Comments on: Carbonfund.org Retroactively Adds Offsets for Landfill Project http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/18/carbonfund-retroactively-adds-offsets-for-landfill-project/ Environmental Leader Fri, 25 May 2012 22:05:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brent http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/18/carbonfund-retroactively-adds-offsets-for-landfill-project/comment-page-1/#comment-142398 Brent Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:34:57 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=19832#comment-142398 To the last commenter, that doesn't compute because on the press release itself it says 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. But the article has it wrong by saying methane. It's commonly understood that GHG emissions are expressed in CO2 equiv. Doing the math, together w/ the fact that it's emissions *avoided* from what would've been emitted by that type of landfill you get what they claim. To the last commenter, that doesn’t compute because on the press release itself it says 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. But the article has it wrong by saying methane. It’s commonly understood that GHG emissions are expressed in CO2 equiv. Doing the math, together w/ the fact that it’s emissions *avoided* from what would’ve been emitted by that type of landfill you get what they claim.

]]> By: Stan Harrison http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/18/carbonfund-retroactively-adds-offsets-for-landfill-project/comment-page-1/#comment-142392 Stan Harrison Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:56:58 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=19832#comment-142392 At best there is no methane-CO2 benefit, since that Methane was already being converted to CO2 in a flare, identicaly to that from the generator. It is true that some CO2 was avoided at the public utility whose electricity was displaced. But if just 4% more CH4 was allowed to leak from the landfill as a result of reducing suction to "sweeten" the fuel for the generator, that (with it's 23X effect) would offset the benefit. There is nothing to stop them from "sweetening" the fuel, and the almighty profit will make them do it. Thus, electricity generation from LFGas which superficialy makes sense, is predictably a net loser. At best there is no methane-CO2 benefit, since that Methane was already being converted to CO2 in a flare, identicaly to that from the generator. It is true that some CO2 was avoided at the public utility whose electricity was displaced. But if just 4% more CH4 was allowed to leak from the landfill as a result of reducing suction to “sweeten” the fuel for the generator, that (with it’s 23X effect) would offset the benefit. There is nothing to stop them from “sweetening” the fuel, and the almighty profit will make them do it.
Thus, electricity generation from LFGas which superficialy makes sense, is predictably a net loser.

]]> By: Paul Burman http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/18/carbonfund-retroactively-adds-offsets-for-landfill-project/comment-page-1/#comment-142366 Paul Burman Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:47:54 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=19832#comment-142366 Daniel, It is confusing how that statement about the offsets generated was written. While it is true that 100,000 tons of offsets have been generated from this project, they are metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), not tons of methane. One ton of methane is equivalent to about 23 tons of CO2e because it is is a much more potent greenhouse gas. So doing some simple math, you can calculate that the total captured methane emissions are about 4,300 metric tons. Sorry for the confusion. Hope this clears it all up. Paul Carbonfund.org Daniel,

It is confusing how that statement about the offsets generated was written. While it is true that 100,000 tons of offsets have been generated from this project, they are metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), not tons of methane. One ton of methane is equivalent to about 23 tons of CO2e because it is is a much more potent greenhouse gas. So doing some simple math, you can calculate that the total captured methane emissions are about 4,300 metric tons.

Sorry for the confusion. Hope this clears it all up.

Paul
Carbonfund.org

]]> By: Daniel Roberts http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/18/carbonfund-retroactively-adds-offsets-for-landfill-project/comment-page-1/#comment-142144 Daniel Roberts Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:24:35 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=19832#comment-142144 100,000 tons offset for 10 months seems a bit high for a site that is accepting 145,000 tons during that same 10 months (10 months of the annual 175,000 tons). That seems to suggest that 2/3 of the waste turns into methane. I'm sure I have something wrong here... 100,000 tons offset for 10 months seems a bit high for a site that is accepting 145,000 tons during that same 10 months (10 months of the annual 175,000 tons). That seems to suggest that 2/3 of the waste turns into methane. I’m sure I have something wrong here…

]]>