| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Potential measures for reduction of releases of heavy metals, POPs, HCFCs, BFRs and industrial greenhouse gases with particular reference to Russia, Ukraine and China

6 Industrial greenhouse gases

ABSTRACT
The industrial greenhouse gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6 are addressed here. These are the only so-called industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs) covered in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) and PFCs (perfluorocarbons) are two groups of substances. SF6 (sulphurhexaflouride) is an individual substance. The so-called flexible mechanisms for implementation of GHG reduction efforts: "joint implementation" with East European Countries, and "clean development mechanism" with developing countries (including China), offer an opportunity to finance reduction initiatives in other countries on a commercial basis. This is a very strong incentive.

The most important environmental property of these fluorinated compounds is the contribution to global climate change. Though the nominal contributions to global warming from these gases are currently in the range of a few percent, the emission reduction amounts that can be reached by reduction of industrial GHGs lie in the same order of magnitude as individual measures on CO2, because in principle a 100% substitution is possible for the major uses of industrial GHGs.

HFCs and SF6 are deliberately produced and used in equipment and in products. Releases are primarily generated when using the substances or during the disposal of equipment or products. Substitution/phase-out is therefore the main type of measure for these substances. HFCs are also released as a pollutant from production of the ODS HCFC. These releases may decrease as a result of HCFC reductions stipulated in the Montreal Protocol and its amendments; see section 1.9 and Chapter 7.

PFCs are also produced deliberately, but the major releases are generated as unwanted pollutants from the production of primary aluminium. For aluminium production improved technology and release reduction measures are the important types of measures.


Most of the descriptive text in sections 6.1-6.3 is extracted from a recent authoritative review for the German Umweltbundesamt (UBA, 2004). Where other references were used, this is noted in the text.

6.1 Introduction to industrial greenhouse gases

Perspective

From an environmental point of view, of all of the fluorinated compounds' properties, the contribution to global climate change is by far the most significant one. The biological impact of fluorinated compounds is low. Only high concentrations lead to adverse effects. Although today's additional greenhouse effect caused by fluorinated gases is low, it will increase enormously owing to the replacement of CFCs and HCFCs. This will pose a significant problem in the future. Today, fluorinated greenhouse gases account for approximately 1-2 % of the total emissions of climate-damaging gases.

On the other hand, it should be taken into account that emissions of industrial GHG can often be reduced by 100%, if suitable measures are taken - e.g. substitution. Where traditional greenhouse gases are concerned, this is almost never the case. The emission reduction amounts that can be reached with CO2 for example, by applying individual measures lie in the same order of magnitude as those that can be achieved with fluorinated gases.

HFCs, PFCs and SF6 have high Global Warming Potentials (GWP, unit reflecting the global warming effect compared to the effect of CO2), meaning that per kg emitted they contribute much more than per kg CO2 emitted. The global warming potential (GWP100) of HFCs ranges between 140 and 7,000, the GWP100 of PFC ranges between 6,000 and 9,000, and SF6 has a GWP100 of 23,900 (UBA, 2004).

Table 6-1 below gives an overview of GWP, atmospheric lifetime etc. for individual HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and some other GHG for reference. Note the high GWP and lifetimes of the industrial GHGs, particularly PFCs and SF6.

Reduction measures

Generally, HFCs and SF6 are deliberately produced and used in equipment and in products. Releases are primarily generated when using the substances or during the disposal of equipment or products. Substitution/phase-out is therefore the main type of measure for these substances.

PFC releases, on the other hand, are mainly generated as unwanted pollutant formation from the production of primary aluminium. Here, improved production technology and release reduction measures are the important types of measures.

Since HFCs and PFCs were developed as substitutes for ODSs, their application areas are almost identical. Particularly HFCs have contributed in several areas to a fast ODS phase-out. On the other hand, halogen-free ODS substitutes established themselves right from the beginning in many areas of application, for example, as solvents or cleaning agents, as refrigerants, as fire extinguishing agents and in many application areas of the foam industry. However, some products and processes based on halogen-free substances have only in recent years reached a technical level which makes their use economically and ecologically viable. This applies to the use of CO2 as refrigerant and the use of halogen-free blowing agents in the foam production. Today, these techniques can fully replace processes and products that were based on fluorinated gases and were indispensable at the time.

Comparative release trends

The relative importance of releases from the addressed industrial GHGs has shifted in the EU over the last decades. The GWP contributions from HFC releases have doubled due to their role as substitutes for ODSs, while releases of PFCs and SF6 have shown a downward trend. HFCs now clearly constitute the major contributions to global warming from the industrial GHGs (EEA, 2004).

Table 6-1 Overview of the Global Warming Potential, Radiative Forcing Values and Atmospheric Lifetime (IPCC 1994; IPCC 1995; WMO 1999: From: Harnisch et al. 2003; IPCC 2001: From: Harnisch et al.)

Table 6-1 Overview of the Global Warming Potential, Radiative Forcing Values and Atmospheric Lifetime

The GWP values indicated in table 6-1 have been agreed upon by the countries that are party to the UNFCCC. The only exceptions are the values indicated for newer substances. For them, no GWP has been determined so far. It may be possible that other publications list other GWP values, because they are based on other models. Current data are based on improved spectroscopic data and modified atmospheric lifetime values.

6.2 Sources and releases

No data adequately describing releases distributed on major source categories were identified for the global situation, for Russia, Ukraine or China. Relevant data on releases for Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the USA were reviewed. Fragmented data from some Russian and Ukrainian sources were however identified and reviewed. Based on the review, the emission patterns in all these countries appear relatively similar, except for some major industrial source categories not present in Denmark and Ireland (UBA, 2004; Poulsen, 2004; Pedersen, 2003; Irish EPA, 2003; US EPA, 2004). As the German data illustrate the widest range of sources and the most suitable data series, these data are presented below. Though national and regional differences exist, these data are considered relevant indicators of the general importance of the major source categories. One potential difference could be that consumption/emissions of gases used for air conditioning and refrigeration may be relatively more important in warm climates, such as in China. On the other hand, the high economic activity per capita in Western countries may perhaps partly outweigh such a potential difference. This issue has not been investigated in more detail for this report.

While in open systems emission and consumption rates are identical, closed systems generate large amounts of stored gas (stock). From this yearly growing stock, the substances are - completely or partially – emitted throughout the entire lifetime of the product and during disposal. Reports on fluorinated greenhouse gases therefore distinguish between actual and potential emissions.

Table 6-2 presents time series for the releases of industrial greenhouse gases from various sources in Germany. A listing in text form of applications (and formation sources) is also given below the table.

Table 6-2 Emissions of industrial greenhouse gases in Germany 1995-2002, by gas and application (from UBA, 2004, quoting BReg, 2004)

Table 6-2 Emissions of industrial greenhouse gases in Germany 1995-2002, by gas and application

Notes: * Data in the column "2002*" designate potential emissions, that is stocks of the substance built up in products and processes in that year. The column "2002" designates actual releases in 2002.

Major intentional uses and other source categories

HFCs

Application areas of HFCs include mainly the following:

  • Stationary and mobile refrigeration and air-conditioning units (as refrigerant); a main emission source in Germany;
  • Insulating materials/foams (as blowing agent); a main emission source in Germany;
  • Aerosols (as propellant).

Other applications include the following:

  • The production of semi-conductors (as etching gas);
  • Their use as fire extinguishing agent;
  • Medical applications;
  • Their use as solvent.

Another source of HFC releases is by-product formation in production of HCFCs. This source is decreasing in the western world due to ongoing substitution of HCFC uses, but may be increasing in the developing world due to their need for it as a transitional substitute for CFCs. Misuse of (CDM) funding for establishment of new HCFC production facilities with lower HFC releases is reported; apparently because the trading of associated CO2 credits alone enables such transactions economically. This is counterproductive to the goals of Montreal Protocol.

PFCs

Despite comprehensive upgrade and emission reduction measures, the largest PFC emission source in Germany is the aluminium industry. Unlike other PFC emission sources, the aluminium industry does not use PFCs, but generates them in the production process. The main application area of PFCs is the production of semi-conductors (BReg 2004). The global emissions of CF4 (one of the PFCs) was appr. 15,000 tonnes in 1990 and fell to appr. 10,500 tonnes in 1995. The annual global emission of C2F6 was about 2,000 tonnes in 1990 and 1995 (Pedersen, 2003).

PFCs are specifically used for the following applications:

  • Production of semi-conductors (as etching gas); a main application area in Germany;
  • Production of circuit boards (as etching gas);
  • Refrigeration systems (as refrigerant),
  • Medical applications;
  • As tracer gas.

SF6

SF6 is not a substitute for ODSs. It has been used since the late 1960s (UBA, 2004). The global consumption is about 7,500 tons annually, of which approximately 6,000 tons are used as dielectric (insulating) gas in high-voltage electrical installations. Much of this is applied in the growing energy sector in Asia. The consumption is relatively lower now in western countries, because the sector here was built out earlier, and existing stocks are recycled. Magnesium production is the second largest application field globally; app. 500 tons annually (Pedersen, 2003).

SF6 is used in a large variety of applications:

  • Double-glazing applications (as insulating gas; soundproof glass);
  • Electrical equipment (as insulating and arc-quenching gas);
  • Magnesium foundries (as cover gas);
  • Production of semi-conductors (as etching gas);
  • Trainers/shoes (as cushioning);
  • Car tyres (as filling gas);
  • Electronic high-voltage equipment (electron microscopes, x-ray devices etc.);
  • Aluminium foundries (e.g. as degasser);
  • Tracer gas;
  • Leak detection gas.

Until a few years ago, the major emission source in Germany was car tyres. Today, major emission sources include soundproof windows, electrical equipment, magnesium foundries and production of semi-conductors. All other applications are of less relevance as emission sources (BReg 2004). The various applications make use of the different properties of SF6.

6.2.1 Available release data from Russia and Ukraine

The data shown in table 2-1 below was extracted from the Third National Communication of the Russian Federation (2002). The Third National Communication of the Russian Federation on activities under the Convention was compiled by the Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Institute of Global Climate and Ecology under Roshydromet and the Russian Academy of Sciences was the leading contributor) at the request of the Inter-Agency Commission of the Russian Federation on Climate Change. This Communication was prepared in accordance with the decisions, methodological guidelines and recommendations of the UNFCCC. Federal Ministries and Agencies participating in the Federal Target Programme “Prevention of Dangerous Changes of Climate and their Adverse Effects”, many organizations, and scientific institutions of the Russian Federation have been involved in its preparation. Total anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases from the territory of Russia in 1999 (in CO2-equivalent) amounted to 61.5 % of the 1990 emission. Table 6-3 presents GHG emission trends in 1990 - 1999 (without CO2 removal by forests).

Table 6-3 Anthropogenic emission of GHGs (million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents) in the Russian Federation

Emission Year
  1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 *1
(% of 1990)
CO2 2360 1660 1590 1500 1530 1510 1510 64
CH4 550 410 390 390 300 310 290 53
N2O 98 49 43 41 44 34 35 36
PFC, HFC, SF6 40 35 38 36 39 41 42 106
Total 3050 2150 2060 1970 1910 1900 1880 62

Note: *1: Calculated using un-rounded emission figures

The US EPA (2001) calculated rough estimates and projections of industrial GHG releases from a number of countries including the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The estimates and projections were for most countries based on emission profiles derived from the US situation, and should therefore likely be considered as associated with significant uncertainties. The US estimates operate with a term called "ODS substitution". This category of release sources includes applications of HFCs and, to a lesser extent, PFCs, and hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) which are replacing ODSs in a wide variety of applications, including as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, solvents, foam blowing agents, medical sterilization carrier gases, and fire extinguishing agents.

A further split of emissions of industrial GHG in Russia is provided in based on personal communication from the Russian Institute of Global Climate and Ecology.

Table 6-4 Fluorinated gases emissions in the Russian Federation by gas, 1990–1999 (tonnes CÎ2 equivalent)

Source categories 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Emissions of HFCs 9 700 9 800 9 800 9 800 7 000 7 600 5 900 9 449 9 458 9 466
Emissions of PFCs 30 000 29 700 29 700 29 700 28 000 30 600 30 200 30 487 31 411 32 982
Emissions of SF6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 16 16
Total emissions 39 700 39 500 39 500 39 500 35 000 38 200 36 100 39 952 40 885 42 464

NA stands for Not Available

The US EPA (2001) estimates thus derived for Russia and Ukraine are presented in table 6-5.

Table 6-5 Industrial GHG releases in Russia and Ukraine roughly estimated/projected by US EPA (2001)

  Releases in million tonnes of CO2 equivalent
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Russia:          
ODS substitutes (refrigeration and other uses of HFCs, PFCs and HFEs) n.a. 0 6 21 41
HFC-23 fugitive emissions 5.1 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
PHC from aluminium production 15.4 10.0 9.8 9.5 8.7
SF6 from magnesium smelters n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SF6 from electric appliances (switches etc.) 0.0 3.1 1.6 1.4 1.4
HFC, PFC from semiconductor production <0.05 0 0 1 1
Ukraine:          
ODS substitutes (refrigeration and other uses of HFCs, PFCs and HFEs) n.a. 0 0.3 0.9 1.7
HFC-23 fugitive emissions n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
PHC from aluminium production 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
SF6 from magnesium smelters 0.6 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
SF6 from electric appliances (switches etc.) 0 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3
HFC and PFC from semiconductor production n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Note: n.a.: releases from the source were not estimated.

Russian and Ukrainian data submitted for UNFCCC secretariat

Russia

No national emission inventory report (so-called NIR) for greenhouse gases for the Russian Federation had been posted on the UNFCCC inventory web site by May 2005 (UNFCCC 2005). Parties are expected to submit their fourth national communication to the secretariat by 1 January 2006.

Ukraine

A national emission inventory report (so-called NIR) for greenhouse gases for Ukraine is also available from the UNFCCC inventory web site (UNFCCC 2005).

Of the industrial GHG, the report only mentions PFC releases from aluminium production (an unintended formation of pollutants). These GHG releases from aluminium production in Ukraine are shown in table 6-6.

Table 6-6 GHG releases from aluminium production in Ukraine (tonnes CO2 equivalents)

GHG 2001 2002
CO2 181.50 189.00
CF4 0.21 0.21
C2F6 0.02 0.02

China

No information on industrial GHGs in China was identified at authoritative web sites on the issue (IPCC and UNFCCC). It cannot be ruled out however that information exists which could be identified through a more extensive data search.

6.3 Main reduction measures

Substitution/phase-out

The main measure for emission reduction for the addressed industrial greenhouse gases is substitution of intentional uses. The alternatives available are other substances and adjusted techniques - see table 6-7 below. For most applications the alternatives are commercially available today.

Release reductions

For a few major source categories, the emissions are generated through unintended formation in industrial processes. This is the case for PFC emissions from aluminium production and HFC emissions from production of HCFCs. The latter has been reduced significantly in the EU over the last decade due to the substitution of the ozone depleting HCFCs, which are covered by the Montreal Protocol and its amendments (EEA, 2004). This development may likely be expected in Russia, Ukraine and China at a later stage too, if they eliminate their production/use of HCFC in accordance with the Montreal protocol and its amendments.

General reduction measures

Table 6-8 overleaf gives a quite detailed overview of general measures applicable for the reduction of industrial GHG releases by substance (group) and sector.

Table 6-7 Main alternatives for halogenated industrial greenhouse gases in important applications (from UBA, 2004, unless noted)

Substance Formula (R-Code *1) Application area, current (and under development) ** Comments
Carbon dioxide CO2(R 744) Compressed propellant in spray cans; foam production; fire extinguishing agent; refrigerant (degreasing solvent) GWP=1. CO2 can be produced from process waste gases that would otherwise be emitted, and is therefor climate-neutral when used in this manner. CO2 is stabile and has hardly any adverse effects except climate impacts and "drowning" if air is displaced quickly by CO2 (as must be the case for all compressed gases)
Propane/butane C3H8/C4H10(R 290/R 600a) Propellant in spray cans - an important substitute here; refrigerants in domestic and small commercial units, as well as in larger "cascade" systems GWP100 <5. Highly flammable. Not toxic, but drug-like effect at high concentrations.
Pentane(linear/cyclic) C5H12 /C5H10 Foaming of plastics GWP100 <5. Highly flammable. Forms explosive mixtures with air, meaning that stringent safety measures are required. Health effects at high concentration of vapours, but drug-like effect, liquid may irritate eyes and skin.
Ammonia NH3 (R 717) Refrigerant Odorous. Strong irritant, toxic if inhaled, very toxic in aquatic environments.
Dimethyl ether, DME (CH3)2O An important alternative propellant in spray cans; sometimes used as refrigerant Drug-like effect at high concentrations. Highly ignitable.
Nitrogen N2 Compressed propellant in spray cans; fire extinguishing agent; filling gas in car tyres No adverse effects except "drowning" if air is displaced quickly by N2 (as must be the case for all compressed gases)

*1 R-codes are used for refrigerants only.

Table 6-8 Overview of general release reduction measures for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (based on UBA, 2004, and Pedersen, 2003)

Application / sector GHG ad-
dressed *1		 Measures
Centralised multi-compressor systems (super-markets etc.) HFCs New units: Prefer halogen-free substitutes widely available today (state of the art in some countries): CO2, ammonia, hydrocarbons; use indirect systems when necessary for safety reasons (in indirect systems the refrigeration unit is placed outside the shopping area).
Old units: Minimise HFC losses.
Large scale industrial refrigeration systems (food, chemical and pharma industry, cold storage) HFCs, PFCs New units: Prefer ammonia systems (already widely applied) - and perhaps in the future CO2 systems.
Old units: Avoid PFC use due to high GWP; minimise refrigerant losses.
Domestic refrigerator units HFCs Prefer halogen-free units now widespread on the market in Europe and other places (both refrigerants and insulation in units).
Commercial plug-in refrigerator units HFCs Prefer halogen-free units now commercially available (for smaller units - up to 150g refrigerant charges - halogen-free units are state of the art). These technologies also reduce energy demand and thereby CO2 releases.
Support development of safe hydrocarbon units with 150g - 500g refrigerant charges, as well as CO2 units.
Large scale air conditioning systems HFCs (PFCs?) New units: Prefer ammonia (already widely applied) or hydrocarbon systems.
Old units: Avoid PFC use due to high GWP; minimise refrigerant losses.
Room air conditioning systems (domestic) HFCs Minimise HFC losses.
Support development of hydrocarbon and CO2 systems.
XPS insulating foams (rigid) HFCs Prefer production/products with CO2 as blowing agent (widely used today in Germany and the Nordic countries).
Insulating PUR foams (rigid) HFCs Prefer production/products with hydrocarbons or CO2 as blowing agents
Soft and integral skin PUR foams HFCs Prefer production/products with CO2 or water as blowing agents. State of the art for soft foams in the Nordic countries.
Jointing foams (one component sealants) HFCs Prefer production/products with hydrocarbons as blowing agents.
Solvent use for degreasing HFCs Prefer halogen-free alternative techniques (water based, alcohol based, aliphatic hydrocarbon based), or solvent-free techniques (such as plasma cleaning).
Aluminium production (PFC formation as pollutant) PFCs Release reduction measures, process optimisation, cleaner technologies (measures not investigated in detail here)
Semi-conductor and circuit board manufacture PFCs (HFCs; SF6) Release reduction measures (afterburners for waste gas etc.).
Support ongoing development of alternatives
Switches in electricity production and supply SF6 Prefer use of existing SF6-free installations (vacuum switches) in medium voltage installations (1-36 kV);
Support development of alternatives for high voltage installations
Cover gas in magnesium foundries SF6 Prefer traditional SO2 as cover gas (in closed systems to protect working environment), or a new substitute: perfluoroketone (C6F12O, GWP100 = appr. 1)
Sound insulating windows SF6 Eliminate the use of SF6 and improve construction of window (a planned measure in the EU; UBA, 2004)

*1 For many applications HCFCs and CFCs have also been used, and in some cases substitution has happened directly from theses substances to non-GHG substitutes.

6.4 International regulation and agreements

6.4.1 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

HFCs, PFCs and SF6 are addressed in the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Other substances covered by the Protocol are the high volume gases CO2, methane and N2O. The Protocol defines binding reduction targets for the total emission of all addressed greenhouse gases, calculated by use of so-called carbon dioxide equivalents, for each of the Parties to the Protocol.

The targets are expressed as a percentage of the total emission of the Party in question in 1990 (or another predefined baseline year), and are defined for each of the Parties individually. The reduction targets for the countries of primary interest here are presented in table 6-9. The target must be met as an annual average over the years 2008-2012 (incl.).

Table 6-9 Reduction targets for GWP releases of the addressed countries (based on the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B, unless noted)

Country Reduction t o be achieved, in percentage
of total GWP of base year *1
Russian Federation 0 %
Ukraine 0 %
China ?*2
Denmark 8 %(21%)

*1 A reduction of 0% actually means conserving status quo for releases in spite of expected increases in the economical activity. Denmark's reduction target is 8% according to what is presented in Annex B to the Protocol. As a result of Danish commitments within the EU (which is also a party to the Protocol), Denmark's actual reduction target is 21%.

*2 China is a so-called Annex II Party (a developing country). No reduction target for China is presented in the Protocol.

Carbon dioxide equivalents - also called global warming potential, GWP - are units reflecting the ability of a substance to contribute to the greenhouse effect relative to the contribution of the same amount of carbon dioxide (which by definition has GWP =1) over a specified time period. In the context of the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the international community has agreed to use 100 years (GWP100) as a standard to enhance comparability.

Meeting the reduction target for a country can be achieved by cutting emissions of the addressed substances, or by increasing greenhouse gas removals in predefined so-called "sinks", for example by planting forests which accumulate CO2 from the atmosphere. It is important to understand that all the addressed substances contribute to the same adverse effect, though at different rates per amount, and reduction targets are not defined individually for the substances. This means that the Parties may decide for themselves which substances in which sectors they prefer to address with reduction measures. Reducing the overall national emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents through reductions of emissions of HFCs, PFCs or SF6 are just some of the options available.

Besides national reductions on a Party's own territory, the Protocol also establishes three “mechanisms” for bilateral or multilateral cooperation to cut releases known as joint implementation (with parties to the Protocol), the clean development mechanism (with developing countries including China), and emissions trading. These are designed to help Parties cut the cost of meeting their individual emission targets by taking advantage of opportunities to reduce releases, or increase greenhouse gas removals, that cost less in other countries than at home.

With joint implementation (JI) a party to the Kyoto Protocol can implement reduction initiatives in other parties to the Protocol which fulfil certain documentation and registration requirements. Most JI projects are expected to take place in countries with economies in transition in Eastern Europe. The financing country can subtract the achieved reductions on its own climate gas budget and thereby reduce the need for reduction efforts on their own territory. A system has been developed whereby such reduction efforts can be traded commercially through what could be called "carbon credits". For example, Denmark calls for tenders from industry and other commercial partners, for such projects that reduce climate gas emissions in other countries, and the tenders can be evaluated according to how many tons of CO2 equivalents reductions can be achieved per US dollar, Euro or DKK. A JI project might involve, for example, replacing a coal-fired power plant with a more efficient combined heat and power plant.

The clean development mechanism (CDM) works in a similar manner, but applies only to developing countries (which have not committed themselves to specific CO2 reduction targets stated in the Protocol). CDM projects must be evaluated and approved in a special forum set up under the Protocol and its later accords.

More information on the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC and later documents laying down rules for the mentioned mechanisms is available at the UNFCCC homepage at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

6.4.2 Other agreements

The addressed industrial greenhouse gases are not covered in other agreements assessed in this project.

6.5 Overview of existing activities

An overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 6-10.

Table 6-10 Existing initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China with relation to industrial GHG releases

Donor/finance institution Projects/comments Period
Budget
GEF
(China)		 Barrier Removal for the Widespread Commercialization of Energy-Efficient CFC-Free Refrigerators in China (UNOPS/China National Environmental Protection Agency): This project will reduce GHG emissions in China by removing barriers to the widespread commercialization of energy-efficient refrigerators. The project addresses the key market, technological, social, and commercial barriers both to the adoption of high-efficiency refrigerator technology by Chinese manufacturers and to the acceptance of high-efficient refrigerators by Chinese consumers. Activities include technical assistance and training for compressor and refrigerator manufacturers, incentives for energy efficient product design or modification and conversion of factory production lines, national efficiency standards, a national labelling program, consumer education and outreach, dealer and manufacturer incentive programs, and a consumer buyback/recycling program. (Eds.: The project does appear to explicitly include reduction of industrial GHGs, but was mentioned here due to its relevance to the specific recommendations mentioned in section 6.6) 1998 -

Project cost: 41 mUSD

of which GEF Grant:

9.9 mUSD
CIDA/USAID
(Ukraine)		 Ukrainian activities pertaining to climate change are described on the web site of the so-called "Climate Change Initiative" - see text below table.  
UNIDO *1
(China)		 Replacement of CFC-11 and CFC-12 with cyclopentane and HFC-134a in the production of refrigerators at Banshen electric appliances co. The objective of the project is to phase out the average direct use of 90 mt CFC-12 and 473 mt CFC-11 in the production of refrigerators and freezers at Banshen Electlric Appliances Co. in China. The selected ODS substitutes are cyclopentane blowing agent and HFC-134a refrigerant. (Eds.: Direct jump to cyclopentane blowing agent and phase-in (!) of HFC). ? (completed)

2.8 mUSD budget
(China) Replacement of CFC-11 with HCFC-141b foam blowing agent and CFC-12 with HFC- 134a in the manufacture of domestic refrigerators/freezers at the Beijing freezing equipment factory. (Eds.: Phase-in (!) of HFC). ? - 2000

0.27mUSD
(China) Phasing out ODS at the household refrigerator compressor factory of the Guangzhou Wanbao Compressor Group. Phase out the direct use of CFC-12 refrigerant in the production of the household refrigerator compressors at the Household Refrigerator Compressor Factory of the Guangzhou Wanbao Compressor Group in Guangzhou and the indirect elimination of the use of 250 mt of CFC-12 refrigerant in the manufacturing of refrigerators and freezers at plants using these compressors. It was decided to select HFC-134a as replacement refrigerant. (Eds.: Phase-in (!) of HFC). ? (completed)

2.2 mUSD
EU - Tacis
(Russia)		 Tacis - institutional support to Kyoto Protocol implementation. The overall objective of the project is to assist the Russian government in preparing the necessary conditions for implementation of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol provisions. The main components include:- development of recommendations for improving the Russian greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions monitoring and reporting system, including the institutional organisation of this system, and the methodology for preparing the national GHG emissions inventory;- development of recommendations for improving the legal basis for the Russian national GHG emissions monitoring and reporting system;- transfer of knowledge to key Russian stakeholders of EU 'Best practice' principles for monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions;- assistance in establishing a Russian National GHG registry as required under article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol, including the design, institutional organisation and legal basis of the registry;- Transfer of knowledge to key Russian stakeholders of EU 'Best practice' principles for setting up a national GHG registry; and- Development of recommendations for a Russian system for the realisation of projects under the Kyoto Protocol and national guidelines for the approval of such projects, including its institutional organisation and any necessary legal provisions. 2004 -?

2 mEUR
(Ukraine) Tacis - technical assistance to the NIS with respect to their global climate change commitments. (One of several components :) The contract for Ukraine and Belarus:- the establishment of a greenhouse-gas inventory system;- the development of the infrastructure for joint implementation projects; 2003 - ?

1.3 mEUR

Notes: *1: Various other UNIDO projects in China may include the phase-in of HFCs in refrigeration units with the aim of phase-out of ODSs. Not all ODS substitution projects were checked for industrial GHG relevance.

Other information about ongoing activities

Ukrainian activities pertaining to climate change are described on the web site of the so-called "Climate Change Initiative" (http://www.climate.org.ua/index.html). The web page is funded by USAID assisted by the Canadian International Development Agency. The web page describes the overall organisation set up for developing and implementing Ukrainian policies on GHG, initiated HGH reduction projects, and elements of a national inventory for CO2, methane and N2O for selected sectors. Except for the release data for PFCs from aluminium production shown in table 6-8 above, the web site does not mention industrial greenhouse gases explicitly. The web page lists various potential projects related to general implementation of the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol requirements. The (anticipated?) organisations funding/financing the projects are USAID, CIDA (Canada), The World Bank, Switzerland and the GEF (via UNDP).

 

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |



Version 1.0 May 2006, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency