Quantification of GHG Emissions Due to

2009 Operations of the Catawba County

EcoComplex and Resource Recovery
Facility
UNC Charlotte, Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Written by
Trip Branch, Graduate Student of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science
Under the supervision of
Dr. Gloria Elliott, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science
12/3/2010
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Scope 1 Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Stationary Combustion.............................................................................................................................. 6
Physical and Chemical Processes ............................................................................................................. 6
Mobile Combustion .................................................................................................................................. 7
Possible Improvements to Mobile Combustion Emissions Accuracy .................................................. 8
Fugitive Sources...................................................................................................................................... 10
White Goods Recycling Program ....................................................................................................... 10
Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion System Leaks ........................................................................ 12
Scope 2 Emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Purchased Electricity .............................................................................................................................. 12
Scope 3 Emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Commuter Travel .................................................................................................................................... 13
Biogas Combustion Emissions.................................................................................................................... 14
Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion.................................................................................................... 14
Total Carbon Footprint of the EcoComplex ............................................................................................... 17
Upper-Bound Simplified Estimation Method Approach ............................................................................ 21
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Equations ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 28

List of Figures

Figure 1: Estimated mass flows of R-134a at the EcoComplex during 2009 using the data provided from
the white goods recycling program. ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2: LGCCS schematic detailing locations of interest for this report. ................................................ 14
Figure 3: Respective contributions to the total carbon footprint from biogas combustion, compost, mobile
combustion, white goods, electricity use and commuters (in MTCO2e) using the assumptions of scenario
1 in the biogas combustion section. ............................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4: Comparison of the EcoComplex’s 2009 total carbon footprint (assuming scenario 1 of the
biogas combustion section) (bottom) and the total carbon footprint without the LGCCS (top). This
comparison was made assuming the landfill gas, when measured, was mix of 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 at
310 K and 101 kPa. ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Comparison of the EcoComplex’s 2009 total carbon footprint (assuming scenario 2 of the
biogas combustion section) (bottom) and the total carbon footprint without the LGCCS (top). This
comparison was made assuming the landfill gas, when measured, was mix of 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 at
310 K and 101 kPa. If scenario 2 of the biogas section is used this would require that the CH4 gas that
leaked from the LGCCS be accounted as fugitive emissions. It is unclear whether the discrepancy in the
net power developed by the LGCCS is strictly due to gas leaks and this figure simply depicts what the
maximum carbon footprint could be if only leaks are considered the culprit. ............................................ 20
Figure 6: A flow diagram showing the GHG emissions that were emitted by the EcoComplex in 2009 and
the resultant MTCO2e. ................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 7: A pictorial flow diagram showing the GHG emissions that were emitted by the EcoComplex in
2009 and the resultant MTCO2e.................................................................................................................. 29

List of Tables
Table 1: CH4 and N2O emission factors for different composting processes. .............................................. 7
Table 2: Fuel used at the EcoComplex and respective emission factors provided by the GRP. ................... 8
Table 3: Data provided by the EcoComplex concerning its fleet of vehicles in 2009. ................................. 9
Table 4: GRP emission factors for the different classes of vehicles at the EcoComplex. .......................... 10
Table 5: EcoComplex electricity purchases 2009. ...................................................................................... 12
Table 6: Emission rates for electricity generation....................................................................................... 13
Table 7: Emission factors and automobile efficiency for commuting during 2009. ................................... 14
Table 8: Total gas captured and energy produced in 2009 at the EcoComplex. ......................................... 16
Table 9: Values used in scenario 2 of the biogas section. ........................................................................... 16
Table 10: Default characteristic of landfill gas. .......................................................................................... 16
Table 11: Global warming potential values used in this carbon footprint report for calculations. ............. 27
Table 12: The annual fee structure for Climate Registry Basic Membership. ............................................ 27

Glossary of Terms/Abbreviations/Acronyms

ηJEN Thermal efficiency of a Jenbacher reciprocating gas engine

AE Agricultural equipment
ASP Aerated static pile
Btu British thermal unit
CE Construction equipment
CW Composted waste
DAE Diesel agricultural equipment
DCE Diesel construction equipment
DHDV Diesel heavy duty vehicle
DLDV Diesel light duty vehicle
EF Emission factor (type denoted by subscript)
EGOE Energy generation of optimal efficiency
ER Emission rate (type denoted by subscript)
FE Fuel economy
FO Fraction oxidized
g Grams
gal Gallon
GHDT Gasoline heavy duty truck
GHG Greenhouse gas
GLDT Gasoline light duty truck
gph Gallons per hour
GRP General Reporting Protocol
GWP Global warming potential (type denoted by subscript)
HHV Higher heating value
hr Hour
HVF Total fuel used by the hourly vehicle of focus (in gallons)

2|Page
HVFEF Emission factor of the hourly vehicle of focus (in kgCO2e/gal)
kg Kilograms
kPa Kilopascal
kWh Kilo-watt hours
LFGOPTIMAL The amount of landfill gas needed to produce the net power produced by the
EcoComplex’s LFGCCS if it operated at a published thermal efficiency of 46.1%
LFGC Landfill gas captured
LFGCCS Landfill gas capture and combustion system
LHV Lower heating value
LLFG Leaked landfill gas
MC Mobile combustion
MD Miles driven (type denoted by subscript)
MF Mole fraction
MMBtu Mega-British thermal unit
MT Metric tons
MTCO2e Metric tons of CO2 equivalent
MVF Total mileage of the mileage vehicle of focus (in miles)
MVFEF Emission factor of the mileage vehicle of focus (in kgCO2e/mile)
MW Molecular weight
MWh Mega-watt hours
MF Mole fraction (type denoted by subscript)
NH Other non-highway equipment
OH Operation hours (type denoted by subscript)
PP Partial pressure (type denoted by subscript)
R Universal gas constant (8.314 kJ/kmol*K)
T Truck
Tgas Temperature of a gas
TAFP Total annual fuel purchases
TCMC Total carbon dioxide emissions from mobile combustion
TEC Total emissions from composting
TECCLFG Total emissions from the combustion of captured landfill gas
TECP Total emissions from commuter patterns
TEEG Total emissions due to electricity generation
TEG Total electricity generated
TELFG Total emissions that would have resulted if the captured landfill gas had escaped
into the atmosphere
TELLFG Total emissions from leaked landfill gas
TEMC Total emissions due to mobile combustion
TEP Total electricity purchases
TEPE Total emissions from purchased electricity
TER Total emissions from refrigerant
TFBY Total fuel at the beginning of the year (in gallons)
TFEY Total fuel at the end of the year (in gallons)
TFP Total fuel purchases (in gallons)
TLFGC Total landfill gas captured
TMMC Total methane emissions from mobile combustion

3|Page
TMT Total miles traveled
TNMC Total N2O emissions from mobile combustion
TR Total refrigerant
ULSD Ultra low sulfur diesel
scft Standard cubic foot (ft3)
WOUT Work (in kWh)
White good Household appliance (in the case of this document, one which contains
refrigerant)

4|Page
Introduction

Over the past several decades sentiment regarding global climate change has been
evolving in response to information about changing levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that exist
at any given time within the earth’s atmosphere. In response to the growing consensus that
human activities have the ability to cause fairly rapid and unfavorable changes in the GHG to
non-GHG ratio that currently exists in the earth’s atmosphere, a carbon footprint has quickly
become a favored tool for environmentally conscientious organizations. A carbon footprint
serves as an additional metric to assess the impact of investments made by an industry. With new
incentives to lower GHG emissions being devised every day, an accurate list detailing the
sources of GHG emissions can be viewed as a commodity. As quantification of the GHG
emissions due to an organization’s day to day operations becomes more widespread within its
own framework, decisions can be made more quickly and with an increasing level of confidence
about the downstream effects.
The following report provides a carbon footprint analysis of the Catawba County
EcoComplex and Resource Recovery Facility (EcoComplex) by using calculation based
methodologies for quantifying GHG emissions. Initial research into the GHG quantification
process for the private sector revealed that a suitable template for the carbon footprint of the
EcoComplex would be The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol. This protocol
provides guidance for the voluntary account, verification and registry of GHG emissions in
North America and is updated regularly by The Climate Registry, which is a non-profit
organization. In order to verify and register GHG emission with The Climate Registry, an
organization is required to account for emissions using the guidelines laid out in the GRP and
later have these emissions verified by a Registry-recognized verification body. Membership dues
are based on the sector (commercial, industrial, non-profit, etc.) and yearly revenue or budget
(depending on the sector) of an organization. The annual fee structure can be found in Table 12
in the appendix. In general, this report was created in an attempt to calculate GHG emissions at
the EcoComplex in accordance with this protocol so that 2009 emissions can later be verified
and registered with the Climate Registry.
Project specific protocols, which were also investigated, may prove useful in the
management of ongoing projects at the EcoComplex which can be considered GHG sinks or
sources. Both the Chicago Climate Exchange’s Agricultural Methane Collection and Combustion
Offset Project Protocol and the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Composting Project
Protocol were consulted in order to investigate the emission factors as well measurement and
monitoring requirements that may apply to projects similar to the EcoComplex’s landfill gas
capture and combustion project (LFGCCS) and composting operations, respectively.
For the purposes of this report 2009 operations at the EcoComplex were considered. A
“control approach” was used to determine the GHG sources that were under operational control
of the EcoComplex organization during 2009 (The Climate Registry, 2008). Bolded headings
describe the scope of emissions being considered in a section and the italicized subsections
describe the data provided by the EcoComplex regarding GHG sources within that scope, the
methodologies and assumptions used in order to quantify GHG emissions and the calculated
emissions produced by those sources at the EcoComplex during 2009.
The total carbon footprint (bottom of Figure 4) for the Catawba County EcoComplex and
Resource Recovery Facility was calculated to be 18,900 MTCO2e by using the calculation based
methodologies described in this report.

5|Page
Scope 1 Emissions

Scope 1 emissions are all direct emissions that resulted from the operation of sources
within the operational control of the EcoComplex during 2009 (The Climate Registry, 2008).
The distinction “direct” refers to emissions resulting from the stationary and mobile combustion
of fuel, physical and chemical process such as composting, and fugitive sources such as the
unintentional release of refrigerant (The Climate Registry, 2008).

Stationary Combustion
Though landfill gas was combusted in a stationary facility for the purpose of generating
electricity at the EcoComplex, the emissions that resulted do not fall under the scope 1 emission
criteria (The Climate Registry, 2008). All emissions from the combustion of biogas are
considered in the biogas combustion emission section of this report. No other stationary
combustion sources existed at the EcoComplex during 2009.

Physical and Chemical Processes

During 2009 the EcoComplex conducted composting operations. A total of 363.9 MT of
wood waste was processed at the EcoComplex by means of a non-forced aeration method and
turned piles on a one acre site which consisted of one stockpile of waste and one windrow, both
approximately 40-50 ft long and 12-14 ft high. In accordance with this description, the turned
system CH4 and N2O emission factors in Table 1 were used in order to estimate the GHG
emissions due to composting operations conducted in 2009.
Using the preceding methodology, emissions due to composting operations during 2009
at the EcoComplex were estimated to be 70 MTCO2e by using Equation 1 in the appendix. GHG
emissions due to composting account for 0.37% of the total GHG emissions that occurred at the
EcoComplex during 2009. Graphical representation of the contribution of composting to the total
carbon footprint of the EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.
GHG emissions from composting operations are highly dependent on the feedstock used
and can vary greatly due to the variability of decomposition within a system (X. F. Lou, 2009).
Composting feedstock can range from green waste to municipal solid waste to manure and even
these distinctions have a wide spectrum of definition (X. F. Lou, 2009). In preparing this report
emission factors from the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Composting Project Protocol
were used and these values are within the range of default emission factors prescribed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for composting food waste (Climate Action
Reserve, 2010). Inspection of the EcoComplex’s composting site suggested that the waste used
as feedstock for composting operation consisted primarily of wood, leaves and yard waste as
opposed to food waste. The compost system was mechanically turned and it was assumed a
majority of the composting took place under aerobic conditions with any anaerobic pockets
being primarily located at the bottom of the windrow piles. Compost piles with higher
concentrations of food waste will tend to have a higher rate of decay and will, as a result, emit
more GHGs. Therefore, the GHG emissions estimated for composting in this report should be
considered an overestimate of the actual GHG emissions due to composting. It should also be
noted that compost that is kept under the conditions described emits CH4, N2O and biogenic CO2
(Climate Action Reserve, 2010). The biogenic CO2 emissions from the composting process were
ignored in this report because the GRP only requires biogenic CO2 from mobile and stationary
combustion to be reported (The Climate Registry, 2008).

6|Page
 CH4 Emission N2O Emission
Optional Monitoring Factor Factor
Composting Process
Process Control Requirements (MTCO2e/MT of (MTCO2e/MT of
eligible waste) eligible waste)
Turned Systems
(Non-forced
None N/A 0.09 0.09
aeration turned
windrows or piles)
Forced Aeration
Systems (ASP or
None N/A 0.06 0.06
other forced
aeration system)
Table 1: CH4 and N2O emission factors for different composting processes. 1

Mobile Combustion
Data provided by the EcoComplex regarding the EcoComplex’s fleet of vehicles is listed
in Table 3. The fuel used in all vehicles was described as ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and
gasoline. The consumption rates, fuel economies, CO2 emission factors, CH4 emission factors
and N2O emission factors were not readily available for the diverse fleet of vehicles used at the
EcoComplex.
It was possible to estimate the amount of CO2 released due to the combustion of diesel
and gasoline fuel in all vehicles within the fleet given that CO2 emissions are strictly dependent
on the fuel type, not the make, model or year of a vehicle (The Climate Registry, 2008). The CO2
emission factors and fuel data found in Table 2 were used with Equation 2 in order to quantify
the CO2 emissions due to the combustion of diesel and gasoline at the EcoComplex.
In order to calculate the MTCO2e due to the emission of CH4 and N2O gases due to the
combustion of diesel fuel operation data in Table 3 was used along with fuel data in Table 2 in
Equation 2. Quantification of CH4 and N2O emissions of diesel hourly vehicles required that the
total diesel fuel used in 2009 be divided among all the diesel vehicles respective to the operation
data provided so that emission factors relative to gallons consumed could be used for hourly
vehicles. Mileage diesel vehicles were considered first. Fuel economies of diesel heavy duty
vehicles and diesel light duty trucks for which mileage data was provided were assumed to be 10
and 15 mpg, respectively. The miles driven figures for these vehicles were divided by the
respective fuel economy to obtain the diesel fuel consumed by all the mileage vehicles. This
amount of fuel was subtracted from the total diesel fuel purchased in 2009 (Table 2) and the rest
of the diesel fuel was assumed to have been consumed by hourly vehicles. Each hourly vehicle
was assumed to have an average fuel consumption rate of 6.211 gph. This methodology provided
the approximate gallons consumed by each hourly vehicle and these figures were used in
Equation 2.
In order to calculate the MTCO2e due to the emission of CH4 and N2O gases due to the
combustion of gasoline fuel operation data in Table 3 was used along with fuel data in Table 2 in
Equation 2.

1
This table is a portion of table 5.2 of The Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Composting Project Protocol. It
should be noted that the emission factors in this table were calculated specifically for “eligible waste” that is
described as “food waste and soiled paper waste”.

7|Page
 The total emissions due to mobile combustion during 2009 at the EcoComplex were
found to be 1,170 MTCO2e by using Equation 2 in the appendix. GHG emissions due to mobile
combustion of diesel fuel account for 6.19% of the total GHG emissions that occurred at the
EcoComplex during 2009. Graphical representation of the contribution of mobile combustion to
the total carbon footprint of the EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.

Possible Improvements to Mobile Combustion Emissions Accuracy

It should be noted that the preferred technique for quantifying emissions in the GRP is to
directly monitor emissions, regardless of the source. The current methodology used to estimate
emissions has an overarching flaw. In order to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions from hourly
vehicles at the EcoComplex it was necessary to derive fuel consumption rates by using hourly
operation times along with fuel purchases because no mileage or fuel consumption data was
available for these vehicles. The GRP only provides emission factors per mile driven or gallon
consumed. If hourly data is collected for a vehicle, fuel consumption of that vehicle must also be
collected in some way so that the amount and type of fuel combusted by that vehicle can be
easily and accurately determined.
In order to improve the accuracy of emission accounting the following methodology
should be followed. First of all, the amount of fuel combusted during the year in which
accounting is being conducted should be approximated by using Equation 10 and emission
factors found in Table 2. This gives the CO2 emissions that resulted simply from the amount of
fuel that was combusted. CH4 and N2O emissions, however, arise when combustion occurs and
different types of vehicles emit different amounts of these gases. For vehicles for which mileage
data is collected CH4 and N2O emissions can be determined by using Equation 11 along with the
appropriate emission factors that can be found in Table 4. For vehicles for which hourly data is
collected, additional fuel consumption data should be collected so that the total gallons
consumed per vehicle can be determined. For vehicles for which hourly data is collected CH4
and N2O emissions can be determined by using Equation 11 along with the appropriate emission
factors that can be found in Table 4.

Diesel Fuel Purchased in 2009 Estimated Gasoline Consumption of 2009

(gallons) (gallons)2
111,211 3,900
Emission Factor Emission Factor
(kgCO2/gal diesel)3 (kgCO2/gal gasoline)
10.15 8.81
Table 2: Fuel used at the EcoComplex and respective emission factors provided by the GRP.

2
The amount of gasoline consumed in 2009 was determined by assuming each gasoline vehicle came under
“control” of the EcoComplex in the year of manufacture and the cumulative miles provided were distributed evenly
over the subsequent ownership of the vehicle in order to provide the total operation (miles/yr) figures in Table 3.
Next the fuel economy of each gasoline vehicle was assumed to be 15 mpg. Total operation (miles/yr) for each
vehicle was divided by the fuel economy and all these figures were summed to obtain the total gallons of gasoline
consumed by gasoline vehicles.
3
The EcoComplex describes the fuel combusted during 2009 as ULSD and this emission factor is for “diesel fuel
number 1 and 2”. No emission factor was provided by the GRP for ULSD and research shows that emission factors
vary from different suppliers.

8|Page
 Qty Equipment (Diesel) Total Operation (hrs/yr)
2 Dozers4 2,730
4 Compactors4 4,205
2 Loaders4 3,200
2 Excavators4 1,555
3 Off-road Dump Trucks4 2,894
1 Motor Grader4 400
2 Grinders4 1,000
3 Farm Tractors5 600
2 Mowers5 200
Qty Equipment (Diesel) Total Operation (miles/yr)
2 Tandem Trucks6 3,000
2 Mech Trucks6 8,000
2 Road Tractors6 3,000
2 Service Trucks7 3,000
6 Pickup Trucks7 63,700
Qty Equipment (Gasoline) Total Operation8 (miles/yr)
1 Pickup Truck9 (2001) 8 6,796
1 Heavy Duty Truck10 (1982) 8 11,640
Heavy Duty Truck11 (1990)
1 21,349
8
Table 3: Data provided by the EcoComplex concerning its fleet of vehicles in 2009.

Hourly Vehicle Type Combined Emission Factor12 (kgCO2e/gal)

Diesel Construction Equip. 0.093
Diesel Agricultural Equip. 0.1112
Mileage Vehicle Type Combined Emission Factor12 (kgCO2e/mi)
Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicle 0.00161
Diesel Light Duty Truck 0.00049
2001 Gasoline Light Duty Truck 0.0054
1982 Gasoline Heavy Duty Truck13 0.0246
1990 Gasoline Heavy Duty Truck 0.0422
4
Considered construction diesel equipment for emission factors in Table 4.
5
Considered agricultural diesel equipment for emission factors in Table 4.
6
Considered heavy duty diesel vehicle for emission factors in Table 4.
7
Considered light duty diesel truck for emission factors in Table 4.
8
The miles driven in 2009 for this vehicle were determined by assuming it came under “control” of the EcoComplex
in the year of manufacture and the cumulative miles provided were distributed evenly over the subsequent
ownership of the vehicle. This gave an average mileage per year which is displayed as total operation (in miles/yr)
for this vehicle.
9
Consider 2001 light duty gasoline truck for emission factor in Table 4.
10
Considered 1982 heavy duty gasoline truck for emission factor in Table 4.
11
Considered 1990 heavy duty gasoline truck for emission factor in Table 4.
12
“Combined emission factor” denotes that these emission factors combine CH4 and N2O emission factors into one
factor.
13
The GRP only has emission factors for vehicles manufactured after 1985. This is the emission factor of a gasoline
vehicle manufactured in 1985.

9|Page
Table 4: GRP emission factors for the different classes of vehicles at the EcoComplex.

Fugitive Sources
White Goods Recycling Program
In 2009, the EcoComplex conducted a white goods recycling program which included the
processing of items which contained refrigerants. The program policy dictated that recyclers
bring white goods to the EcoComplex to be recycled. Over the year of focus a private contractor
was hired to remove the refrigerant that remained in any white goods. During 2009 a private
contractor visited the EcoComplex in May, July and November and using an extractor apparatus
removed 3.2, 5.4 and 2.7 kg of refrigerant, respectively. During 2009 it was noted that a total of
222.6 MT of white goods were processed in the EcoComplex’s white goods recycling program
and it was estimated that 90% of those white goods contained refrigerant.
In order to calculate the MTCO2e due to the emissions that potentially resulted due to the
storage of recycled white goods containing refrigerant it was necessary to use an upper-bound
simplified estimation method (The Climate Registry, 2008). Several assumptions were required.
In order to simplify the range of types of refrigerant based white goods it was assumed that all
refrigerant based white goods could be described as average sized refrigerators for home use.
Inspection of the EcoComplex’s white goods recycling site as well as an interview with the
landfill superintendent corroborated this assumption. It was also assumed that the average sized
refrigerator weighed approximately 90 kg, including refrigerant, and was equipped with one
compressor that could hold a maximum of 0.28 kg of R-134a refrigerant (doityourself,
2010)(Representative C. A., 2010)(Global Warming Potential of ODS Substitutes, 2010). It was
assumed that 2,226 compressors, each filled with 0.28 kg of R-134a (i.e. fully charged), were
added to the EcoComplex’s white goods recycling site in 2009. Mass flows of R-134a in and out
of the system are shown in Figure 1. The recycling program was modeled as a site which had a
monthly influx of approximately 52 kg of R-134a and at the beginning of May, July and
November had 3.2, 5.4 and 2.7 kg of R-134a manually removed by a private contractor,
respectively. Using this model it was determined that the mass flows result in a total of 612 kg
of R-134a that was not manually removed by the private contractor from the EcoComplex during
2009. It was assumed that all of the remaining 612 kg of R-134a was released into the
atmosphere given that the white goods recycling site is outdoors and R-134a is a gas at
temperatures above -14 °F.
Emissions due to the release of 612 kg of R-134a during 2009 were calculated to be 808
MTCO2e by using Equation 3 in the appendix. GHG emissions due to the release of R-134a
refrigerant account for 4.28% of the total GHG emissions that occurred at the EcoComplex
during 2009. Graphical representation of the contribution of the white goods recycling program
to the total carbon footprint of the EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.

10 | P a g e
Figure 1: Estimated mass flows of R-134a at the EcoComplex during 2009 using the data provided from the white goods
recycling program.
Employing the preceding method in order to estimate the emissions due to the release of
refrigerant that was not removed by a private contractor should be assumed to be an overestimate
given that not much data regarding the white goods recycling program exists at this time. First of
all, it was assumed that every white good processed was a refrigerator fully charged with
refrigerant. This assumption ignores the chance that most, if not all, of the refrigerant of a
discarded white good may have been released while it was not within the control of the
EcoComplex. Also research into other white good recycling programs in the United States
suggests the data provided does not accurately reflect the expected number of white goods per
capita. Specifically, NV Energy in Nevada recycled an average of 5,000 refrigerators a year over
5 years of running their refrigerator recycling program for a population of 2.4 million customers
while the assumptions used here suggest the EcoComplex recycled 2,226 refrigerators for a
population of 160,000 customers (Gray, 2009)(NV Energy, 2010)(Google, 2008). The amount of
refrigerators recycled per total customers served for NV Energy’s and the EcoComplex’s
recycling programs can be calculated to be 0.00416 and 0.0139, respectively.
Given that the global warming potential of R-134a is 1320 times that of CO2 (see Table
11) and that the estimation of emissions due to the white goods recycling program is the third
largest contributor to the total carbon footprint, it may be wise to improve the monitoring of
refrigerants that enter the EcoComplex. If this is done calculations can be more heavily based on
data as opposed to assumptions and decisions can be made with increasing confidence regarding
the white goods recycling program. A simple improvement in the data collected would be to note
the approximate capacity of a compressor and maintain a running tally of the number of
compressors that enter the EcoComplex over a year. Another, possibly more time consuming,
step in data collection could be to note the amount of refrigerant remaining in a white good at the
time it is accepted by the EcoComplex. At this time portable HVOC (halogenated volatile
organic compound) detectors are entering the market and providing accurate and affordable
measurement of latent contaminants such as refrigerant. A portable HVOC detector kit could be
employed at the EcoComplex in order to determine any existing concentrations of harmful
chemicals (such as R-134a) in the immediate area surrounding the white good recycling site.

11 | P a g e
 Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion System Leaks
The landfill gas capture and combustion system (LFGCCS) is explained in depth in the
biogas combustion emissions section. If scenario two in this section is considered (see the values
in Table 9) then that would mean that 367,604,883 scft of 50/50 landfill gas could have leaked
out of the LGCCS before combustion occurred. This would constitute a fugitive emission and the
volume CH4 that escaped into the atmosphere would need to be added to the total emissions of
the EcoComplex. The volume of CO2, however, would still be considered CO2 of biogenic
origin (by the GRP) and is not considered an emission in this section. This scenario also does not
take into account the fact that the flare apparatus was used three times in 2009.
If 367,604,883 scft of 50/50 landfill gas escaped the LFGCCS after being measured but
before being combusted this would be the same as 69,900 MTCO2e being emitted into the
atmosphere by using Equation 4. The addition of 69,900 MTCO2e to the total carbon footprint
can be seen in Figure 5 but this scenario was not considered for the total carbon footprint of 2009
for the EcoComplex given the uncertainty.

Scope 2 Emissions

Scope 2 emissions are all indirect emissions that resulted due to the consumption of
purchased electricity, steam, heating or cooling for operations within the EcoComplex’s
operational control that existed during 2009 (The Climate Registry, 2008).

Purchased Electricity
A list of the electricity purchases of the EcoComplex from Duke Energy during 2009 was
provided by the EcoComplex and can be found in Table 5.
In order to calculate the GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity CO2,
N2O and CH4 emission rates associated with electricity generation conducted by Duke Energy
were applied to the total electricity purchases. The 2004 emission rates for the Virginia/Carolina
area of the United States provided by The Climate Registry can be found in Table 3.
Emissions due to the purchase of electricity by the EcoComplex during 2009 were
calculated to be 76 MTCO2e by using Equation 5 in the appendix. GHG emissions due to the
purchase of electricity account for 0.40% of total GHG emissions at the EcoComplex during
2009. Graphical representation of the contribution of electricity use to the total carbon footprint
of the EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.

Electricity Purchased in 2009

Building
(kWh)
Leachate Pump & Scale House 60,740
C&D Landfill 3,486
Office Complex 28,639
Mechanics Garage 24,617
Lynch Property 3,189
Blackburn Convention Center 7,436
Co-Gen Gas Skid 16,271
Total kWh purchased: 144,378
Table 5: EcoComplex electricity purchases 2009.

12 | P a g e
 2004 Emission rates
eGRID 2006 Subregion Name
(lbs CO2/MWh) (lbs CH4/MWh) (lbs N2O/MWh)
SERC Virginia/Carolina 1,146.39 0.029 0.019
Table 6: Emission rates for electricity generation.14

Scope 3 Emissions

Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect upstream and downstream emissions that can
be attributed to an organization such as those that occur as a result of employees commuting to
and from work (The Climate Registry, 2008). Scope 3 emissions are not necessarily due to the
operation of sources within the operational control of the EcoComplex during 2009 but they can
optionally be reported in order to understand what actions create harmful emissions so that steps
can be taken in order to reduce GHGs.
One possible source of scope 3 emissions not considered in this report are those
associated with transmission losses of the electricity created by the LFGCCS. It was assumed
that the transmission system is as efficient as possible and outside the immediate operational
control of the EcoComplex.

Commuter Travel
Currently no data has been collected from the staff of the EcoComplex regarding the
commuter patterns of the employees that work at the EcoComplex facility.
In order to estimate the emissions that resulted during 2009 due to the commuting
patterns of employees at the EcoComplex it was assumed that a staff of 20 employees
individually commuted a total of 20 miles a day (10 miles to work, 10 miles home), five days a
week for 50 weeks of the year. The EcoComplex has approximately 20 employees and a 20 mile
commute was chosen given the fact that the EcoComplex is in a rural location. These
assumptions were used along with the emission factors provided in the Clean Air-Cool Planet
Campus Carbon Calculator (Table 7) in order to calculate the emissions that would result from
these conditions. The emission factors in Table 7 correspond to a personal vehicle that has a fuel
efficiency of approximately 22.10 mpg.
Emissions due to the commuting patterns of staff employed by the EcoComplex during
2009 were calculated to be 41 MTCO2e by using the Equation 6. GHG emissions due these
commuting patterns account for 0.22% of total GHG emissions at the EcoComplex during 2009.
Graphical representation of the contribution of commuting to the total carbon footprint of the
EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.
In order to improve the estimations made in this section regarding commuter patterns a
simple anonymous questionnaire could be distributed among EcoComplex employees. Questions
that should be addressed include the approximate fuel economy along with make, model and
year of the vehicle an employee uses to get to work as well as the approximate distance an
employee commutes to work from home.

14
Taken from Table 14.1 of the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol.

13 | P a g e
 kgCO2/mile kgCH4/mile kgN2O/mile
0.394 7.88 E-05 2.71 E-05
Table 7: Emission factors and automobile efficiency for commuting during 2009.15

Biogas Combustion Emissions

The EcoComplex’s biogas combustion emissions are those other than biogenic CO2 that
resulted from the combustion of captured landfill gas at the EcoComplex during 2009. Though
the emissions that result from combustion of biomass and biomass based fuels do not fall under
scope 1, 2 or 3 criteria, these emissions are required by the Climate Registry to be reported
separately (The Climate Registry, 2008).

Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion

In 1996 the EcoComplex retrofitted their landfill with a landfill gas collection and
combustion system (LFGCCS), shown in Figure 2, that produces and sells electricity to the grid.
This system, through piping laid within the live landfill, collects a mixture of 50% methane
(CH4) and 50% carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (from now on referred to as 50/50 landfill gas) that is
supplied by the decomposition of waste in the landfill. This 50/50 landfill gas is then combusted
in specially designed engines which produce electricity that can be sold to a local energy
provider or it is flared; both of these possibilities convert the CH4 of the 50/50 mix to CO2. For
the purposes of this report it should be noted that the CO2 portion of captured 50/50 landfill gas
was not included in the emissions of the EcoComplex because this CO2 is considered of biogenic
origin (by The Climate Registry) and was not a byproduct of the combustion process. The CO2
portion of the captured 50/50 landfill gas does, however, end up passing through the LFGCCS
along with the CH4 during the combustion process. Of the captured and combusted gas, only the
CO2 that was emitted from the combustion of CH4 was considered “emissions”.

Figure 2: LGCCS schematic detailing locations of interest for this report.

15
All values were taken from a 2009 version of the Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator.

14 | P a g e
 Figure 2 shows several locations of interest within the LFGCCS. “Leak A” refers to
unknown leaks of 50/50 landfill gas that may have occurred within the system before volumetric
measurements were taken. “Leak B” refers to unknown leaks of 50/50 landfill gas that may have
occurred after volumetric measurement were taken. “Emission A” refers to emissions that are a
byproduct of the CH4 combustion process (CO2) which are considered emissions in this report.
“Emission B” refers to the CO2 portion of the 50/50 landfill gas which is considered emissions of
biogenic origin and is ignored for the purposes of this report.
The EcoComplex provided the data found in Table 8 regarding the landfill gas capture
and combustion project (LFGCCS) operations during 2009. It was noted that though it is
preferred to always combust the landfill gas via the GE Jenbacher engines that are used to create
electricity, a flare apparatus is also used when this is not possible. During 2009, the flare was
used three times. Volumetric measurements of the landfill gas in Table 8 come from a computer
controlled measurement apparatus at the inlet of the gas skid (a mechanism which pulls a
vacuum in order to capture landfill gas). The total energy figure in Table 8 comes from an on
board energy production meter that measures that LFGCCS energy production. Emissions due to
the combustion of landfill gas were estimated by using two different scenarios.
Scenario one, which is the scenario used to quantify total emissions in this report,
assumed that all the gas measured by the computer measurement system in 2009 was combusted
(either by flare or by the Jenbacher engines) and that no CH4 or CO2 leaked out after being
measured. It was also assumed that the captured landfill gas had a composition of 50% CH4 and
50% CO2. With this data the default CO2 emission factor per unit volume in Table 10 was used
and the total emissions due to the LFGCCS during 2009 at the EcoComplex were found to be
16,700 MTCO2e by using Equation 7 in the appendix. GHG emissions due to the LFGCCS
account for 88.36% of the total GHG emissions that occurred at the EcoComplex during 2009.
Graphical representation of the contribution of the LFGCCS to the total carbon footprint of the
EcoComplex can be found in Figure 3.
A second scenario was considered which allowed for the possibility of gas leaks or other
system deviations. Using the net power generated, the expected thermal efficiency for the
system, and an average low heating value (LHV) for landfill gas, the volume of landfill gas
combusted was calculated (all found in Table 9). This volume deviated considerably from the
measured value, and thus the source of inconsistencies should be explored. If the source of
deviations were attributed solely to gas leaks between the gas measurement apparatus and the
combustion chamber, this would lead to a very high carbon footprint due to fugitive emissions
An example of the emissions that would result due to leaks are considered in the fugitive
emissions section of this report. Discrepancies between measured volume of gas and predicted
volume combusted could also be attributed to low methane levels in the fuel, engine inefficiency,
and fuel lost due to flaring. These possibilities would impact the carbon footprint less adversely
than direct methane leaks. Since it is unclear what combination of possibilities led to the
discrepancy between the measured volume of gas and predicted volume of gas scenario one was
used to report total emission due to the LFGCCS.
The emissions due to the combustion of landfill gas are the leading contributor to the
total carbon footprint of the EcoComplex (see Figure 3). In order to reduce the total emissions at
the EcoComplex it may be wise to investigate the addition of carbon capture technology to the
current LFGCCS. Investments which lead to reductions in the release of CO2 due to the
combustion of landfill gas would have the greatest impact on carbon footprint reductions.

15 | P a g e
 At this point only default emission factors have been used to estimate the emissions of
the Jenbacher engines at the EcoComplex. Monitoring of actual flue emissions would increase
the accuracy of calculations made regarding the LFGCCS and, as a result, confidence in their
values.

Total Energy Produced Parasitic Load of LFGCCS Total Gas Captured

(kWh) (kWh) (scft/yr)
17,055,300 792,300 635,100,000

Table 8: Total gas captured and energy produced in 2009 at the EcoComplex.

Volume of 50/50
Landfill Gas Needed
Average LHV of 50/50
Net Power Thermal Efficiency to Create the Net
Landfill Gas
Generated (kWh)16 of a LFG System Power Generated at
(Btu/scft)17
Stated Efficiency
(scft)18
16,263,000 41.6%19 450 267,495,117
Table 9: Values used in scenario 2 of the biogas section.

Default CO2 Emission Factor

Type of Fuel
(kg CO2/scft)

Landfill gas (50% CH4/50% CO2) 0.0262

Table 10: Default characteristic of landfill gas.20

16
This was determined by subtracting the total power generated by the parasitic load of the system.
17
This value comes from a landfill technology brief (Caricom Secretariat, 2010).
18
This value was calculated using Equation 9.
19
This thermal efficiency was taken from a technical specification document of a JMS 320 GS-N.L. Jenbacher
reciprocating engine which uses natural gas as fuel (i.e. the fuel is 100% CH 4, not 50/50 landfill gas).
20
Taken from Table 12.2 of the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol.

16 | P a g e
Total Carbon Footprint of the EcoComplex

In order to determine the total carbon footprint for the EcoComplex for 2009 all the
sources discussed in this report were summed together. The total carbon footprint was calculated
to be 18,900 MTCO2e for 2009. Figure 3 shows the various sources of emissions at the
EcoComplex in 2009 and their respective contribution to the total carbon footprint in MTCO2e.
The bottom portion of Figure 4 shows the total carbon footprint of the EcoComplex. In the
appendix Figure 6 and Figure 7 show two different representations of the EcoComplex’s 2009
GHG flows and their respective contributions to the global warming potential (GWP) in the
atmosphere.
The total GHG emissions that would have resulted in the absence of the EcoComplex’s
LFGCCS were also computed. Equation 8 was used to calculate the GHG emissions that would
have resulted if the volume of CH4 gas that was captured in 2009 was instead allowed to escape
into the atmosphere. The portion of CO2 gas that was captured was ignored because this CO2 was
of biogenic origin and did not result from a stationary combustion source (The Climate Registry,
2008). For these calculations the pressure and temperature of the captured landfill gas at the time
of measurement was assumed to be 101 kPa at 305 K, respectively, and the gas was assumed to
be a mix of 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide (this data was provided). The top of Figure 4
shows the carbon footprint that would have resulted if this gas was not captured and the bottom
shows the total carbon footprint with the LFGCCS. If the LFGCCS had not been operated at the
EcoComplex in 2009 an additional 103,100 MTCO2e would have been released into the
atmosphere.

17 | P a g e
 Biogas
Combustion 16,700
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000
MTCO2e

Mobile 1,170
Combusion*
0 1,000 2,000
MTCO2e

White
Goods*
808
0 1000
MTCO2e

Electricity 76
Use
0 100
MTCO2e

Compost* 70
0 100
MTCO2e

Commuter 41
0 100
MTCO2e

Figure 3: Respective contributions to the total carbon footprint from biogas combustion, compost, mobile combustion, white goods, electricity use and
commuters (in MTCO2e) using the assumptions of scenario 1 in the biogas combustion section.
*at this point in the analysis of GHG emissions that resulted at the EcoComplex in 2009, these values should be considered overestimates 18 | P a g e
 2009 Footprint
w/o LGCCS 122,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
MTCO2e

2009 Footprint
with LGCCS 18,900
(Scenario 1)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
MTCO2e

Figure 4: Comparison of the EcoComplex’s 2009 total carbon footprint (assuming scenario 1 of the biogas combustion section) (bottom) and the total carbon
footprint without the LGCCS (top). This comparison was made assuming the landfill gas, when measured, was mix of 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 at 310 K and
101 kPa.

19 | P a g e
2009 Footprint
w/o LGCCS 122,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
MTCO2e

2009 Footprint
with LGCCS 78,000
(Scenario 2)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
MTCO2e
Figure 5: Comparison of the EcoComplex’s 2009 total carbon footprint (assuming scenario 2 of the biogas combustion section) (bottom) and the total carbon footprint without
the LGCCS (top). This comparison was made assuming the landfill gas, when measured, was mix of 50% CH 4 and 50% CO2 at 310 K and 101 kPa. If scenario 2 of the biogas
section is used this would require that the CH4 gas that leaked from the LGCCS be accounted as fugitive emissions. It is unclear whether the discrepancy in the net power
developed by the LGCCS is strictly due to gas leaks and this figure simply depicts what the maximum carbon footprint could be if only leaks are considered the culprit.

20 | P a g e
Upper-Bound Simplified Estimation Method Approach

Several sources described in this report employed what can be described as an upper-
bound simplified estimation method in order to approximate emissions from sources for which
limited information was available. This method was used because it was described as an
acceptable method for accounting for emissions which can be assumed to be less than 5% of the
total emissions at the EcoComplex by the Climate Registry’s GRP.
Emissions from the release of R-134a refrigerant into the atmosphere were estimated to
contribute a total of 808 MTCO2e by using limited data regarding the actual amount and type of
refrigerant that entered the EcoComplex’s white goods recycling site. Emissions due to these
assumptions account for 4.28% of total emissions at the EcoComplex in 2009.
Emissions from commuter patterns were estimated to contribute a total of 41 MTCO2e by
assuming the fuel economy of employee’s cars as well as their commuting distances. Emissions
due to these assumptions account for 0.22% of total emissions at the EcoComplex in 2009.
Emissions from composting operations were estimated to contribute 70 MTCO2e by
using default emission factors for compost consisting of food waste. Emissions due to this
assumption account for 0.37% of total emissions at the EcoComplex in 2009
The total percentage of emissions approximated by an upper-bound simplified estimation
method was determined to be 4.87%. This is below the acceptable limit (5% of total accounted
emissions) of emissions which can be estimated using this method as described in the GRP.
Appendix

Equations
The following equations were devised in order to calculate 2009 emissions for the
EcoComplex using the methodologies described in this report. All values used are listed under
the equation in which they are referenced. Definitions of abbreviated terms can be found in the
glossary of terms. Once all calculations were performed for a given source, the value for total
emissions from that source was rounded up to the nearest significant digit of MTCO2e. Global
warming potentials used in the following equations can be found in Table 11.


TEC  CW  EFCH4  EFN2O 
Equation 1: Total emissions due to composting in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
CW=363.9MT/yr
EFCH421=0.09 MTCO2e/MTCW
EFN2O21=0.09 MTCO2e/MTCW
TEC= 70 MTCO2e

21
These values were taken from Table 1

22 | P a g e
  OH DCE  EFDCE  OH DAE  EFDAE   gph  
   1MT 
TEMC   MDDHDV  EFDHDV  MDDLDT  EFDLDT  MD2001GLDT  EF2001GLDT  MD1982GLDT  EF1982GLDT  MD1990GLDT  EF1990GLDT      
   1,000kg 
 DF  EFDF  GF  EFGF  

Equation 2: Total emissions due to mobile combustion. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
OHDCE=15,984 hrs
EFDCE22=0.093 kgCO2e/gal
OHDAE=800 hrs
EFDAE22=0.1112 kgCO2e/gal
gph=6.211 gph
MDDHDV=14,000 mi
EFDHDV=0.00161 kgCO2e/mi
MDDLDT=66,700 mi
EFDLDT=0.00049 kgCO2e/mi
MD2001GLDT=6,796 mi
EF2001GLDT =0.0054 kgCO2e/mi
MD1982GHDT=11,640 mi
EF1982GHDT =0.0246 kgCO2e/mi
MD1990GHDT=21,349 mi
EF1990GHDT =0.0442 kgCO2e/mi
DF=111,211 gal
EFDF=10.15 kgCO2/gal
GF=2,652 gal
EFGF=8.81 kgCO2/gal
TEMC=1,170 MTCO2e

22
These values were taken from Table 3

23 | P a g e
  1MT 
TER  TR×GWPR-134a   
 1,000kg 
Equation 3: Total emissions due to refrigerant in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
TR=612 kg/yr
GWPR-134a=1320
TER= 808 MTCO2e

 LLFG  Pgas    1m    1MT 

3

TELLFG   MWCH4  MFCH4  GWPCH4       

 RT   
3
  1,000kg 
 gas   3.28ft 
Equation 4: Total emissions from leaked landfill gas in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
MWCH4=16.04 kg/kmol
MFCH4=0.50
GWPCH4=21
LLFG=367,604,883 scft
Pgas=101 kPa
R=8.314 kJ/kmol*K
Tgas=305 K
TELLFG=69,900 MTCO2e

 1MT 
   
TEPE   ER CO2  ERCH4  GWPCH4  ER N2O  GWPN2O   TEP  
 
 2204.62lbs 

Equation 5: Total emissions due to purchased electricity in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
ERCO223= 1,146.39 lbsCO2/MWh
ERCH423=0.029 lbsCH4/MWh
GWPCH4=21
ERN2O23=0.019 lbsN2O/MWh
GWPN2O=310
TEP=144.378 MWh/yr
TEPE=76 MTCO2e

23
This value was taken from Table 6
  2 4
 2
   1MT 
TECP  TMT   EFCCO  EFCCH  GWPCH4  EFCN O  GWPN2O   
  1,000kg  
Equation 6: Total emissions due to commuter patterns in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
TMT=100,000 mi/yr
EFCCO224= 0.394 kgCO2/mi
EFCCH424= 7.88 E-5 kgCH4/mi
GWPCH4=21
EFCN2O24= 2.71 E-5 kgN2O/mi
GWPN2O=310
TECP=41 MTCO2e

 1MT 
TECCLFG  TLFGC  EF/scft   
 1,000kg 
Equation 725: Total emissions due to the combustion of captured landfill gas in MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon
footprint report:
TLFGC=635,100,000 scft/yr
EF/scft26=0.0262 kgCO2/scft
TECCLFG=16,700 MTCO2e.

 TLFGC  Pgas    1m    1MT 

3

TELFG   MWCH4  MFCH4  GWPCH4       

 R  T   3.28ft  3   1,000kg 
 gas   
Equation 8: Total emissions that would have resulted if the captured landfill gas had escaped into the atmosphere in
MTCO2e. As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
MWCH4=16.04 kg/kmol
MFCH4=0.50
GWPCH4=21
TLFGC=635,100,000 scft
Pgas=101 kPa
R=8.314 kJ/kmol*K
Tgas=305 K
TELFG=121,000 MTCO2e.

24
These values were taken from Table 7.
25
This equation assumes that all landfill gas measured was combusted
26
This value was taken from Table 10.

25 | P a g e
  
 WNET 
LFG OPTIMAL  
  1 kWh  
JEN  LHVLG   3,412.14 Btu  
  

Equation 9: Landfill gas needed to produce the LFGCCS’s net power output of 2009 if Jenbacher engines operated at the
manufacturer’s published efficiency and landfill gas heat content was equal to the national average provided by the GRP.
As it pertains to this carbon footprint report:
WNET=16,263,000 kWh
ηJEN27=0.461
LHVLFG=450 Btu/scft
LFGOPTIMAL=267,495,117 scft

 1MT 
EFP   TFP+TFBY-TFEY    EF     
 1, 000kg 
Equation 10: Emissions from fuel purchases28 (in MTCO2):
TFP=Total fuel purchases of the year (in gallons).
TFBY=Total fuel at the beginning of the year of focus (in gallons).
TFEY=Total fuel at the end of the year (in gallons).
EF=Emission factor (kgCO2/gal) of fuel (gasoline or diesel, these can be found in Table 2).

 1MT 
CEMV   MVF    MVF EF     
 1, 000kg 
Equation 11: Combined CH4 and N2O emissions from a mileage vehicle (in MTCO2e):
MVF=Total mileage of the vehicle of focus (in miles).
MVFEF=Emission factor (kgCO2e/mile) of the mileage vehicle of focus (types can be found in Table 4).

27
This thermal efficiency was taken from a technical specification document of a JMS 320 GS-N.L. Jenbacher
reciprocating engine which uses natural gas as fuel (i.e. the fuel is 100% CH 4, not 50/50 landfill gas).
28
Equation taken directly from the GRP

26 | P a g e
  1MT 
CEHV   HVF    HVF EF     
 1, 000kg 
Equation 12: Combined CH4 and N2O emissions from an hourly vehicle (in MTCO2e):
HVF=Total fuel (in gallons) used by the vehicle of focus.
HVFEF=Emission factor (kgCO2e/gal) of the hourly vehicle of focus (types can be found in Table 4).

Global Warming Potentials of Select Substances

GWPCO2 1
GWPCH4 21
GWPN2O 310
29
GWPR-134a 1320
Table 11: Global warming potential values used in this carbon footprint report for calculations.30

Commercial and Industrial Organization with Revenues

Over $2 billion $12,000
From $500 million - $2 billion $6,600
From $100 million - $500 million $4,000
From $20 million - $100 million $2,500
Under $20 million $1,000
Non-profit, Government and Academic Organizations with Budgets
Over $2 billion $5,500
From $500 million - $2 billion $4,000
From $100 million - $500 million $3,000
From $20 million - $100 million $1,200
Under $20 million $750
Table 12: The annual fee structure for Climate Registry Basic Membership.31

29
This GWP was provided by the EPA (Global Warming Potential of ODS Substitutes, 2010). This value was used
because no GWP was listed for R-134a in the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol.
30
Values for global warming potentials of CH4 and N2O relative to CO2 were adopted from the methodology in the
GRP.
31
No additional cost is incurred for obtaining gold, silver or platinum “climate registered” status (The Climate
Registry, 2009).

27 | P a g e
Bibliography
Amazon. (2010, August 18). CoolTech Multi- Recovery, Recyling, Evacuation and Recharging Unit for
Multiple Refrigerants. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/CoolTech-
Multi-Evacuation-Recharging-Refrigerants/dp/B000XW3PCU

Carbon Footprint. (2010, January 1). Retrieved August 3, 2010, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

Caricom Secretariat. (2010, July 1). Carribean Renewable Energy Development Programme. Retrieved
December 4, 2010, from Carribean Community Secretariat: www.caricom.org

Carter, C. (2010, August 1). Vice President of Operation at Metrolina Mulch. (T. Branch, Interviewer)

Chicago Climate Exchange. (2009, January 1). Chicago Climate Exchange Offset Project Protocol:
Agricultural Methane Collection & Combustion. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

Climate Action Reserve. (2010, June 1). Organic Waste Composting. Los Angeles, California, United
States.

Climate Change Solutions for the Northeast. (2008, January 1). Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Clean
Air-Cool Planet: http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/

Diddy, S. (2010, August 18). Business Development Manager. (T. Branch, Interviewer)

doityourself. (2010, January 1). What Is the Average Refrigerator Weight. Retrieved August 11, 2010,
from doityourself: http://www.doityourself.com/stry/what-is-the-average-refrigerator-weight

Energy, D. o. (2007, April 01). Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gasses Program Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Coefficients. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from US Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics and Analysis: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

Global Warming Potential of ODS Substitutes. (2010, March 30). Retrieved August 1, 2010, from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html

Google. (2008, July 1). Public Data. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Google.com:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=county:37035&dl=en&hl=e
n&q=catawba+county+population

Gray, K. (2009, August 27). Appliances get their own recycled clunkers programs. Retrieved September
24, 2010, from usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2009-08-25-
appliances-cash-for-clunkers_N.htm

Hummel, S. (2004). Environmental Sustainability Coordinator. Durham: Greening Campus VI

Conference Proceeding.

Laurenson, J. (2010, August 18). President of American Biotech. (T. Branch, Interviewer)

McCarty. (2004). Baseline Conversion Factor. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.unc.edu/~mccarty/conversionfactor.htm

National Biodiesel Board. (2010, January 1). Biodiesel Emissions. Jefferson City, Missouri, United
States.

28 | P a g e
National Center for Employee Development. (2010, August 18). EPA Refrigerant Recovery Certification.
Retrieved August 18, 2010, from National Center for Employee Development:
http://www.nced.com/content/epa-refrigerant-recovery-certification

NV Energy. (2010, January 1). Service Territory. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from NV Energy:
http://www.nvenergy.com/company/territory.cfm

O*Net. (2009, January 1). Recycling and Reclamation Workers. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from O*Net
OnLine: http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/51-9199.01

Representative, 1. A. (2010, August 13). Refrigerator Repair Technician. (T. Branch, Interviewer)

Representative, C. A. (2010, August 11). Refrigerator Repair Technician. (T. Branch, Interviewer)

The Climate Registry. (2008, May 1). General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1. Los Angeles, California,
United States of America.

The Climate Registry. (2009, January 1). Membership Options. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from The
Climate Registry: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/how-to-join/membership-options/

X. F. Lou, J. N. (2009). The impact of landfilling and composting on greenhouse gas emissions - A
reveiw. Bioresource Technology , 3792-3798.

Zhu, L., Zhang, W., Liu, W., & Huang, Z. (2010). Experimental study on particulate and NOx emissions
of a diesel engine fueled with ultra low sulfur diesel, RME-diesel blends and PME-diesel blends. Science
of the Total Environment , 1050-1058.

29 | P a g e
Figure 6: A flow diagram showing the GHG emissions that were emitted by the EcoComplex in
2009 and the resultant MTCO2e.

30 | P a g e
Figure 7: A pictorial flow diagram showing the GHG emissions that were emitted by the EcoComplex in 2009 and the resultant MTCO2e.

31 | P a g e