SCS-002-1

Standardization of Climate Metrics for Greenhouse Gases and ParticulatesBased on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment

by Stanley P. Rhodes, Ph.D.Scientific Certification Systems

SCS-002 Standards Committee Operating Under ANSI Process

• Armstrong World Industries

• Berkeley Analytical Associates, LLC

• BIFMA

• California Department of General Services

• California Integrated Waste Management Board

• City of San Francisco

• Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS)

• Resilient Flooring Association

• HNI Corporation

• US EPA

• Pacific Gas & Electric

• Shaw Industries, Inc.

• Steel Industry

• US Department of Energy

SCS-002 LCIA FrameworkConsistent with ISO-14044

Mandatory Phases

Life-Cycle Scoping addresses all environmental and human health issues and sets appropriate boundary conditions.

Life-Cycle Inventory measures system inputs and outputs. It is the initial phase of assessment only, and should not be used for comparative assertions.

Life-Cycle Impact Assessment connects LCI and direct land use to human health and environmental impacts, and is the basis of comparative assertions.

Goal & scopedefinition

Inventoryanalysis

Impact assessment

Optional Phase

Life Cycle Interpretation involves subjective weighting and ranking

The reference flow of this unit operation is the functional unit of the entire system (name underlined)

Click

SCS-002 Life Cycle Impact Groups

Specific Issue Impact GroupsNatural Resource DepletionHabitats/Key Species LossHuman Health/Environmental Emission LevelsHuman Health Exposure Levels

Climate Change Impact GroupsGlobal Climate ImpactsRegional Climate Impacts

• Arctic • Antarctic

Required Impact Category Indicators

Creeping Death Zones — Eutrophication Kills All Sea Life

The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is largely caused by agricultural run-off from the Mississippi River. Increases have been most pronounced since the increase in biofuel production.

Mandatory LCIA Steps

ClassificationAssign life-cycle inventory results — emissions, wastes, resource depletion — to impact categories according to their potential environmental/human health endpoints.

CharacterizationDetermine the environmental relevance of life-cycle inventory results, based on spatial/temporal differentiation and intensity of midpoints/endpoints, utilizing characterization factors (SCF and ECFs).

Impact ProfileThe output of the assessment provides a complete quantified set impact indicators.

Emission EmissionCAS.no. to air to water

Substance g g

2-hydroxy-ethanacrylate 816-61-0 0,0348

4,4-methylenebis cyclohexylamine 1761-71-2 5,9E-02Ammonia 7664-81-7 3,7E-05 4,2E-05Arsenic ( As ) 7440-38-2 2,0E-06

Benzene 71-43-2 (current)5,0E-02Lead ( Pb ) 7439-92-1 8,5E-06Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 6,6E-01Carbondioxide 124-38-9 2,6E+02

Carbonmonoxide ( CO ) 630-08-0 1,9E-01Cadmium (Cd) 7440-46-9 2,2E-07Chlorine ( Cl2 ) 7782-50-5 4,6E-04Chromium ( Cr VI ) 7440-47-3 5,3E-06

Dicyclohexane methane 86-73-6 5,1E-02Nitrous oxide( N2O ) 10024-97-2 1,7E-02

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 9,5E-02

HMDI 5124-30-1 7,5E-02Hydro carbons (electricity, stationary combustion) - 1,7E+00

Hydrogen ions (H+) - 1,0E-03i-butanol 78-83-1 3,5E-02i-propanol 67-63-0 9,2E-01copper ( Cu ) 7740-50-8 1,8E-05Mercury( Hg ) 7439-97-6 2,7E-06Methane 74-82-8 5,0E-03Methyl i-butyl ketone 108-10-1 5,7E-02

Greenhouse gases

Acidification

Ground level ozone

Ecotoxic chemical (soil/water)

Connecting Inventory Results to Impact Categories

Calculating Indicators: Classification

Establishing the Regional Acidification Biophysical Impact Pathway

Regional Acidification

Required LCIA Modeling: Establishing Stressor-Effects Network

Node 3 Indicator: Acidification Loading = Fractionof wet deposition of acid emissions in areas of exceedance of critical load

Climate Change Stressor-Effects NetworkNodeNode 1 (stressor)

Node 2 (intensification of midpoints)

Node 3 (intensification of midpoints)

Node 4 (intensification of midpoints)

Node 5(Exceedance of threshold midpoints)

Node 6 (Post threshold midpoints)

Node 7 (Post threshold multiple endpoints)

Description

Increases in global/regional GHG emissions along with continuous aerosol emissions

Intensification of accumulated global / regional GHG loading (CO2, CH4), plus tropospheric ozone & fine carbon particulates loading (soot), minus aerosols

Intensification of net global RF and net RF in regional climate zones based on various GHG loadings, minus net cooling from tropospheric aerosols

Increases in GMT, and increases in RMTs associated with climate changes in regional climate zones

Exceedance of threshold (EOT) – based on the GMT threshold and regional climate zone thresholds

Catastrophic global and regional climate changes

Impacts to human health and the environment on a global and regional basis.

Strength of LinkageStressor - strongEndpoint - none

Stressor - strong

Endpoint –weak

Stressor - strong

Endpoint - strong

Stressor - strong

Endpoint - strong

Stressor - strong

Endpoint – strong

Stressor - moderate

Endpoint - strong

Stressor - moderate

Endpoint – strong

Molecular Structures of

Greenhouse Pollutants

SootSmall Carbon

Particles

Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) Established by the IPCC GWPs represents an index of the amortized radiative forcing

over time of various greenhouse pollutants compared to an equivalent tonne of CO2.

The IPCC has established GWP values for Kyoto-listed GHG pollutants as a function of various selected time horizons: 20, 100 and 500 years.

SCS-002-1 has extrapolated the IPCC results to establish GWP values for the annual time horizon and added 20-year time horizon GWPs for soot, tropospheric ozone and aerosols.

Key Assumption Behind Climate Metrics: The Selection of the Time Horizon

00.

51.

0

1 year 20 years 100 years (Kyoto)

CO2 & other minor long-lived GHGs

Methane

Soot, TO

Fra

ctio

n R

emai

nin

g i

n A

tmo

sph

ere

Time Horizon

Politics Over Science

Key Impact Nodes for Stressor-Effect Network Modeling

Increases in Greenhouse Gas Loadings are directly linked to increased Radiative Forcing.

The increase in Radiative Forcing is being observed both globally and regionally

… which then is linked to the increase in Global Mean Temperature.

GMT Tipping

Point

Emissions Can Cause Both Positive and Negative Radiative Forcing

Required Characterization ofRadiative Forcing/Cooling Isopleths

Node 4: Justification for Separate Stressor-Effects Network for the Arctic Region

Tropospheric Ozone: The Major Contributor to Regional Arctic Warming

Rapid Loss of the Perennial Arctic Ice Sheet 2004-2005

Max. TO concentration strongly correlated to area of rapid loss of Perennial Ice

26

Soot, Methane, Tropospheric Ozone:

80% of the Arctic Warming

Justification for excluding CO2 fromArctic Stressor-Effects Network

New Major Study Findings (April 2009)Emphasize Role of Soot, Tropospheric Ozoneand Methane in Arctic Warming The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) cautions that factors like soot, ozone and methane may now be contributing to the warming of the Arctic and other parts of the world as much as carbon dioxide.

The amount of black carbon in the atmosphere, due to agricultural burning, forest fires and inefficient diesel engines, creates a haze that absorbs sunlight, warms and eventually deposits onto snow.

The darkening of the frozen surface then causes more sunlight to be absorbed, reducing the snow’s ability to reflect sunlight back into space.

"The principal (climate change) problem is carbon dioxide, but a new understanding is emerging of soot," said Nobel peace prize-winner and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore in commenting on the report.

Western Antarctica surface temperature anomaly since

1957

Brazilian Tropospheric Ozone is the

Key GHG Pollutant of Antarctica

Brazilian Tropospheric Ozone Plume

Global Carbon Black (Soot) Emissions

1875-2000

Soot: The Poor and Yellow Flames

Soot is currently 18% of total global heat (RF).2 billion more poor are expected in the next 20 years.

LCIA Nodal Characterization

58

Node 2: 2010 Annual GHG Loadings

N20 C02 CH4 Soot TO

660676

343.5

Bil

lio

n

To

nn

es C

O2

eq.

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Current Legacy CO2 and Methane Loading Compared to 1000-year

Baseline

1000 years

Adding Legacy Emissions of CO2 and Methane to Annual GHG Loadings (Node 3)

N20 C02 CH4 Soot TO

660 676

1200

1400

34

214

3.5

Bil

lio

n

To

nn

es C

O2

eq. 58

Bil

lio

n T

on

nes

CO

2

Accumulated greenhouse gases (A-GHG) over next 20 yearsAssumes 34 billion tonnes in 2010, increasing 3% per year

Accumulated CO2 Loading isLeveling Off Over the Next 20 Years

Secondary Impacts from CO2: Oceanic Acidification is Destroying the World’s Remaining Coral Reefs

2030:Shorter-Lived GHG Pollutants Will Constitute

More Than 75% of Total Warming Loading

N20 C02 CH4 Soot TO

800

1200

Bil

lio

n T

on

nes

CO

2 eq

.

1600

1400

34

214

3.5

BAU Projections, Uncertainty not determined

Applying LCIA GHG Metrics to Assessment of New Power System Deployment

• Example 1. Insertion of 556 MW IGCC Unit with Carbon Dioxide Capture Sequestration (CCS) into the SERC Regional Grid

• Example 2. Insertion of 2300 MW Nuclear Unit into SERC Regional Grid

LCIA Modeling: IGCC-CCS Unit Fuel Source: Illinois # 6 Coal Capacity: 556-MWe net Total Sequestered CO2: 453,200 tonnes

Grid Electricity

Coal mining and cleaning Rail Transport of Coal

Diesel Oil Prod (Cum.)

IGCC Power Plant with CO2 Capture

CO2 Pipeline160 km

CO2 storage Electricity Distribution to End User

CO2 Transport Pipeline Location

Coal Mining and Cleaning Site

Power Plant Site

No Code

Methane Loadings from Regional Mines:Up to 86% of Total GHG Loading of IGCC Unit

Annual Methane Loadings (Metric tonnes CO2 eq.)

Coal Bed Methane/ton

Annual Time Horizon

20-year Time Horizon

100-year Time Horizon

1.46 kg/tDOE 2008 US average

250,530 171,792 50,106

Illinois #1-64.23 kg/t average

725,850 497,664 145,152

Standard Regional 13.6 kg/t

2,333,625 1,600,200 446,740

Current Cap and Trade GHG metrics do not account for this mining-related methane loading.

The Role of Aerosols in Climate Dynamics Is Not Well Understood

Old Coal PlantsHidden Trade-offs from Aerosol Emissions: Unwanted Winter/Fall/Spring Cooling

Useful Summer Cooling

Unwanted Winter/Spring Cooling

Unwanted Fall Cooling

Tota

l A

void

ed

Em

issi

on

s -

ton

s

Comparing Current Cap & Trade Metrics to LCIA GHG Metrics

Elimination of winter aerosols alone would provide greater unrealized benefits for the SERC than the CO2 reductions recognized under proposed Cap and Trade metrics.

The Case for Transitioning from Current GHG Metrics to LCIA GHG Metrics for Cap & Trade Programs Current metrics rely upon the 100-year time

horizon.

Current GHG metrics overlook 95% of annual mitigation potential opportunities.

Cap & trade funds based on current GHG metrics will provide only marginal mitigation of CO2 while failing to seize on opportunities to mitigate other key GHGs and GHPs.

July 14 Workshop —Objectives

Inform major stakeholders about new GHG metrics.

Validate and refine the current SCS-002-1draft standard for comment.

Prepare to help shape the U.S. position for Copenhagen summit in December 2009.

Provide basis for adjustments to the current proposed U.S. Cap & Trade legislation.

Sign up at www.SCScertified.com