Search

Presented at the 51st CTRF (57th TRF) Joint Conference, May 1-4, 2016, Toronto, Ontario

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities’ corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities- Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of −53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.

The paper presents a life-cycle energy analysis (LCEA) to quantify energy expenditures in the fabrication, use, and end-of-life stages of the pipes of a water distribution system. The methodology incorporates the capabilities of environmental input-output life-cycle analysis to quantify the energy required to fabricate pipes. The EPANET2 hydraulic model is applied in conjunction with a pipe-aging model to calculate the theoretical energy recovery in the use stage. An exponential pipe-break model is applied to quantify the energy required to repair pipe breaks during the use stage of a system. Simple formulations are developed to estimate the energy required to dispose of and recycle pipes once their service period has expired. The LCEA methodology is then applied to the New York City (NYC) water supply tunnels example to quantify energy expenditures in four planning scenarios with 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year pipe replacement frequencies. The results of the NYC example highlight the tension between the energy costs incurred in the fabrication and end-of-life stages of a system and those incurred in the use stage. A pipe-replacement period roughly equal to 50 years yielded the lowest overall energy expenditure in the three life stages. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the influence of uncertain system parameters on energy expenditure estimates.