Experience with Monitoring

1
Experience with Monitoring Reporting in the
EU-ETS12 May 2005

• Glass
• Technical session VII
• Guy Tackels

CPIV 89, Avenue Louise (Box2)B - 1050 
Brussels Phone [phone] Fax 32 2 537
84 69www.cpivglass.be
2
European Glass Industry

• Very diverse (Flat glass, Container, Special
  glass, Tableware, Fibreglass, etc)
• Size from 5.000 t CO2/year up to more 400.000 t/y
  for an installation
• In France, on 50 installations, 30 are above
  100.000 t/y and 40 are below 50.000 t/y
• Glass quality is essential. This requires a very
  stable process, running continuously.

3
Glass industry

• Two main sources for CO2
• Combustion HFO and NG
• Process emissions coming from the raw materials
  (carbonates decomposition)
• Other sources are generally of minor importance
  Diesel oil, SO2 scrubbing, ( with sometime de
  minimis approach applicable)

4
Carbonates
Acid gases scrubbing
CO2
Sales
5
Main remarks about the questionnaire

• Definition of a  Source , boundaries
• Definition of  unreasonably high cost 
• Difficult to comment a document not yet used in
  practice
• In annex IX (Glass) Method B alkali oxides is
  not recommended in practice
• Tiers level not always easy to prove
• Pragmatic attitude required from the verification
  body. Important to take into account verification
  costs

6
Main remarks about the questionnaire

• Continuous monitoring unrealistic
• Do not add a new system when others are already
  existing (UK CCA, WBCSD/WRI adapted to glass
  industry, ) Discussion with industry will be
  helpful.
• Level playing field Same glass factory could be
  treated differently in different MS
• Etc

7
CO2 monitoring in the glass industry

• CO2 from combustion
• CO2 from process decomposition of carbonates
  from raw materials (mainly sodium carbonates,
  calcium carbonates and dolomite)
• What is the simplest solution?
• For monitoring?
• For verification?

8
Some suggestions from the glass industry

• The combustion products used on the site are
  mainly
• Heavy fuel oil
• Natural gas
• The best and more accurate data are coming from
  the bills from the suppliers (including stock
  corrections)
• For raw materials, same conclusion the bills
  from the suppliers give the best accurate results

9
Data used for commercial purpose are quite
sufficient to monitor CO2

• Monitoring plan must be based on bills
• Definition of the source must be clarified
• No sub-metering required to monitor the total
  emission of an installation
• The verification will be simplified and total
  cost will be kept at reasonable level

10
A last suggestion

• Monitoring plans should be harmonised at EU
  level.
• Why not to work on a single document
• A calculation tool developed by the CPIV could be
  a good starting point. This tool was adapted from
  the WBCSD/WRI reporting system

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
THANK YOU!