 138

Table 172: Emission factors per m 2 by building type and activity

Emissions linked to construction of a 150-m² house with a concrete structure will be on the order of 150*119 = 17 850 kg carbon equivalent, or 17,8 tons C eq. Seeing that heating for 150 m² represents 0,5 to 2 tons C eq per year, this is not a negligible amount, even amortized over several decades. Using this rudimentary method, it is possible to model emissions linked to construction of new infrastructure and their amortization, in orders of magnitude. The uncertainty by default factor is set at 50%. 9.1.2 Overall approach based on energy consumption Construction emissions can also be derived from building energy consumption. In this approach it is assumed that construction emissions237 represent a fraction of total emissions over the life of the building, and are determined by building type.

- For existing building stock, this fraction lies between 7% and 10% (with 5% imputed to manufacture of building materials alone).

- For new buildings, the proportion is on the order of 15%.

- The proportion for construction emissions could be as high as 20% to 25% for buildings designed for low energy consumption during their operational life238.

Only two approaches are used in the Bilan Carbone™ spreadsheet: the surface area approach (§9.1.1) and the approach based on the quantities of building materials used (§9.1.3). 9.1.3 A more detailed approach, based on quantities of materials used A more accurate estimate can be established if the nature and quantities of building materials used are known to the user, as in the case of a new building to be erected. In this case emission factors per functional unit (FU)239 (a ton of cement, a m2 of roofing, etc.) Transport, handling and on-site treatment emissions are added in, if they have not already been accounted for.

237 Direct energy consumption at construction sites, indirect consumption for manufacture, distribution and transport of materials, and ancillary consumption in other economic sectors that can be imputed to buildings (insurance, for example). 238 ADEME, June 2005, Stratégie utilisation rationnelle de l'énergie, Chapitre II: les bâtiments. 239 ISO 14040 defines the functional unit as "the quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit in a life cycle assessment study".

Bilan Carbone TM



The emission factors recommended for this approach are taken from the INIES database240. This database contains environmental and health statements for different construction materials submitted by manufacturers and trade groups in this sector, containing information for product life-cycle analysis. GHG emissions due to manufacture, transport, use and disposal can be evaluated for each separate material. The INIES database currently includes some 40 statements, and new ones are regularly submitted. Some emission factors taken from this database are given in the table below.

Materials/Products Units Emission factors in kg C eq per unit

Concrete-block masonry wall m² 5,01 Prestressed concrete joist linear m 0,92

Plaster blocks 1 m² of wall 4,47 Single-layer steel siding 1 m² of wall 2,32

Concrete roof tiles 1 m² of roof 2,86 Thermal insulation products 1 m² of wall 1,64 Homogeneous PVC flooring 1 m² of floor 1,80

PVC piping 1 linear m 0,70 Suspended ceiling panels 1 m² 1,17

Terracotta single-wall construction 1 m² 14,73

Table 173: Emission factors for construction mater ials and products (INIES database)

9.2 Roadways and parking areas As for all infrastructures, roadway construction involves materials that have been produced upstream (steel, concrete, asphalt, bitumen, etc.). The only publication on this topic currently available in France is a study conducted by the firm Colas in September 2003241, which contains the following figures. The detailed factors given in §9.1.3 above are also valid, if necessary. 9.2.1 Primary components Just as a building is made from primary components such as bricks, cement pads, concrete pillars, poured concrete, tiles, etc., a roadway is made from primary components that are implemented differently depending on the type of roadway. In sum primary components can be divided into three categories:

- gravel, i.e. quarried material that is more or less finely crushed,

- binders, that are the roadway equivalent of cement,

240 INIES: Informations sur l’Impact Environnemental et Sanitaire. The INIES database is accessible free of charge on the Internet, (www.inies.fr). 241 Colas, 2003, La route écologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie.

Bilan Carbone TM



- metals, for protective barriers or for the roadway equivalent of reinforced concrete.

These components are blended in variable proportions, giving "products" that are used in road construction, with standard designations in the public works industry Only products not covered in chapter 5 are listed below (steel in particular is not mentioned here). For the most part these components are used specifically for roadway construction. The reference publication distinguishes between emissions for manufacture, transport and application phases. The emission factors could thus be "lowered" if one of these phases is not relevant to the case in question. These are of course average values.

Product kg carbon equivalent per ton

Bituminous concrete 15 Bitumen gravel 3 13 High-modulus asphalt 15 Warm asphalt 14 Gravel emulsion 8 Cold-rolled bituminous concrete 10 Gravel cement 14 Precracked gravel cement 14 Hydraulic gravel binder 6 Precracked roadway gravel binder 6 Cement concrete (roadways) 37 Continuous reinforced concrete (roadways)

55

Untreated gravel 4 Treated surface roadway binder 4 On-site hot recycling 11 10% recycled bituminous concrete 14 20% recycled bituminous concrete 12 30% recycled bituminous concrete 11 50% recycled bituminous concrete 10 On-site hot emulsion recycling 3

Table 174: Emission factors for roadway and parking area construction materials

Insofar as these values include roadway application, there is no need to add supplementary emissions (company headquarters emissions are not included on a pro rata basis, but as for all industrial activities it is unlikely that this would significantly modify the outcome). Incidentally it can be observed that percentages for supplementary emissions due to transport and application vary between 10% and 30% (untreated gravel is the exception, with 50%) and that the average comes to a little over 15% (see table below).

Product Supplement for transport and

Bilan Carbone TM



application Bituminous concrete 12% Bitumen gravel 3 15% High-modulus asphalt 11% Warm asphalt 13% Gravel emulsion 24% Cold-rolled bituminous concrete 20% Gravel cement 11% Precracked gravel cement 10% Hydraulic gravel binder 28% Precracked roadway gravel binder 29% Cement concrete 5% Continuous reinforced concrete 3% Untreated gravel 51% Treated surface roadway binder 13% 10% recycled bituminous concrete 12% 20% recycled bituminous concrete 13% 30% recycled bituminous concrete 12% 50% recycled bituminous concrete 11% On-site hot emulsion recycling 15% Average 16%

Table 175: Supplementary percentage for transport and application of roadway and parking area construction materials

This observation incites us to take 15% as the baseline value for construction-phase emissions. In other words, when construction emissions are derived from the weight of materials used, a supplement of 15% is added to materials manufacturing emissions to account for this phase. 9.2.2 Emission factors per m² for roadways and park ing areas As data on the weight of materials used will not always be available, calculations can also be made using more readily available information, i.e. types of roadways and their dimensions (length and width). 9.2.2.1 Types of roadways New roadways are calibrated according to the amount of traffic expected. Vehicle traffic is divided into two types, light vehicles (GVW <3,5 tons) and heavy-duty vehicles (GVW >3,5 tons). The Colas study242 uses the LCPC243-SETRA244 classification. It specifies eight types of roads, from TC1 to TC8. 242 Colas, 2003, La route écologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie. 243 Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées. 244 Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Ministère des Transports, France.

Bilan Carbone TM



Type of roadway Anticipated daily traffic of heavy-duty vehicles

(both directions)

Anticipated daily car traffic

TC1 < 25 < 380 TC2 25 to 50 400 to 750 TC3 50 to 150 750 to 2 300 TC4 150 to 300 2 300 to 4 600 TC5 300 to 750 4 600 to 11 500 TC6 750 to 2 000 11 500 to 31 000 TC7 2 000 to 5 000 31 000 to 77 000 TC8 Over 5 000 Over 77 000

Table 176: Traffic on different types of roadways

9.2.2.2 Emissions per m² In addition to road class, that determines the maximum pressure a road can withstand and therefore the thickness and rigidity of materials used, roads are also characterized by structure, falling into one of three families:

- reinforced concrete structure,

- semi-rigid structure,

- bituminous structure. The above-mentioned publication also gives values for emissions per m² of roadway for each class, broken down by structure. These values are represented in a graph (they are not given in table form in the publication), and hence may be off by a few percentage points, but given that the variation of actual values from average values obtained by life-cycle analyses is often much greater, this uncertainty is not problematic.

kg carbon equivalent per m² and by structure Type of roadway Reinforced

concrete Semi-rigid Bitumen

TC1 85 40 15 TC2 87 45 20 TC3 92 45 25 TC4 100 54 28 TC5 105 57 32 TC6 115 60 37 TC7 125 65 40

Table 177: Emission factors for roadway constructi on by type of structure

Values for TC8 roadways are not given in the study, but a linear interpolation from values obtained for the preceding classes (by structure) should give an acceptable order of magnitude. 9.2.2.3 Emissions related to safety barriers

Bilan Carbone TM



Safety barriers are frequently installed on heavily travelled roads and motorways with two lanes in each direction. As the emissions per meter of guard rail are nearly equal to roadway construction emissions, they must be taken into account.

Roadway class kg carbon equivalent per meter of safety

barrier TC5 88 TC6 280 TC7 280

Table 178: Emission factors for safety barriers by class of roadway

9.2.2.4 Parking areas Construction techniques used for parking areas are the same as for roadways. In a first estimation, the structure of a supermarket parking area is equivalent to the roadway traffic class TC2. An average rest area on a motorway is equivalent to class TC3245.

9.3 Machinery and vehicles 9.3.1 Vehicles On the basis of calculations carried out in §4.1.1.1 we use an emission factor of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight in accounting for manufacture of land vehicles. This estimation takes all six greenhouse gases into effect. As we have mentioned before, carbon balance by branch of activity would be most useful for establishing accurate emission factors. 9.3.2 Production machinery For machinery and production line equipment we propose to use the same emission factor, 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of machinery wei ght, until such time as more detailed information is available. This estimation takes all six greenhouse gases into effect.

245 Exchanges with Julien Bilal, Colas, May 2004.

Bilan Carbone TM



This is of course a very rough approximation; but industries that use production lines generally consume very large amounts of energy for production, and this energy use will predominate over amortization of capital assets. 9.3.3 Office and computer equipment 9.3.3.1 Manufacture of computer chips Eric Williams, a researcher at the United Nations University, has published an article on fossil energy consumption for the production of the various subassemblies that make up personal computers, in a report entitled "Computers and the Environment; understanding and managing their impacts"246. This article gives figures for the manufacture of components (microprocessors for instance) from silicon wafers. Fabrication of the wafer is not taken into account, only energy consumption for producing chips from the wafers. The reference year is 2002, and the computations are those of the author of this publication.

Manufacture of computer chips Per chip World total Pe r computer Electricity consumption (kWh) 2,9 52 000 000 000 281 Direct fossil fuel consumption (GJ) 0,0016 28 000 000 0,155

Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg)247

0,97 17 000 000 000 94

Table 179: Energy consumption for chip manufacture

Assuming that 70% of electricity comes from coal, that the only directly consumed fuel is gas, and that power plant efficiency is 50%, we arrive at a distribution of 90% coal and 10% gas for the primary fossil fuels used in computer components (the 94 kg of fossil fuels "contained" in a computer correspond to 9,4 kg of gas and the rest as coal). As the fossil fuels quantities are given by weight, and not in energy units, it should be remarked that the greater the share of gas, the higher the emissions. This is logical: CO2 emissions from gas are higher per unit of weight than from coal (one ton of coal contains less energy than one ton of gas). The above assumptions therefore tend to overestimate the share of coal in the total (for some electricity is generated from gas, and a smaller share from oil, and direct fuel consumption possibly also includes some oil).

246 Published by Kluwers Academic Publishers, 2004. 247 Including electricity production; chip manufacturers are located in Japan and in the United States, where electricity generated from fossil fuel represents about two-thirds of total power production, and in Europe, where electricity from fossil resources represents about half of total production.

Bilan Carbone TM



There is little chance that the suggested fuel mix overestimates CO2 emissions if the fuel "content" for component manufacture has been correctly calculated by this author. 9.3.3.2 Printed circuit boards The same reference also includes values for the manufacture of the printed circuit boards on which the components are mounted (source Electronic Industry Association of Japan (EIAJ) 248, reference year 1997).

Manufacture of printed circuit boards World total Pe r computer Electricity consumption (kWh) 4 670 000 000 27 Direct fossil fuel consumption (litres of oil) 975 000 000 5,6 Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) 2 380 000 000 14

Table 180: Energy consumption for manufacture of p rinted circuit boards

With the same assumptions as above, coal represents 50% of primary fossil energy. 9.3.3.3 Screens The same reference lists values for manufacture of cathode ray tubes (source EIAJ, reference year 1997) and flat screens (source EPA, reference year 2002). The information for cathode ray tubes (CRT) relies on data from Japanese industry.

Manufacture of cathode ray tubes Japan 1995 Per tube Electricity consumption (kWh) 914 200 000 21 Direct fossil fuel consumption (litres of oil) 1 330 000 3 Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) 414 000 9,5

Table 181: Energy consumption for cathode ray tube manufacture

For flat screens the information given is the following:

Manufacture of flat screens Per flat screen (kg) Electricity consumption (kWh) 87 Direct fossil fuel consumption (98% gas) 198 Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) 226

Table 182: Energy consumption for manufacture of f lat screens

248 Computers and the environment; Understanding and managing their impacts, Eric Williams, R. Kuehr, United Nations University, Electronic Industry Association of Japan, 2004.

Bilan Carbone TM



With the same assumptions as above, coal represents 58% of primary fossil energy for cathode ray tubes and 47% for flat screens. 9.3.3.4 Other components and total It remains to ascertain fossil fuel consumption for production: - materials used for computer and screen housings, - silicon wafers used by silicon founders, - chemicals and primary materials (steel, plastic, glass, etc.) used for computer manufacture. Without information on the share of electricity, the values found in the reference publication are the following:

Manufacture of materials kg of fossil fuel per computer

Materials for CPU housing 21 Materials for screen housing 22 Production of silicon wafers 17 Production of required chemical products 64

Table 183: Fossil fuels used for ancillary compute r materials (kg)

The share of coal in primary energy is assumed to be 40% for primary materials production (which requires lots of heat, and therefore direct consumption of gas). In any event variation in this percentage has only a marginal effect. Combining this information we reach the following total for an office computer with a CRT screen:

Office computer with cathode ray tube kg fuels % co al % gas kg C eq Electronic components 94 90% 10% 68,6 Printed circuit board 14 49% 51% 11,4 Cathode ray tube 9,5 58% 42% 7,5 Materials for CPU housing 21 40% 60% 17,4 Materials for screen housing 22 40% 60% 18,2 Production of chemical products 64 80% 20% 48,0 Production of silicon wafers 17 20% 80% 14,8 TOTAL 241,5 185,8

Table 184: Emission factor for computer with catho de ray tube

As a first estimation, and with an uncertainty range of 30%, an office computer with a CRT screen is assigned an emission factor of 185 kg carbon equivalent. This value does not take into account halocarbon emissions during manufacture of components (for some sites this may represent emissions close to those of direct fossil fuel

Bilan Carbone TM



consumption, in terms of carbon equivalent), nor emissions linked to commercial activity (transport, heating of retail stores, advertising, etc.). A central processing unit (CPU) alone can be assigned an emission factor of 140 kg carbon equivalent, after deduction of the tube, materials for screen housing, and half of upstream emissions. For a computer with a flat screen, the data are the following:

Office computer with flat screen kg fuels % coal % gas kg C eq carbon

equivalent Electronic components 94 90% 10% 68,6 Printed circuit board 14 49% 51% 11,4 Flat screen 226 47% 53% 184,3 Materials for CPU housing 21 40% 60% 17,4 Production of chemical products 64 80% 20% 48,0 Production of silicon wafers 17 20% 80% 14,8 TOTAL 436 350,6

Table 185: Emission factor for computer with flat screen

As a first estimation, and with an uncertainty range of 30%, an office computer with a flat screen is assigned an emission factor of 350 kg carbon equivalent. 9.3.3.5 Printers and servers From a 1998 study on end-of-life disposal of "brown" appliances249 we learn that the average composition of an end-of-life computer or printer is as follows:

Average weight per unit (kg) Material Computer Printer

Ferrous metals 10,3 2,8 Other metals 4,4 0,5 Plastic 4,3 1,3 Cathode ray tubes 6,5 - Printed circuit boards 2,5 0,4 Total weight 28 5

Table 186: Average weight of materials in a comput er and printer

As the "electronics content" of a small printer is five to six times lower than that of the computer, and as energy consumption "resides" mostly in electronic components, we tentatively assign an emission factor that is five or six times lower for printers, i.e. 30 kg carbon equivalent per printer.

249 Collecte et traitement des produits électriques et électroniques "grand public" en fin de vie, GIRUS for Région Nord Pas de Calais and ADEME, October 1998.

Bilan Carbone TM



For servers and mainframe computers, we propose, tentatively, to assign emission values proportionally to sale price, compared to the price of a CPU (see above). If a server or large printer costs the equivalent of five times the price of a personal computer CPU, it can be assigned an emission factor of 5*140 = 700 kg carbon equivalent. 9.3.3.6 Method based on purchase price Assuming that the average purchase price of computer equipped with a flat screen is 1 400 € ex VAT (a price reported in several Bilan Carbone™ assessments), the GHG content is 250 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure for computer equipment (1 400 divided by 350 kg C eq). This emission factor is tentatively retained for budgetary approaches, with an uncertainty range of 50%. 9.3.3.7 Reprographic equipment Given that reprographic devices are simply a particular kind of computer equipment, and following the results obtained above, we find an average emission factor of 800 kg carbon equivalent for photocopiers, and 400 kg carbon equivalent250 for recent-model fax machines (which are often also printers).

250 This calculation is based on comparison of average costs for the procurement department of a major bank.

Bilan Carbone TM



10 - Bibliographical References

10.1 - Sources 10.1.1 - List of individuals consulted in the cours e of preparing the emission factors In alphabetical order

M. AUBERT – INRA

Philippe BAJEAT - ADEME

Carine BARBIER - CNRS ECODEV

Stéphane BARBUSSE - ADEME

Sébastien BARNEOUD-ROUSSET - Armateurs de France

René BEAUMONT - INRA

Jean-Jacques BECKER - Ministère de l'Environnement

Sébastien BEGUIER - CITEPA

Sylvie BENARD – LVMH

Hilaire BEWA - ADEME

Julien BILAL - COLAS

Jean-Pierre BIRAT - ARCELOR

Félix BOCQUET - Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

Luc BODINEAU - ADEME

Jean-Pierre BOURDIER - EDF

Bernard BRESSE - ADEME

Martin BUSSENSCHUTT - EAWAG

Sandrine CARBALLES - ADEME

Bernard CARPENTIER - Institut du Végétal

Benoît CARROUEE - PROLEA

Marc CASAMASSIMA - ADEME

Pierre CELLIER – INRA

Bilan Carbone TM



Bernard CHABOT – ADEME

Michel CHAPPAT - Colas France

Jean-Marie CHARLES - DGEMP, Ministère de l'Industrie

Anne CHENE-PEZOT – ADEME

Jean-Luc CHEVALLIER - CSTB

Sébastien CIBICK - ASPA Alsace

Jean COIFFARD - CEREN

Alain CORFDIR - ENPC

Marc COTTIGNIES - ADEME

Myriam CRON - ADEME

Roland CURTET - Ministère de l’Equipement, des Logements et des Transports

Jean-Pierre DECURE - Ministère de l’Equipement, des Logements et des Transports

Isabelle DEPORTES – ADEME

Hubert DESPRETZ - ADEME

Benjamin DESSUS - CNRS ECODEV

Philippe DESVIGNES - Institut du Végétal

Jean-Marc DOMANGE - Ciments Calcia

Jean-Yves DOURMAD - INRA

Marlène DRESCH - ADEME

Dominique DRON - MIES

Jean-Pierre DULPHY - INRA

Yves EGAL – ORBANIS

Marie FILOTTI - ADEME

Laurine FEINBERG - ADEME

Jean-Pierre FONTELLE - CITEPA

Guillaume GABORIT - CITEPA

Elisabeth GAILLARDE - ADEME

Virginie GARCIA - ADEME

André GASTAUD - MIES

M. GERMON - INRA

Bernard GROS - ARCELOR

Olivier GUYADER - IFREMER

Julia HAAKE - O2 France

Stéphane HIS - Institut Français du Pétrole

Nicolas HOUDANT - Energies Demain

Catherine JONDREVILLE - INRA

Bilan Carbone TM



M. JUMEL - CEMAGREF

Joseph KLEINPETER - ASPA Alsace

Pierre-Yves KOEHRER - O2 France

François KORNMANN - Alternconsult

Richard LAVERGNE - Observatoire de l'Energie, Ministère chargé de l'Energie.

Nicolas LE BIGOT - Comité des Constructeurs Français d'Automobiles

Hervé LEFEBVRE - ADEME

Afsaneh LELLAHI, Institut du Végétal

Philippe LEONARDON - ADEME

Benoît LESAFFRE - Ministère de l’Agriculture

Philippe LEVAVASSEUR - ST Microelectronics

François LHOPITEAU, president, Institut Technique de l'Agriculture Biologique

Daniel MADET - EDF

Pierre MALAVAL - engineer (retired) GREF engineer

Sarah MARTIN - ADEME

Valérie MARTIN - ADEME

José MARTINEZ - CEMAGREF

Nathalie MARTINEZ - ADEME

Yves MERILLOT - ADEME

Louis MEURIC - Observatoire de l'Energie, Ministère de l'Industrie

Martine MICHAU - Ministère de l'Equipement, des Logements et des Transports

Jean-Marie MILLOUR - Armateurs de France

Luc MOLINARI - Hays Argon

Jean-Eudes MONCOMBLE - EDF

Jérôme MOUSSET - ADEME

François MUDRY - Arcelor

Jane NOPPE – ADEME

Sylvie PADILLA - ADEME

Pierre PALAT - MIES

Jean-Michel PAPLEUX - Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Marc PEIGNE - Hays Argon

Jean PELIN - Union des Industries Chimiques

André POUGET - Pouget Consultants

Jean-Pierre PRADAYROL - SNCF

Michael PRATHER - University of California, Irvine

Alain RICAUD - Cythelia

Bilan Carbone TM



Arthur RIEDACKER - MIES

Emmanuel RIVIERE - ASPA Alsace

Christine SCHUBETZER - ADEME

Olivier SIDLER - Enertech

Jean-François SOUSSANA - INRA

Jean-Patrick SUTEAU - ADEME

Jean-Pierre TABET - ADEME

Arnoudeth TRAIMANY - ADEME

Jean-Pierre TRAISNEL - Université de Paris 8

Francis TROCHERIE – IFEN

Régine TROTIGNON – ADEME

Dominique VEUILLET - ADEME

Eric VIDALENC - ADEME

Sandrine WENISCH - ADEME

Frédérique WILLARD - ADEME 10.1.2 - Literature consulted for the elaboration o f the emission factors A Quick Reference Guide, Estimating Potential Methane Production, Recovery and Use from Waste, Environment Ministry, Australia, 1997 Analyse de cycle de vie de l'amidon de maïs, de maïs grain et de maïs ensilage, Ecobilan report for AGPM, 1998 Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, IPCC, 1999 Bilan Carbone d'une entreprise: Amélioration de la prise en compte du transport de marchandises hors compte propre - Hays Argon, ADEME – June 2003 Bilans énergétiques et gaz à effet de serre des filières de production de biocarburants, ECOBILAN (for ADEME and DGEMP), 2002 Bilan énergie et effet de serre des filières céréales, ADEME, 2006 Bilan environnemental des filières végétales pour la chimie, les matériaux et l’énergie, ADEME – BG – EPFL, 2004 Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois, ADEME – Bio Intelligence Service, 2005

Bilan Carbone TM



Bilan et gestion des Gaz à effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus de l'Académie d'Agriculture, vol. 85, 1999 Cahiers de l'environnement, 250/I, Office Fédéral de l’Environnement, des Forêts et du Paysage, Switzerland, 1998 Choix logistiques des entreprises et consommation d'énergie, Christophe RIZET, INRETS and Basile KEÏTA, B2K, November 2002 Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis, IPCC, 2001 Climate Change and the Power Industry, European carbon factors, a benchmarking of CO2 emissions by the largest European power producers, PriceWaterHouseCoopers & Enerpresse, 2002 Climate Change, The science of climate change, IPCC, 1995 Collecte et traitement des produits électriques et électroniques "grand public" en fin de vie, GIRUS for Région Nord Pas de Calais and ADEME, October 1998 Comptes des Transports de la Nation Computers and the environment, R. Kuehr and E. Williams, Kluwers Academic Press, 2004 Creating a standard for a corporate CO2 indicator, UNEP, 1998

Eco-profil du stockage des déchets dangereux en sites collectifs en France, FNADE/ADEME, 2003 Emissions de polluants et consommation liées à la circulation routière, ADEME, 1998 Energie, un défi planétaire, Benjamin DESSUS, Belin 1999 Energies par produits, CEREN for ADEME, 1999 Environmental Reporting: Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, United Kingdom, 1999 Enquête Transports, INSEE, 1993 Etude sur le niveau de consommation de carburant des unités fluviales françaises, ADEME, VNF, T&L Associés, July 2005

Bilan Carbone TM



Etude sur les pollutions de l'air par les moteurs des bateaux de la navigation intérieure, Beguier, Durif, Fontelle, Oudart, CITEPA, September 2000 Evaluation des efficacités énergétiques et environnementales du secteur des transports, ADEME – Explicit, December 2002 Evaluation des émissions de CO2 des filières énergétiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants à partir de ressources fossiles, Georgia PLOUCHARD, IFP rapport 55 949, April 2001 Flotte de Commerce sous pavillon français, Ministère de l’Equipement, des transports et du logement, SES, July 2002 Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure, US Environment Protection Agency, 1992 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, US Environment Protection Agency, 1998 I. Boustead, Eco-profiles in the European industry, Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe, April 1997; IBID May 1998; IBID1999 Indicateurs de développement durable, Jancovici, IFEN, 2004 INSEE Première N° 767 - April 2001 Inventaire 1999 et prévisions à 15 ans de l'ensemble des fluides frigorigènes, Palandre, Nacif, Mercier, Clodic, 1999 Inventaire des émissions de HFC utilisés comme fluides frigorigènes, ADEME – ARMINES, August 1999 Inventaire environnemental des intrants agricoles en production végétale, Gaillard Gérard, Crettaz Pierre, Heusheer Judith, comptes rendus de la FAT, 1997 Inventaire et prévisions des fluides frigorigènes et de leurs émissions – Année 2000, ADEME -ARMINES, 2002 Inventaire et prévisions des fluides frigorigènes et de leurs émissions - Année 2001, ADEME -ARMINES, 2003 Inventaire national des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, CITEPA, format SECTEN, 2005 IPCC Manual for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 1996

Bilan Carbone TM



L'effet de serre, La Jaune et La Rouge, May 2000 L’utilisation des véhicules de transport routier de marchandises en 2001, Ministère de l’Equipement, des transports et du logement, SES, July 2002 La route écologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie, Colas, 2003 La valorisation des emballages en France, ADEME, 1999 Les déterminants de la demande énergétique et du développement, CNRS ECODEV, 1998 Les transports par autocars en 2002, Ministère des Transports DAEI-SES, November 2003 Maîtrise de la Demande d’Electricité: Campagne de mesures par usages dans le secteur domestique, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, June 1996 Maîtrise de la Demande d’Electricité: Etude expérimentale des appareils de cuisson, de froid ménager et de lavage/séchage du linge dans 100 logements, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, June 1999 Maîtrise de la Demande d’Electricité: Campagne de mesures sur le fonctionnement en veille des appareils domestiques, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, January 2000 Mémento des décideurs, MIES, 1998 Note de cadrage sur le contenu CO2 du kWh par usage en France, ADEME, January 2005 Rapport environnement d'Air France, 1999 Référentiel pour le calcul des bilans énergétiques, ITCF/ADEME, 2003 Suivi du parc et des consommations de l'année 2002, CEREN, 2003 Tableaux des consommations d’énergie en France, Direction Générale de l’Energie et des matières premières, Observatoire de l’Energie, édition 2001. The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas emissions for business and non-commercial organizations, United Nations, 2000 Transports, Energie, Environnement, Quels enjeux ? ADEME, 2000 Update 30E, CSIRO Sustainability Network, August 2003

Bilan Carbone TM



10.1.3 - Main websites consulted in elaborating the Bilan Carbone™ methodology ADEME: www.ademe.fr/auto-diag/transports/car_lab/carlabelling/ListeMarque.asp

Airbus: www.airbus.com

European Energy Agency: www.eea.eu.int

AMADEUS: www.amadeus.net

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe, life-cycle analyses: www.plasticseurope.org

Aviation Civile française: www.aviation-civile.gouv.fr

BOEING: www.boeing.com

CITEPA: www.citepa.org

Distance between two airports: www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/rel-calc.html

Distance between two cities/countries: www.dataloy.com

Distance between two cities/countries: www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm

EDF: www.edf.fr

Vehicle emissions: www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk

Enerdata: www.enerdata.grenet.fr

Environment Ministry (UK): www.environment.detr.gov.uk/envrp/gas/index.htm

EPA (USA): www.epa.gov

Greenhouse Gas Initiative: www.ghgprotocol.org

Information on swine: rechamakayajo.qc.ca/crois/croisem.htm

Information on boiled cheeses: rechamakayajo.qc.ca/crois/croisem.htm

Information on sheep: lebulletin.com/archives/0005/0005i.cfm

INFOTRAFIC: www.infotrafic.com/itineraires/itiselvilles.php

INSEE : www.insee.fr

IPCC (GIEC) International Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch

INRA: www.inra.fr

Observatoire de l’Energie, DGEMP: www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm

Reference site on red meat: www.mhr-viandes.com

10.2 General bibliography 10.2.1 - IPCC publications

Bilan Carbone TM



The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published, among other works, methodological documents for assessing greenhouse gas emissions, in particular the IPCC Manual for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1996). The IPCC publications are designed for compiling national GHG inventories, but they contain information that is useful for corporate applications. The documents can be downloaded at the following address: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm These publications are not easy to use, and we suggest you refer to them only when you are comfortable with this inventory method. Many IPCC figures are used in this carbon balance tool. The IPCC is above all known for its publications that represent current scientific consensus on climate change, its causes and consequences. The full IPCC reports can be consulted at the IPCC website (www.ipcc.ch), and printed copies can be purchased from the Cambridge University Press251. These reports (in English) are highly technical, and will interest academics, researchers and consulting engineers, rather than the general public. Summaries of the IPCC reports are available in many languages and can be downloaded from the IPCC website (complete reports are available only in English). 10.2.2 - CITEPA publications The Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d'Etude de la Pollution Atmosphérique (CITEPA) is the French organization responsible for conducting greenhouse gas emission inventories. Various summary documents can be downloaded from the organization's website (www.citepa.org); the full reports must generally be purchased. 10.2.3 - ADEME publications

ADEME publishes many documents on the themes discussed in this document (transport, industry, agriculture, public works and construction, etc.)252 Most of these studies can be consulted at the ADEME documentation centres (Paris, Angers and Valbonne253).

The ADEME documents cited in this bibliography are available to readers through these three documentation centres.

251 http://uk.cambridge.org 252 See the ADEME website for information on all ADEME publications, http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getDoc?cid=96&m=3&id=22125&ref=12441 253 See the ADEME website for addresses of its documentation centres: http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/KBaseShow?sort=-1&cid=96&m=3&catid=13918

Bilan Carbone TM



10.2.4 - Publications issued by other French organi zations A useful document for those who want to take a closer look at agriculture: Bilan et gestion des Gaz à effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus de l'Académie d'Agriculture, vol. 85, 1999. A useful document for local authorities: Mémento des décideurs, Mission Interministérielle de l'Effet de Serre (MIES), 1998

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 1 – Power production in Europe

The diagram given below gives an idea of the distribution of primary energy resources used to generate electricity in Europe (Observatoire de l'Energie, French Industry Ministry; the reference year is 2001). For example France produces most of its electricity from nuclear energy, while Iceland obtains most of its electricity from hydropower. Most electricity in Poland comes from coal, as, to a lesser extent, in Greece, the Czech Republic, Germany and Denmark, while about half of the electricity generated in Sweden and Switzerland comes from nuclear energy and half from hydropower.

Figure 6: Electricity production in Europe in 2001 , by type of primary energy source (Observatoire de l’Energie)

This arises from the fact that the “GHG content” per kWh varies greatly from one country to the next, and in particular from one producer to the next.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Allemagne

Autriche

Belgique

Danemark

Espagne

Finlande

France

Grèce

Hongrie

Irlande

Islande

Italie

Luxembourg

Norvège

Pays-Bas

Pologne

Portugal

Royaume-Uni

République slovaque

Suède

Suisse

République tchèque

Turquie

OCDE Europe

Charbon

Pétrole

Gaz

Nucléaire

Hydraulique

Solaire, éolien,...

Autres

Bilan Carbone TM



For your information we give below emission factors for some European power producers for 2004 (in kg carbon equivalent per kWh).

Figure 7: Emission factors for some European elect ricity producers (2004)

(Source: PWC_ENERPRESS 2004)

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 2 – Carbon content of electricity

generated by EDF The figures given are derived from life-cycle analyses (ISO 14040); they include emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, CH4 and N2O) that occur during operation of power plants (coal combustion, for instance) as well as those incurred during other stages of the power cycle (construction, manufacture and transport of fuels, dismantling, etc.). The full procedure used to elaborate this indicator has been validated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers/Ecobilan. Emissions by type of power production are given in the following table.

Type of production Plant operation Rest of cycle TOTAL g CO2 eq/kWh

Nuclear power 0 5 5 Coal-fired 600 MW 887 114 1001 Coal-fired 250 MW 945 117 1062 Fuel oil 839 149 988 Combustion turbines 844 68 912 Gas (blast furnaces) 1682 0 1682 Hydropower (storage reservoirs)

127 5 132

Hydropower (run-of-river) 0 5 5 Hydropower (dams) 0 5 5 Diesel generators 646 175 821 Wind turbines 0 3 to 24 3 to 2 Photovoltaic installations 0 60 to 250 60 to 250

Table 187: Emission factors for electricity produc tion by type of production

Comments:

* Evaluation of plants using blast furnace stack gases is complex. The results are obtained by comparing two situations: with and without.

* Hydropower from storage reservoirs involves using grid power (off-peak) to fill reservoirs. This water runs turbines to produce peak power.

* For wind and photovoltaic generators, much of the uncertainty lies with the different resources used to produce the electricity employed in manufacturing the generators.

For the principal means of production used by EDF the figures for grams CO2 equivalent per kWh are as follows:

Bilan Carbone TM



- nuclear power: 5

- unpumped hydropower: 5

- pumped hydropower: 132

- 250 MW coal: 100 3

- 600 MW coal: 108 3

- gas turbines (intermittent operation): 912 Compiling the different means of production used, figures for 2005 are given below.

Month g C eq /kWh g C eq /kWh January 2005 49 13,4 February 2005 73 19,9 March 2005 69 18,8 April 2005 52,8 14,4 May 2005 33,2 9,1 June 2005 41,3 11,3 July 2005 51,7 14,1 August 2005 28,3 7,7 September 2005 44,9 12,2 October 2005 50 13,6 November 2005 55,8 15,2 December 2005 71 19,4

Table 188: Monthly emission factors for EDF electr icity in 2005

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 3 – Carbon dioxide emission factors for fuels

ADEME Note, 8 April 2005

This note presents the different factors to be used to convert fuel consumption to CO2 emissions. It does not cover the evaluation of industrial process emissions (lime decarbonation, among others) nor the CO2 content per kWh of electricity, which is discussed in a separate ADEME/EDF note (see the greenhouse website: www.ademe.fr section Changement climatique). CO2 emission factors are determined by the physical composition of the fuel consumed and its heat content. There are several sources of information on CO2 emission factors for different fuels: • Public emission factors recommended by the IPCC (www.ipcc-

nggip.iges.or.jp/public/public.htm), • Emission factors used by CITEPA254 for official annual inventories approved by

government authorities and transmitted to the United Nations; these factors are based on the IPCC factors, with corrections to account for specific national features.

• Emission factors used in the framework of international agreements (GHG Protocol, among others), the EU guide on emissions reporting under the emissions trading directive, on-going work on ISO standards, etc.

• Industrial companies in certain sectors may have their own emission factors, in particular for specific types of fuel.

The general rule underpinning emissions assessment is the following: • Prefer specific emission factors for individual facilities (in industry), as long as they can

be justified. • Use specific national emission factors: for France, these are the CITEPA emission factors

used to draw up official inventories. • In cases where these emission factors are not appropriate, use emission factors

established by international bodies (IPCC for instance). We propose to use the CITEPA national emission factors, to ensure consistency in the CO2 assessments conducted by ADEME and in order to produce figures that can be compared with official CO2 inventories drawn up by CITEPA.

254 CITEPA: Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d’Etude de la Pollution Atmosphérique

Bilan Carbone TM



The coefficients listed below are derived from the annual declarations of polluting emissions submitted by 200 classified installations that are subject to permit requirements. The emission coefficients are expressed in kilogram of CO2 per gigajoule of fuel, including oxidation factors. CITEPA also gives the nett heating value (NHV) for each fuel type in gigajoules per ton. CO2 content per toe (and kWh) of fuel was determined from this information. The coefficients are given for the main fuel types; a detailed list of coefficients is given at the end of this note.

kgCO2/GJ NETT HEATING

VALUE (GJ/ton)

kgCO2/toe (NHV) gCO2/kWh

Gasoline 73 44 3 066 264 Diesel fuel/domestic

heating oil 75 42 3 150 271

Heavy heating oil 78 40 3 276 282 Natural gas 57 49,6 2 394 206

Kerosene (aviation fuel)

74 44 3 108 267

Coal 95 26 3 990 343 LPG 64 46 2 688 231

Household waste 41,3 8,8 1734,6 149 Source: French Environment Ministry (MEDD), annual declaration of polluting emissions

for classified installations subject to permit requirements, 2005

Table 189: Emission coefficients for the main fuel types

Specific instructions on CO2 emissions for wood and household waste in GHG emission inventories under the United Nations Frame work Convention on Climate Change (Format UNFCCC/CRF) CO2 emissions released during combustion of biomass are part of the natural carbon cycle: carbon in the atmosphere is fixed by plant biomass via photosynthesis, and then released to the atmosphere by decomposition or by combustion. In the UNFCCC inventory, first the stock of carbon constituted by biomass growth during a given year is assessed, and then the amount of carbon contained in CO2 emissions from biomass combustion is deducted from the carbon stock. In France and in Europe, where forests are sustainably managed, forest biomass is increasing and therefore serves as a carbon sink: the amount of CO2 fixed by photosynthesis (natural forest growth + new plantings) is greater than emissions due to decomposition and combustion. Organisations that conduct carbon inventories use the emission factors for biomass given at the end of this note. Nonetheless, the final balance being neutral for the greenhouse effect, a nil emission factor must be used for biomass combustion CO2 emissions in our assessments. For example:

Bilan Carbone TM



1. The CO2 content to be reported for fuel wood combustion must be nil. In the table below the emission coefficient for wood is not nil, and this is the coefficient used to draw up the inventory.

2. As incineration of the organic fraction of household waste is assimilated to biomass combustion, the emission factor for incineration of household waste given in the table below applies only to the inorganic waste fraction, which represents 43% of the carbon content of household waste. At the end of this note, the carbon content of 96 (kgCO2/GJ) refers to the overall carbon content for household waste (organic and inorganic fractions).

LIST OF COEFFICIENTS

Source: French Environment Ministry (MEDD), annual declaration of polluting emissions for classified installations subject to permit requirements, 2005

* including oxidation factor

CODE TYPE OF FUEL

nett heating value (GJ/t)

EMISSION FACTOR*

(kgCO2/GJ)

DERIVED FROM

BIOMASS 101 Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95 NO 102 Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 26 95 NO

103 Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) 26 96 NO

104 Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) 32 95 NO 105 Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) 17 100 NO 106 Lignite briquettes 17 98 NO 107 Hard-coal coke 28 107 NO 108 Lignite coke 17 108 NO 110 Petroleum coke 32 96 NO 111 Wood and assimilated waste 18,2 (air-dry) 92 YES 112 Charcoal 32,5 100 YES 113 Peat 11,6 110 NO 114 Household waste 8,8 (highly variable) 96 YES 115 Solid industrial waste 12,5 (highly variable) YES 116 Wood waste (excluding waste assimilated to wood) 18,2 (highly variable) 92 NO

117A Agricultural waste / bone meal 18,2 91 YES 1170 Agricultural waste (other than bone meal) 14 (straw) 99 YES 118 Wastewater sludge highly variable 15 YES 119 Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) specific NO 120 Shale 9,4 106 NO

121A Other solid fuels / tyres 26 85 NO 121B Other solid fuels / Plastics 23 75 NO 1210 Other solid fuels (other than tyres and plastics) NO 201 Crude oil 42 73 NO 203 Heavy fuel oil 40 78 NO 204 Domestic fuel oil 42 75 NO 205 Diesel fuel 42 75 NO 206 Kerosene (aviation fuel) 44 74 NO 207 Aviation fuel 44 71 NO 208 Gasoline for land vehicles 44 73 NO 209 Aviation gasoline 44 73 NO 210 Naphtha 45 73 NO 211 Shale oil 36 73 NO 212 Spent motor oil (gasoline engine) 73 NO 213 Spent motor oil (diesel engine) 73 NO

214A Spent solvent / G3000 type 25,6 70 NO 2140 Spent solvent (other than G3000 type) highly variable NO 215 Black liquor 105 YES 216 Fuel oil/coal blend NO 217 Refinery feedstock highly variable NO 218 Other liquid wastes NO 219 Lubricants 40,2 (highly variable) 73 NO 220 White spirit 41,9 73 NO 221 Paraffins NO 222 Bitumen 40 40 NO 224 Other petroleum products (grease compounds, aromatics, etc.) 40,2 73 NO

Bilan Carbone TM



225 Other liquid fuels NO

301 Natural gas 49,6 (depends on

type) 57 NO 302 Liquefied natural gas 49,6 57 NO 303 Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) 46 (variable) 64 NO 304 Coke-oven gas 31,5 (highly variable) 47 NO

CODE TYPE OF FUEL

nett heating value (GJ/t)

EMISSION FACTOR*

(kgCO2/GJ)

DERIVED FROM

BIOMASS 305 Blast-furnace gas 2,3 268 NO 306 Coke-oven gas/blast-furnace gas blend NO 307 Gaseous industrial wastes (chemical industry in particular) highly variable NO 308 Refinery / petrochemicals gas (non-condensable) 56 NO 309 Biogas 14 75 YES 310 Landfill gas highly variable YES 311 Gasworks gas 52 NO 312 Steelworks gas 6,9 183 NO 313 Hydrogen 120 0 NO 314 Other gaseous fuel specific NO

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 4 – Background note on the CO2 content per kWh by use in France

ADEME Note, 14 January 2005

1. Background Assessment of the carbon content of electricity is a significant issue in France for evaluating steps to mitigate climate change. While in many countries this question is not problematic, in our country it is complex, given the specific characteristics of the French electricity supply sector.

The carbon content of electricity in France varies considerably, depending on the type of assessment: an annual average for all power plants in France, emissions from hydraulic and nuclear plants only (zero emissions), or from coal-fired plants (on the order of 900 gCO2/kWh). This leads to significant hourly and seasonal fluctuation in the carbon content per kWh in France, whereas in other European countries there is less variation, insofar as electricity generated in fossil-fuel-fired plants constitutes a significant share of base power production.

Furthermore, since the carbon-emitting plants (flame combustion thermal plants) are operated as peak-load units to "close the loop" of supply and demand in France, the national emissions average varies considerably, depending on temperature and power-plant operating conditions. The carbon content of electricity in France has been falling since 1990, and now ranges between 60 to 120 gCO2/kWh, much lower than the European average (around 340 gCO2/kWh).

Consequently the average CO2 content per kWh of electricity produced in France is not a sufficient indicator, and a number of actors have opted for CO2 content differentiated by use.

On the grid, however electrons are totally undifferentiated. Trying to identify the power plant that supplies a given user is meaningless from a physical point of view. Calculating a CO2 content by electricity use requires methodological simplifications and conventions that must be clearly set forth, to understand their limits and avoid controversy.

These issues, and in particular the CO2 content of electric heating, are addressed in agreements between ADEME and EDF. The two partners have agreed to jointly elaborate a methodology for evaluating CO2 content per kWh by use, and to publish together their findings.

2. Methodology

Bilan Carbone TM



ADEME and EDF began this joint undertaking in the summer of 2003, leading to agreements, a methodology and shared results.

The major principles guiding this work are the following:

o Choice of a method that complies with the criteria of additivity, meaning that for a given year the sum of CO2 emissions for different uses is equal to (neither more nor less) total emissions for the entire pool of generating plants.

o Choice of a method based on shared historical data. The period chosen (1998-2003) is intentionally a long one, to smooth out variations caused by exceptional circumstances, whether in terms of plant operations or climate conditions.

o The scope of the study is mainland France, excluding power consumed directly by the producer: the aim here is not to analyse the kWh of a specific actor as part of a commercial approach, but to define the content of one kWh consumed in France, in order to support implementation of public policy.

o Use of monthly data: the "variation" of the CO2 content is in large part explained by seasonal factors (as opposed to hourly variations within one week), and in addition studies using shorter time increments are less reliable and hard to reproduce.

More specifically, the method consisted of distinguishing between base load (around 400 TWh annually) and seasonal production (around 100 TWh) for each type of production– nuclear, lake, renewable energy, coal, fuel oil and cogeneration–in order to calculate the CO2 content for each of the two components. The corresponding values are respectively 40 and 180 grams per kWh delivered to the final consumer255.

Regarding consumption, the study identified a coefficient of seasonalization for each type of use. For instance, electric heating is considered to be 100% seasonal, but industrial use only 10%. To assign a CO2 content to each use, the two production values (base and seasonal) are weighted by the seasonalization coefficient for each use: for heating the value is equal to that for the seasonal component, while for industrial use the value is equal to 10% of the seasonal value and 90% of the base load value.

By combining these two approaches applied to measured values, this method takes into account the intrinsic features of each type of usage, and the adjustment of electricity generation to these uses.

3. Findings

This work identified four emission levels by use.

These four indicators provide a consensual view for the most common uses. They are based on more detailed indicators (see appendix) that can be used for more specific purposes.

o Electricity used for residential and tertiary-sector heating (electric heat and circulation pumps for heating-oil and gas boilers), exclusively in winter, is assigned the CO2 content for seasonal production, i.e. 180 g/kWh .

o Lighting, in all sectors, has a CO2 content of about 100 g/kWh .

255 CO2 emissions are expressed for the amount of electricity supplied by the grid, after deduction of consumption within the supply grid. The CO2 content of the import/export balance (58 to 77 TWh) is conventionally assigned a value corresponding to baseload production of the French power plant pool.

Bilan Carbone TM



o Consumption for residential uses–cooking, washing, brown appliances–industrial and tertiary-sector uses other than lighting follows the overall load curve, and therefore is assigned a CO2 content that is more or less equal to the national average, i.e. 60 g/kWh .

o Lastly, other basic uses–refrigeration, sanitary hot water, other residential uses, agriculture, transport, construction and public works, military–for which fluctuation does not follow a seasonal pattern, and air conditioning in the tertiary sector (for which the seasonal peak is inverted in relation to the electricity generation cycle) is assigned a CO2 content of 40 g/kWh .

These indicators are weighted averages for the period analysed in the study. In some instances they cover a wide range of values, as for residential lighting, where the indicator varies from 93 to 151 gCO2/kWh for the 1998-2003 period.

This reflects the variable CO2 content for the electricity generated, which is due to three main factors: climate variability, generating plant availability (in particular hydropower and nuclear plants) and management of recourse to different production modes. Even after in-depth analysis, no simple correlation could be found between these factors, and there is not enough data to support more complex correlations.

4. Use of results and the scope of their validity

Having pooled and validated these findings, the jointly defined framework for their application is as follows:

o These results are intended for use by ADEME and EDF to measure greenhouse effect impacts when evaluating projects at the local level.

They will be used by ADEME to study and monitor projects aimed at promoting or implementing energy efficiency, development of renewable energy and local energy policy, in liaison with local authorities and/or local energy operators.

o These findings have been submitted to the appropriate national authorities, contributing to the elaboration of a national benchmark for public policy.

o These figures do not affect the CO2 quotas allotted to companies under the National Quota Allocation Plan. Only direct emissions are considered under this plan.

These indicators, based on historical information, are the best estimate to date.

For a rigorously accurate estimation of the impact of projects or schemes extending over periods longer then 10 or 15 years, the method used would have to take into account future changes in power generation infrastructure and in consumer behaviour. Until such forward-looking evaluations are available, these indicators will be used in the medium term, and periodically updated (every four years).

Methodological work for a prospective evaluation of CO2 content for uses of electricity will be undertaken under the ADEME/EDF convention for 2004-2007.

An evaluation study will also be conducted to establish indicators for CO2 emissions avoided by the development of electricity from renewable resources (wind power, hydropower, photovoltaic power, wood, etc.).

Bilan Carbone TM



CO2 INDICATORS FOR ELECTRICITY USE

indicateurs d�taill�sR�f�rence

(valeur moyenne)

chauffage+ pompes de circ. 180 129 ˆ 261 180 Chauffage �clairage r�sidentiel 116 93 ˆ 151

�clairage tertiaire 80 64 ˆ 88

�clairage publique et industriel 109 85 ˆ 134

usages r�sidentiels : cuisson 82 66 ˆ 93

usages r�sidentiels : lavage 79 63 ˆ 88

usages r�sidentiels : produits bruns 62 50 ˆ 81

usages tertiaires : autres 52 41 ˆ 77

usages industriels (hors �clairage) 55 38 ˆ 86

usages r�sidentiels : ECS 40 usages r�sidentiels : froid 40 usages r�sidentiels : autres 39 usages tertiaires : climatisation 37 agriculture-transport 38 autres (BTP, recherche, arm�e, etc.) 35

source : ADEME et EDF, 2004

Indicateurs de contenu en CO2 de l' �lectricit � consomm �e en France(en g de CO 2/kWh e)

indicateurs simplifi�s

40

60

100 Eclairage

Usages intermittents

Usages"en base"

ˆ titre indicatif :plages de variation

20 ˆ 72

usages"en base"

usages intermittents

�clairage

chauffage

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 5 – Distribution of agricultural lands in France

For the reference year 1996 the distribution of agricultural lands in France is as follows (various sources).

AGRICULTURAL SURFACES USED 29,9 Arable Land 18,1 Incl cerals (except forrage maize) 8,3 oilseeds 1,9 protein 0,6 beetroot, potatoes, diverse 0,8 vegetable 0,3 annual forrage (except maize forrage 1,5) 1,7 artificial and temporary grasslands 2,8 fallow 1,7 Land surfaces still budding 10,5 of which permanent productive grass surfaces 8,4 pastures and summer 0,7 marginally productive grass surfaces 1,4 Other permanent crops 1,3 of which orchards 0,3 grapes 0,9 diverse cultures 0,1

Table 190: Distribution of cultivated lands (Franc e)

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 6 – Carbon content of poultry

1 - Industrial turkey The amount of feed is around 2,2 kg per kg of live weight for ducks and guinea fowl. Emissions for waste per kg of weight is assumed to be the same as for industrial chicken. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.

TURKEY kg carbon equivalent per

kg of live weight

Feed 0,22 Excrement 0,05 Additional emissions for heating, etc. 0,02 TOTAL 0,30 Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 0,45

Table 191: Emission factor for industrial turkey

This calculation gives a figure of 450 kg of carbon per ton of turkey meat with bone.

2 - Industrial duck and guinea fowl The amount of feed is around 2,8 kg per kg of live weight for ducks and guinea fowl. Methanogenesis by waste is some 2,5 times greater256. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.

DUCK AND GUINEA FOWL kg carbon equivalent per

kg of live weight

Feed 0,28 Excrement 0,07 Additional emissions for heating, etc. 0,02 TOTAL 0,38

Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 0,58

Table 192: Emission factor for industrial duck and guinea fowl

256 Académie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz à effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Compte rendu, vol. 85.

Bilan Carbone TM



We reintegrate a flat 10% to account for energy used in poultry raising, giving a value of 580 kg of carbon per ton of duck meat with bone.

3 - Free-range poultry The amount of feed is around 3,1 kg and 3,7 kg per kg of live weight for free-range chicken and guinea fowl respectively. As these birds live twice as long as industrial poultry, the emissions contribution of waste is doubled. We assume buildings are not heated. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.

FREE-RANGE CHICKEN kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight

Feed 0,31 Excrement 0,11 TOTAL 0,42 Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 0,64

Table 193: Emission factor for free-range chicken

This gives a figure of 640 kg carbon equivalent per ton of free-range chicken meat with bone.

FREE-RANGE GUINEA FOWL kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight

Feed 0,38 Excrement 0,11 TOTAL 0,48 Kg C eq per kg meat with bone 0,73

Table 194: Emission factor for free-range guinea f owl

This gives a figure of 730 kg carbon equivalent per ton of free-range guinea fowl meat with bone.

Bilan Carbone TM



Appendix 7 – Breakdown of road vehicles for goods

transport by Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)

The composition of the fleet of goods transport vehicles in France is based on figures from the French Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing257. This fleet is limited to vehicles less than ten years old as of 1st January 2002. Using these figures we have made two calculations:

- first, we calculated an average gross vehicle weight (GVW) for each weight class for which we have fuel consumption statistics (GVW equals the maximum weight a vehicle can have when carrying goods) (see §4.1.1.2.1).).

- secondly we looked at the deviation of GVW figures from the mean for each category.

This analysis determined the average deviation for the main vehicle clusters, where most vehicles in the weight class are found. In analysing vehicle clusters we admit that few vehicles will be found outside of the clusters, and therefore that the maximum deviation from the mean GVW for these clusters is representative of the margin of error implicit when vehicles are systematically assimilated to the "reference" vehicle in the weight class, with the average GVW. For example, in the category of vehicles weighing from 2,51 to 3,5 t GVW (see §3 above) 42% of vehicles weigh exactly 3,5 t GVW (corresponding to the upper limit for vehicles that can be driven with a Class B "tourism" driving licence). The average GVW for this category is 3 176 kg, a deviation of 9% from the GVW of 3,5 t. This means that taking the average value for fuel consumption (obtained elsewhere) and knowing that this consumption is roughly proportional to mass at low speeds (representative of most itineraries for light utility vehicles), we will have a margin of error of 10% for estimation of fuel consumption of light utility vehicles weighing exactly 3,5 t, when these vehicles are assimilated to an "average" vehicle in this class. In other words, the maximum deviation from the mean for vehicle clusters in each GVW class indicates the margin of error when vehicles are arbitrarily assimilated to an "average" vehicle in this class.

257 Personal communication with Mr. Roland Curtet in Novembre 2002.

Bilan Carbone TM



1 - Lightweight utility vehicles GVW < 1,5 t

Figure 8: Distribution of light utility vehicles u nder 1,5 t GVW

Average value retained: 1360 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters

- 20% for 1 100 kg,

- <10% for others.

2 - Utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW

Figure 9: Distribution of light utility vehicles b etween 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW

Average value retained: 1.796 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for the main clusters is 15%, excepting the cluster at 2,5 t (but this is secondary): 40%.

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

11

00

11

60

11

95

12

15

12

35

12

60

12

90

13

00

13

15

13

25

13

40

13

70

13

85

14

00

14

15

14

35

14

50

14

60

14

70

14

80

14

95

No

mb

re d

e vé

hic

ule

s

Poids Total Autorisé en Charge

répartition par PTAC < 1,5 t

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

15

02

15

40

15

70

16

05

16

35

16

65

16

88

17

03

17

30

17

45

17

71

17

91

18

15

18

55

18

95

19

35

19

70

20

15

20

90

21

70

22

20

23

20

23

85

24

50

Nom

bre

de

vé

hicu

les

PTAC

Répartition par PTAC 1,51 à 2,5 t

Bilan Carbone TM



3 - Utility vehicles between 2,51 t and 3,5 t GVW

Figure 10: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 2,5 t and 3,5 t GVW

Average value retained: 3.176 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters

- 9% for 3,5 t

- 18% for 2 600 kg, <15% for the other clusters.

4 - Utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

2505

2525

2555

2590

2625

2650

2685

2715

2740

2770

2800

2825

2860

2900

2931

2975

3030

3070

3095

3130

3160

3180

3215

3260

3400

No

mb

re d

e vé

hic

ule

s

PTAC


0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4050

4100

4200

4300

4400

4500

4600

4700

4800

4900

5000

No

mb

re d

e v

éhic

ule

s

PTAC

Répartition par PTAC 3,51 à 5 t

Bilan Carbone TM



Figure 11: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW

Average value retained: 4.742 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for clusters is lower than 5%.

5 - Trucks between 5,1 and 6 t GVW

Figure 12: Distribution of trucks between 5,1 t an d 6 t GVW

Average value retained: 5.672 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for clusters is lower than 10% (6% for the main cluster at 6 t).

6 - Trucks between 6,1 and 10,9 t GVW

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

50

10

51

00

52

00

53

00

54

00

55

00

56

00

58

00

59

00

59

90

60

00

Nom

bre

de

vé

hicu

les

PTAC

Répartition par PTAC 5 à 6 t

Bilan Carbone TM



Figure 13: Distribution of trucks between 6.1 t an d 10.9 t GVW


- 15% for 7 500 kg GVW,

- 2% for 8 600 kg GVW,

- 8% for 9 500 kg GVW,

- 14% for 10 000 kg GVW,

7 - Trucks between 11 and 19 t GVW

Figure 14: Distribution of trucks between 11 t and 19 t GVW


- 16% for 19 t GVW (about 50% of trucks in this weight class)

- 26% for 12 t GVW (12% of trucks in this category)

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

60

00

63

00

66

00

68

00

69

00

71

00

74

90

76

00

77

50

79

00

80

00

82

00

84

00

86

00

88

00

90

00

92

00

94

00

96

00

98

00

10

00

0

10

20

0

10

40

0

10

60

0

10

80

0

10

99

0

No

mbr

e d

e v

éh

icul

es

PTAC


0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

110

…

113

…

117

…

119

…

122

…

125

…

129

…

131

…

134

…

138

…

141

…

144

…

149

…

151

…

154

…

157

…

159

…

162

…

165

…

168

…

172

…

175

…

177

…

179

…

181

…

184

…

187

…

190

…

nom

bre

de

vé

hicu

les

PTAC (kg)


Bilan Carbone TM



- 20% for 13 t GVW (10% of vehicles in this category)

- under 10% for all clusters in the 15–18 t GVW (17% of trucks in this weight class).

8 - Trucks between 19,1 and 21 t GVW

Figure 15: Distribution of trucks between 19.1 t a nd 21 t GVW

Average value retained: 19.368 kg. Deviation from the mean of less than 10% for all vehicles in this weight class.

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

19

10

0

19

20

0

19

30

0

19

40

0

19

50

0

19

60

0

19

70

0

19

80

0

19

90

0

20

90

0

21

00

0

Nom

bre

de

vé

hicu

les

PTAC


Bilan Carbone TM



9 - Trucks between 21,1 and 32,6 t GVW

Breakdown by GVW 21,1 to 32,6 t

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

2200

0

2270

0

2290

0

2350

0

2400

0

2420

0

2440

0

2470

0

2490

0

2520

0

2535

0

2550

0

2560

0

2580

0

2595

0

2610

0

2630

0

2650

0

2690

0

2800

0

2860

0

3000

0

3110

0

3160

0

GVW (kg)

Figure 16: Distribution of trucks between 21.1 t a nd 32,6 t GVW


- 3% for 26 t GVW (over 75% of trucks in this category; upper limit for motor vehicles with three axles)

- 19% for 32 t GVW (15% of trucks in this category; upper limit for motor vehicles with four or more axles)

10 - Articulated trucks (tractor-trailers) This term refers to trucks commonly called tractor-trailers, consisting of a tractor (the forward cabin where the driver sits) and the trailer, where the cargo is loaded. The Maximum Authorized Road Weight (MARW) for these vehicles is 40 tons, and 44 tons for combined (rail-road) transport vehicles, but most of them weight 33 tons when fully loaded, of which 25 tons of load.

Bilan Carbone™

2001-2006 © ADEME - Calculation of Emission Factors Version 4.0 / 249

Appendix 8 – Fuel consumption of passenger vehicles : breakdown by fiscal horsepower

The tables below give estimated real fuel consumption by fiscal horsepower rating for passenger vehicles (see details in §4.1.1.2.3), the resulting emissions, and lastly the total GHG emissions per km when emissions for vehicle manufacture are added in (correlated to total distance the vehicle will travel over its lifetime).

1 - Gasoline vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rat ing

Litres fuel consumed per 100 km, calculated for actual driving conditions and type of itinerary


Overall emissions (g C eq/km) by type of itinerary


Empty weight (kg)

Total vehicle fleet as of 1 Jan 2002

Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km 258

Manufacturing emissions g

C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban Non-

urban Mixed Urban

3 720 36 672 5,0 5,8 7,1 100 000 10,8 37,2 42,7 52,5 48,0 53,5 63,3

4 881 4 563 806 5,8 6,8 8,7 120 000 11,0 42,8 50,5 64,4 53,8 61,5 75,4

5 1 011 3 342 309 6,3 7,7 10,1 140 000 10,8 46,7 57,0 75,0 57,5 67,8 85,8

Average for category 935 7 942 787 6,0 7,2 9,3 128 324 10,9 44,4 53,2 68,8 55,3 64,1 79,7

Table 195: Emission factors for 3–5 fiscal horsepo wer gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary

Total uncertainty for emissions per km travelled comes to around 10%, assuming that the calculation of manufacturing emissions has a margin of error of 40%, and that average consumption per km, by fiscal horsepower rating and type of itinerary, has a margin of error on the order of 5% for large number sets (this corresponds to an error of less than 0,5 litre of fuel per 100 km on average, which is high in light of variation in actual fuel consumption data from the Observatoire de l'Energie).

258 Author's estimate.

Bilan Carbone™


It is quite striking that when emissions are calculated in this way, adding together vehicle manufacture, fuel extraction, refining and transport, and correcting fuel consumption to better correspond to actual consumption (but not including upkeep), overall emissions are 1,5 times those listed by vehicle manufacturers, as an order of magnitude. As an example, the Citroën Berlingo 1.1i model (5 fiscal horsepower) is rated by the manufacturer as emitting 160 g of CO2 in mixed driving (urban and non-urban), whereas the average calculated for this category and type of itinerary comes to 250g CO2 equivalent per km (67,8 C eq), or 55% higher than the manufacturer's rating.

2 - Gasoline vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower ra ting

Litres fuel con sumed per 100 km, calculated for actual

driving conditions and type of itinerary




Empty weight

(kg)


Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km

259

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km

Non-urban Mixed Urban Non-urban

Mixed Urban

6 1 077 2 564 652 6,4 7,9 10,5 150 000 10,8 47,0 58,0 77,3 57,8 68,8 88,1 7 1 212 4 293 265 6,7 8,4 11,4 160 000 11,4 49,2 61,9 84,1 60,6 73,3 95,5 8 1 258 455 023 7,1 9,1 12,6 180 000 10,5 52,7 67,4 93,1 63,1 77,9 103,6 9 1 379 996 779 7,6 9,7 13,3 200 000 10,3 56,1 71,5 98,2 66,4 81,8 108,5

10 1 442 416 864 8,1 10,3 14,1 200 000 10,8 59,6 75,9 104,4 70,4 86,7 115,2 Average for category

1 205 8 726 583 6,8 8,5 11,5 164 584 11,0 50,0 62,8 85,1 61,0 73,8 96,1

Table 196: Emission factors for 6–10 fiscal horsep ower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary

The above remarks apply to this table as well. As this category is bigger than the first one, it seems likely that deviation from the mean will be greater. We have set the error margin at 10% for "corrected" consumption figures (keeping 40% for manufacturing emissions), which gives a estimated overall error margin on the order of 15% for the final figure.


Bilan Carbone™


3 - Gasoline vehicles, over 11 fiscal horsepower ra ting For this category we have taken the OE data and corrected fuel consumption, by comparing the OE average with the average obtained using distribution of engine power across the total fleet (data that is not directly available) based on 2001 sales figures.

Litres fuel consumed per 100 km, calculated for actual





Empty weight

(kg)


Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km

260

Manufacturing

emissi ons g C eq/km


Mixed Urban

Average for category

1 454 742 000 8,3 10,9 15,4 230 889 9,5 61,7 80,6 113,5 71,1 90,0 122,9

Table 197: Emission factors for gasoline vehicles of over 11 fiscal horsepower, by type of itinerary

Given the inaccuracy of these estimations, it seems reasonable to assign uncertainty of 15 to 20% to these figures. These figures will never be a source of significant uncertainty in the carbon inventory as a whole, because the fraction of a corporate fleet over 10 fiscal hp, or of cars used by employees to commute to and from work, will always be fairly marginal. Once again, there is a difference of between roughly 40% to 50% between calculated emissions and rated emissions given by vehicle manufacturers, for a mixed itinerary.


Bilan Carbone™


4 - Diesel vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower ratin g






Empty weight

(kg)


Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km

261

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km


Mixed Urban

3 735 1 623 3,6 4,0 4,6 120 000 9,2 29,5 32,4 37,1 38,7 41,5 46,3 4 1 069 1 045 341 4,6 5,6 7,2 140 000 11,5 37,9 45,3 58,4 49,3 56,7 69,9 5 1 198 3 687 275 5,4 6,5 8,5 160 000 11,2 43,7 53,0 69,3 54,9 64,2 80,5


1 169 4 734 239 5,2 6,3 8,2 155 570 11,3 42,4 51,3 66,9 53,7 62,6 78,2

Table 198: Emission factors for 3-5 fiscal horsepo wer diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary

5 - Diesel vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rati ng






Empty weight

(kg)


Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km

262

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km


Mixed Urban

6 1 334 5 533 099 5,5 6,7 8,7 180 000 11,1 45,1 54,5 71,1 56,2 65,6 82,3 7 1 502 1 624 164 5,9 7,2 9,4 200 000 11,3 48,2 58,5 76,7 59,5 69,8 88,0 8 1 599 331 791 6,8 8,3 10,9 220 000 10,9 55,3 67,5 88,8 66,2 78,4 99,7 9 1 737 140 662 7,8 9,4 12,3 240 000 10,9 63,2 76,7 100,3 74,1 87,6 111,1

10 1 793 201 789 8,2 9,9 12,9 260 000 10,3 66,9 80,8 104,8 77,3 91,2 115,1

261 Author's estimate. 262 Author's estimate.

Bilan Carbone™



1 399 7 831 505 5,8 7,0 9,1 188 981 11,1 47,1 57,0 74,4 58,2 68,1 85,5

Table 199: Emission factors for 6-10 fiscal horsep ower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary

6 - Diesel vehicles, 11 fiscal horsepower and over As for gasoline-fuelled vehicles, we have worked directly with averages.






Empty weight

(kg)


Non-urban

Mixed Urban

Useful life in km

263

Manufacturing

emissions g C eq/km


Mixed Urban


1 895 211 000 9,1 11,1 14,6 313 081 9,1 73,9 90,4 118,9 83,0 99,4 128,0

Table 200: Emission factors for 11 fiscal horsepow er (and over) diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary


Bilan Carbone™


Appendix 9 – Operating range and seating in Airbus aircraft

1 - Operating range The Airbus website contains diagrams that show the operating range of the manufacturer's aircraft in relation to the load on board. These diagrams are all compiled in the following way: they list the maximum operating range for a given weight on board at take-off. These data are used in the calculation described in §4.3. 1.1 A300 cargo aircraft

Figure 17: Maximum operating ranges by weight on b oard at take-off for A300,

cargo model

1.2 A310

Figure 18: Maximum operating ranges by weight on b oard at take-off for A310

Bilan Carbone™


1.3 A318


1.4 A319


Bilan Carbone™


1.5 A320


1.6 A330-200

Figure 22: Maximum operating ranges by weight on b oard at take-off for A330-

200

Bilan Carbone™


1.7 A330-300


300

1.8 A340-200


200

Bilan Carbone™


1.9 A340-300


300

1.10 A340-500


500

Bilan Carbone™


1.11 A340-600


600

2. Passenger seats Using the passenger cabin seating plans the amount of space occupied per seat and per ticket class is derived, counting the number of business class seats that replace second-class seats, and the number of first-class seats that replace second-class and business-class seats. The diagrams below give just a few examples, but as it happens the ratio of seat space per class is applicable to all Airbus planes. 2.1 A320

Figure 28: Seating chart by ticket class for A320

Bilan Carbone™


Looking at these diagrams it is clear that 26 second-class seats are replaced by 12 business-class seats, so that one business-class seat = 2,17 economy-class seats (this is the ratio used to allocate emissions per seat). 2.2 A330-200 Three-cabin aircraft

Figure 29: Seating chart for A330-200, two-cabin m odel

Three-cabin aircraft

Figure 30: Seating chart for A330-200, three-cabin model

The above diagram shows that first-class seats take up 50% more space than business-class seats. Looking closely, it can be seen also that a business-class seat takes up 2,33 times as much space as an economy-class seat, as 56 economy-class seats were replaced by 24 business-class seats in the central part of the aircraft (comparing the seating arrangements in the upper and lower diagrams). 2.3 A340-200

Figure 31: Seating chart by ticket class for A340- 200

For this model the ratios derived for the A330-200 model give the same number of "economy-class equivalent" seats, give or take a few seats, for the 2 and 3-cabin aircraft.

Bilan Carbone™


2.4 A340-600

Figure 32: Seating chart by ticket class for A340- 600

Same conclusion as above.

Bilan Carbone™


TABLES

Table 1: Gross/nett heating value ratio for liquid and gaseous fuels ........................... 19 Table 2: Equivalences between the energy measuring units........................................ 20

Table 3: Emission factors for liquid fuels .......................................................................... 21 Table 4: Emissions due to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude

oil (IFP, 2001)................................................................................................................. 21 Table 5: Emission factors for refinery energy consumption........................................... 22

Table 6: Petroleum extraction and transport emission factors...................................... 23

Table 7: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for petroleum (IFP, 2001) ............................................................. 23

Table 8: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emission factors according to fuel type...................................................................... 24

Table 9: Conversion of global emission factors (upstream + combustion) according to fuel type ...................................................................................................................... 24

Table 10: Emission factors for natural gas combustion (ADEME, MEDD, 2005) ...... 25 Table 11: Emission factors for upstream natural gas processes (IFP, 2001)............. 25 Table 12: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett

heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for natural gas ................................................................................ 26

Table 13: Calculation of an overall emission factor (upstream + combustion) for natural gas ...................................................................................................................... 26

Table 14: Mass energy and associated CO2 emissions.................................................. 27

Table 15: Mass energy and CO2 emissions pour unit energy for solid fossil fuels ..... 27 Table 16: Upstream emission factors for solid fuels ........................................................ 27 Table 17: Overall emission factors (upstream + combustion) for solid fuels, other than

waste-to-energy fuels.................................................................................................... 28

Table 18: Principal Biofuels and their emission factors (ADEME, 2005 et ADEME, 2006)................................................................................................................................ 31

Table 19: Emission factors for Biofuels from dedicated crops (ADEME, 2005) ......... 31 Table 20: Emission factors for liquid Biofuels (ADEME/DGEMP, 2002) ..................... 33 Table 21: Bilan Carbone™ emission factors for liquid Biofuels ..................................... 33

Table 22: Emission factors for power production by country in 2004 .......................... 37 Table 23: Emission factors CO2/kWh by power supplier, Europe 2004 (PWC –

ENERPRESSE, 2005) .................................................................................................. 38

Table 24: Monthly emission factors for EDF in 2005 ....................................................... 40

Table 25: Emission factors for the different production modes used for grid power in France ............................................................................................................................. 41

Table 26: Emission factors for electricity usage in France (g CO2/kWh)..................... 42 Table 27: Standard consumption of household electric appliances ............................. 43

Table 28: Emission factors for household electric appliances ...................................... 44

Bilan Carbone™


Table 29: Average electricity consumption in 2003 by branch of activity (all uses and broken down by specific uses) (ADEME, 2005) ....................................................... 45

Table 30: Average heating fuel oil consumption per m2 heated, broken down by branch of activity (Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001) ................................................ 48

Table 31: Average natural gas consumption for heating and hot water per m2, broken down by branch of activity CEREN 1990-2003......................................................... 49

Table 32: Climate correction coefficient............................................................................ 49 Table 33: French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of

housing per m2 - heating only ...................................................................................... 50

Table 34 : French energy consumption average by nature of housing per m2 – electrical heating............................................................................................................ 51

Table 35 : French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of housing – sanitary hot water only ............................................................................... 52

Table 36 : French average for energy consumption, by nature of housing – electric sanitary hot water ......................................................................................... 52

Table 37: Energy mix for residential heating in France.................................................. 53

Table 38: Energy mix for residential hot water in France............................................... 53

Table 39: Non-energy emission factors (processes and leakage) ............................... 55

Table 40: Commercial cooling – by type of equipment (ADEME-ARMINES, 1999).. 58

Table 41: Commercial cooling – surface area (ADEME – ARMINES, 2001) ............. 58 Table 42: Industrial cooling for the food processing industry (ADEME-ARMINES,

2003)................................................................................................................................ 59 Table 43: Milk tanks ............................................................................................................. 59 Table 44: Industrial cooling – positive temperature systems......................................... 59

Table 45: Industrial cooling – negative temperature systems ....................................... 60

Table 46: Average characteristics to be used when information on cooling systems is not available ................................................................................................................... 60

Table 47: Service sector cooling (air conditioning) ......................................................... 60 Table 48: Energy consumption for the construction of land vehicles in France (1999)

.......................................................................................................................................... 63

Table 49: Emission factors for the construction of land vehicles in France ................ 64 Table 50: Emission factors for manufacture of materials used to build a one-ton

vehicle ............................................................................................................................. 65 Table 51: Emissions per km travelled for gasoline vehicles, by zone of residence... 67

Table 52: Emissions per km travelled for diesel vehicles, by zone of residence ....... 68 Table 53: Average vehicle consumption by length of time in use................................. 68

Table 54: Average consumption of gasoline and diesel vehicles by fiscal horsepower rating ................................................................................................................................ 69

Table 55: Conventional-cycle consumption figures for gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal horse power .................................................................................................................... 71

Table 56: Average commuting distance travelled by type of itinerary ......................... 72 Table 57: Emission factors per car for commuting travel by type of itinerary ............. 73 Table 58: Emission factors for commuting travel by driving cycle, per km travelled . 74

Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution modal for daily trips ....................................... 75 Table 60: Total travel displacements, by method in 1993............................................... 76

Table 61: Mileages travelled per person per year in France in 1993 ............................ 76

Bilan Carbone™


Table 62: Emission factors for the manufacture of minibuses, city buses and intercity coaches ........................................................................................................................... 77

Table 63: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses (ADEME, 2002)................................................................................................................................ 78

Table 64: Emission factors per vehicle.km for different types of buses....................... 78 Table 65: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses ................ 79 Table 66 : Average distance travelled annually by the French in 1993, and part of

public transport............................................................................................................... 80 Table 67 : Average distance travelled annually in public transport by the French in

1993 ................................................................................................................................. 80 Table 68: Total weekly mileages by mode, 1993 ............................................................. 81 Table 69 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, 1993 ............................ 81

Table 70 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, for public transport .... 81

Table 71: Kilometres travelled per person per year over long distance, by mode.......................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 72: Combustion emission factors for two-wheeled vehicles (ADEME, 2002).. 84

Table 73: GVW classes for light utility vehicles and trucks ........................................... 85

Table 74: GVW characteristics........................................................................................... 87

Table 75: Average vehicle life in km by GVW class ....................................................... 87

Table 76: Emission factors for vehicle manufacture by GVW class............................. 89

Table 77: Emission factors for vehicle fuel consumption per km and by GVW class 90

Table 78: Average emission factors per vehicle.km and by GVW class ..................... 91 Table 79: Characteristics of goods transport by GVW class ......................................... 95

Table 80: Emission factors for goods transport, empty and fully loaded vehicles ..... 96 Table 81: National average emission factors for goods transport by GVW class...... 99 Table 82 : t.km shipped by road, per capita, per year and by region.......................... 100

Table 83 : t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region......................... 100 Table 84: Baseline characteristics for the main types of aircraft ................................ 102

Table 85: Emission factors per passenger.km for passenger air travel..................... 104 Table 86: Theoretical emission factors per ton.km for air freight................................ 105

Table 87: "Real” emission factors per ton.km for air freight.......................................... 106

Table 88: Emission factors for short-range air freight...................................................106

Table 89: Emission factors for medium-range air freight ............................................. 106

Table 90: Emission factors for long-range air freight .................................................... 107

Table 91 : Kilometres travelled per person and by plane in 1993 ............................... 107

Table 92 : Average distance travelled per passenger per plane ................................. 108

Table 93: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel in France ................... 110 Table 94: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel abroad ....................... 110 Table 95 : Long distance travelling in millions of passengers*km per week and by rail

........................................................................................................................................ 111

Table 96 : Average long distance travelled per person per year and by rail.............. 111 Table 97: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight in France ................................. 112

Table 98: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight abroad (UIC – INFRAS – IWW, 2004).............................................................................................................................. 112

Table 99: Empty weight for the main ship types............................................................ 113 Table 100: Emission factors for container ships............................................................ 114 Table 101: Emission factors for bulk cargo carriers...................................................... 117

Bilan Carbone™


Table 102: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport ................. 118 Table 103: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport ................. 120 Table 104: Emission factors for different metals produced in Australia (CSIRO, 2003)

........................................................................................................................................ 125

Table 105: Emission factors for metallurgical activities (CEREN – 1999) ............... 125 Table 106: Emission factors for different metals (excluding ore)................................ 126

Table 107: Recapitulation of emission factors for production of different metals .... 126 Table 108: Summary of emission factors retained for production of different metals

........................................................................................................................................ 126

Table 109: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1997) .................... 127 Table 110: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1998) .................... 128 Table 111: Emission factors for high-density polystyrene production........................ 128 Table 112: Emission factors for low-density polyethylene production (APME, 1999)

........................................................................................................................................ 129

Table 113: Emission factors for production of amorphous polyethylene terephtalate (APME – 1999)............................................................................................................. 129

Table 114: Emission factors for production of bottle-quality polyethylene terephtalate (APME, 1999)............................................................................................................... 130

Table 115: Emission factors for production of polyethylene terephtalate film (APME – 1999).............................................................................................................................. 130

Table 116: Emission factors for Nylon 66 production ...................................................131

Table 117: Emission factors for different glass products (CEREN 1999) ................. 131 Table 118: Emission factors for different glass products (OFEFP) ............................ 132

Table 119: Emission factors for plate glass and glass wool production (MIES, 1999)........................................................................................................................................ 132

Table 120: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas ................................................................................................................................. 140

Table 121: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas ................................................................................................................................. 140

Table 122: Emission factors for herbicide products...................................................... 141 Table 123: Emission factors for fungicide products ...................................................... 142 Table 124: Emission factors for insecticide products ...................................................142

Table 125: Emission factors for molluscicide products ................................................ 143

Table 126: Emission factors for different growth regulators ........................................ 143

Table 127: Energy emission factors for fuel consumption in wheat cultivation, per hectare (ADEME – ECOBILAN, 2003)..................................................................... 144

Table 128: Emissions from products used for wheat cultivation (ADEME- ECOBILAN, 2003) ....................................................................................................... 144

Table 129: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for wheat cultivation.... 145 Table 130: Emissions per hectare of wheat crop .......................................................... 145 Table 131: Energy emission factors for maize cultivation, per hectare ..................... 145 Table 132: Emissions from products used for maize cultivation................................. 146

Table 133: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for maize cultivation.... 146 Table 134: Emission factors per hectare of maize crop ............................................... 146

Table 135: Emission factors for wheat flour ................................................................... 147 Table 136: Annual livestock emissions (feed, digestion, excrement) ........................ 148 Table 137: Emission factors for livestock, per head and per year.............................. 149

Bilan Carbone™


Table 138: Emission factors for nursing cows sent to slaughter................................. 149

Table 139: Emission factors for milk-fed calves ............................................................ 150 Table 140: Emission factors for whole milk .................................................................... 151 Table 141: Emission factors for steers (beef cattle) ..................................................... 151

Table 142: Average emission factors for beef ............................................................... 152 Table 143: Emission factor for boiled cheese................................................................ 152 Table 144: Emission factors for industrial swine ........................................................... 154 Table 145: Emission factors for industrial chicken ........................................................ 154 Table 146: Emission factors for one egg ........................................................................ 155 Table 147: Emission factors for sheep............................................................................ 156 Table 148: Emission factors for milk-fed lambs............................................................. 156 Table 149: Emission factors for grass-fed lambs .......................................................... 157 Table 150: Average nitrogen units per hectare, by crop .............................................. 159

Table 151: Average N2O emission factor by crop ......................................................... 159 Table 152: Emission factors for fertilizer manufacture ................................................. 160

Table 153: Emission factors for farm machinery (consumption, upkeep, manufacture) per hectare of cropland............................................................................................... 160

Table 154: Methane emissions from livestock............................................................... 161 Table 155: Methane emissions from livestock in kg C eq............................................ 162

Table 156: Breakdown of inert waste disposal by branch of activity (ADEME, 2004)........................................................................................................................................ 164

Table 157: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (USA) 166

Table 158: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (Europe)........................................................................................................................................ 166

Table 159: Emission factors for incineration of plastics with energy recovery .......... 167 Table 160: Breakdown of plastic waste disposal by type of treatment (France)...... 167 Table 161: Emission factors for waste paper and cardboard landfilled without

methane recovery (EPA, 1998) ................................................................................. 168

Table 162: Savings achieved by incineration of paper and cardboard with energy recovery, in the United States and in France.......................................................... 171

Table 163: Breakdown of food waste disposal by type of treatment (France) ......... 172 Table 164: Breakdown of paper and cardboard waste disposal by type of treatment

(France)......................................................................................................................... 172 Table 165: Life cycle inventory data for the storage of one ton of hazardous waste,

by life cycle stages (ADEME – FNADE, 2003) ...................................................... 174 Table 166: Emission factors for wastewater treatment ................................................ 176

Table 167: Emission factors for disposal of packaging waste..................................... 177

Table 168: Emission factors for packaging production................................................. 178

Table 169: Energy expenditures for building construction by type of activity ........... 180 Table 170: Energy expenditures for building construction by material ...................... 180 Table 171: Emissions for building construction, by activity sector in France............ 181 Table 172: Emission factors per m2 by building type and activity............................... 182

Table 173: Emission factors for construction materials and products (INIES database) ...................................................................................................................... 183

Table 174: Emission factors for roadway and parking area construction materials 184

Table 175: Supplementary percentage for transport and application of roadway and parking area construction materials.......................................................................... 185

Bilan Carbone™


Table 176: Traffic on different types of roadways ......................................................... 186 Table 177: Emission factors for roadway construction by type of structure.............. 186 Table 178: Emission factors for safety barriers by class of roadway ......................... 187 Table 179: Energy consumption for chip manufacture................................................. 188

Table 180: Energy consumption for manufacture of printed circuit boards............... 189 Table 181: Energy consumption for cathode ray tube manufacture .......................... 189

Table 182: Energy consumption for manufacture of flat screens ............................... 189

Table 183: Fossil fuels used for ancillary computer materials (kg) ............................ 190

Table 184: Emission factor for computer with cathode ray tube................................. 190

Table 185: Emission factor for computer with flat screen ............................................ 191

Table 186: Average weight of materials in a computer and printer............................ 191

Table 187: Emission factors for electricity production by type of production ............ 205 Table 188: Monthly emission factors for EDF electricity in 2005................................ 206

Table 189: Emission coefficients for the main fuel types ............................................. 208

Table 190: Distribution of cultivated lands (France) ..................................................... 215

Table 191: Emission factor for industrial turkey............................................................. 216 Table 192: Emission factor for industrial duck and guinea fowl .................................. 216

Table 193: Emission factor for free-range chicken ....................................................... 217 Table 194: Emission factor for free-range guinea fowl................................................. 217

Table 195: Emission factors for 3–5 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 225

Table 196: Emission factors for 6–10 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 226

Table 197: Emission factors for gasoline vehicles of over 11 fiscal horsepower, by type of itinerary............................................................................................................. 227

Table 198: Emission factors for 3-5 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 228

Table 199: Emission factors for 6-10 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 229

Table 200: Emission factors for 11 fiscal horsepower (and over) diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary............................................................................................................. 229

Table 201: ADEME Bilan Carbone™ Experts ............................................................... 249

Bilan Carbone™


FIGURES Figure 1: Correlation between life span and GVW fo r trucks and light utility

vehicles .......................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 2: Correlation between GVW and emissions per vehicle.km............................ 91

Figure 3: Correlation between GVW and average emissions per vehicle.km for personal cars .................................................................................................................. 92

Figure 4: Radiative forcing by aircraft in 1992 ............................................................... 103 Figure 5: Correlation between daily emissions for a container ship at sea and its

payload capacity .......................................................................................................... 115 Figure 6: Electricity production in Europe in 2001, by type of primary energy source

(Observatoire de l’Energie) ........................................................................................ 203

Figure 7: Emission factors for some European electricity producers (2004) ............ 204 Figure 8: Distribution of light utility vehicles under 1,5 t GVW .................................... 219

Figure 9: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW............... 219 Figure 10: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 2,5 t and 3,5 t GVW ............ 220 Figure 11: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW.............. 221 Figure 12: Distribution of trucks between 5,1 t and 6 t GVW ...................................... 221

Figure 13: Distribution of trucks between 6.1 t and 10.9 t GVW................................. 222

Figure 14: Distribution of trucks between 11 t and 19 t GVW ..................................... 222

Figure 15: Distribution of trucks between 19.1 t and 21 t GVW .................................. 223

Figure 16: Distribution of trucks between 21.1 t and 32,6 t GVW............................... 224

Figure 17: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A300, cargo model ............................................................................................................................. 230

Figure 18: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A310 ..... 230 Figure 19: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A318 ..... 231 Figure 20: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A3109 ... 231 Figure 21: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A320 ..... 232 Figure 22: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A330-200

........................................................................................................................................ 232

Figure 23: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A330-300........................................................................................................................................ 233





Figure 28: Seating chart by ticket class for A320 .......................................................... 235 Figure 29: Seating chart for A330-200, two-cabin model............................................. 236

Figure 30: Seating chart for A330-200, three-cabin model.......................................... 236

Figure 31: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-200 .................................................. 236

Figure 32: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-600 .................................................. 237

Bilan Carbone™


Bilan Carbone™


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A ACV: Analyse du Cycle de Vie (LCA : Life Cycle Analysis) ADEME: Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management) AIE: Agence Internationale de l’Environnement APME: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe B BTU: British Thermal Unit C CET: Centre d’Enfouissement Technique CITEPA: Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d’Etude de la Pollution Atmosphérique CPCU: Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain CSDU: Centre de Stockage de Déchets Ultimes D DASRI: Déchets d’Activités de Soin à Risques Infectieux DBO: Demande Biochimique en Oxygène DGEMP: Direction Générale de l’Energie et des Matières Premières DMA: Déchets Ménagers et Assimilés (Household waste and assimilated) E ECCS: Electrolytic Chrome Coated Steel ECS: Eau Chaude Sanitaire EMHV: Ester Méthylique d’Huile Végétale (vegetable oil methyl ester, VME) EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (United States) ETBE: Ethyl Tertio Buthyl Ether F FDES: Fiche de Déclaration Environnementale et Sanitaire FNADE: Fédération Nationale des Activités de Dépollution et de l’Environnement G-H GES: Gaz à Effet de Serre (greenhouse gas, GHG) GIEC: Groupe d’experts Intergouvernemental sur l’Evolution du Climat International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GVW: Gross Vehicle Weight I-J IFP Institut Français du Pétrole INIES: Informations sur l’Impact Environnemental et Sanitaire

Bilan Carbone™


INRETS: Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité INSEE: Institut National des Statistiques et des Etudes Economiques IPCC: International Panel on Climate Change IRSID: Institut de Recherche de la SIDérurgie K-L kep: kilo équivalent pétrole L LCPC: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées M-N MEDD: Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable MIES: Mission Interministérielle de l’Effet de Serre (French Interministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect) O OE: Observatoire de l’Energie OM: Ordures Ménagères (Household waste) P-Q-R PCI: Pouvoir Calorifique Inférieur (nett heating value, NHV) PCS: Pouvoir Calorifique Supérieur (gross heating value, GHV) PET: PolyEthylène Terephtalate PNUE: Programme des Nations-Unies pour l’Environnement (United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP) PRG: Potentiel de Réchauffement Global PTAC: Poids Total Autorisé en Charge (Maximum Authorized Weight when Fully Loaded = Gross Vehicle Weight, GVW) PTRA: Poids Total Roulant Autorisé PWC: Price Waterhouse Coopers S SETRA: Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes T TCR: Taillis à Courtes Rotations tec: ton équivalent charbon toe: ton oil equivalent TER: Train Express Régional TGV: Train à Grande Vitesse TRN: Train Rapide National U UF: Unité Fonctionnelle UNFCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UTAC: Union Technique de l’Automobile, du motocycle et du Cycle

Bilan Carbone™


V-W-X-Y-Z VNF: Voies Navigables de France

Bilan Carbone™


ADEME EXPERTS

Nom Prénom Domaines d'expertise

BAJEAT Philippe Bilan environnementaux filière déchets BODINEAU Luc Biocombustibles, biocarburants BEWA Hilaire Bioproduits DEPORTES Isabelle Retour au sol des matières organiques DRESCH Marlène Efficacité énergétique procédés industriels - froid MOUSSET Jérôme Secteur agricole, N2O épandage SCHUBETZER Christine Méthanisation déjection animale, stockage du carbon e dans les sols WENISCH Sandrine Valorisation énergétique - biogaz CHENE-PEZOT Anne Statistiques énergies / Economie VEUILLET Dominique Eco-conception CARBALLES Sandrine Transport CHABOT Bernard Energies renouvelables COTTIGNIES Marc Transport DESPRETZ Hubert URE, électricité bâtiment VIDALENC Eric Transport LEFEBVRE Hervé Energies dans les bâtiments / Eclairage LEONARDON Philippe Matériaux et produits de construction TROTIGNON Régine Bâtiments

Table 201: ADEME Bilan Carbone™ Experts

Bilan Carbone Emission_Factors

Documents

Transcript of Bilan Carbone Emission_Factors