Download SERA - GRRN

RECYCLING AND THE
ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST
“BANGS”:
Do Recycling Programs Perform Better
than Energy Efficiency Programs for
GHG and Jobs Creation?
Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
The Econservation Institute
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
303/494-1178
email: [email protected]
May be used only with permission of Author - ©SERA2009
Internally funded
US GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS (2005) CONVENTIONAL
Agricultural
Residential
8%
5%
Commercial
6%
Waste
3%
Electricity
34%
Industry
16%
Transportation
28%
Source: USEPA
SERA
GOAL – REDUCE MTCE…
 Historic takeaways –
 Prioritized actions in energy efficiency (EE),
transportation
 BUT – if an MTCE is an MTCE*, all reductions are
great…
…and a CHEAPER one may be even greater…!
 What is the cost hierarchy?
 And are there other factors to consider?
**And an MTCE may not be an MTCE – methane (from solid waste)
Has a more intense effect over 20 years – front-loaded. Multiplier
May be 23 times worse … or with the time element, 70 times worse.
SERA
CONSIDER…
Analyze Delivery of GHG
Reductions – Energy vs.
Diversion…
WASTE PROGRAMS
ANALYZED
Curbside Yard Waste
(CS YW)
Curbside Recycling
(CS Recy)
Pay As You Throw (PAYT)
SERA
ENERGY PROGRAMS
ANALYZED
Residential
Weatherization
(Res EE)
Commercial Lighting
(Coml EE)
Wind
Solar
SERA
PROGRAMS MODELED

Solid waste:




Pay as you throw (PAYT)
incentive – 3 effects
Residential curbside
recycling
Residential organics
composting collection (yard
and food waste)
Energy Efficiency:





Commercial lighting retrofit
Residential weatherization
Wind
Photovoltaics / solar
Computation Steps Estimated program costs:






per MSW ton diverted
(solid waste)
per kWh for energy
programs
Used in-house SERA,
“NEB-It”© model, and
external data
Modeled GHG impacts
Computed $/MTCO2e for
each program
“Normalized”
SERA
RELATIVE COST PER MTCO2e FOR
SOLID WASTE, ENERGY PROGRAMS
7
6
5
3x
4
3
1x
2
1
0
7x
18x
0.6x 0.3x 0.5x*
E EE 7x) 8x) cy YT ics
E
e
1
A an
s ue
'l
R
P
e
e
m
g
l
u CS
R va
r
l
m
a
O
(
(v
Co
S
d
C
in PV
W
Results show key MSW programs cheaper to reduce CO2 than EE.
PV, Wind high cost per MTCO2e.
Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. SERA, Superior, CO
All rights reserved, Draft. May be used with permission of author,
*Organics figures
Vary based on model used
SERA
UPSTREAM PRODUCTION SAVINGS LONG-HAUL BREAK-EVEN FIGURES
It is not about the landfill savings – embedded energy as driver…
Methane also important (front-loaded, high impact)
Material
Aluminum
Prod’n Sav.
(MMBTU/ ton
coll’n)
Break evenTruck
Break evenRail
Break even Freighter
177
121,000
475,000
538,000
LDPE
61
41,000
162,000
184,000
PET
59
40,000
157,000
178,000
Steel
19
13,000
52,000
59,000
Newspaper
16
11,000
43,000
49,000
Corrugated
12
9,000
33,000
38,000
Office pap
10
7,000
27,000
31,000
Boxboard
6.5
4,400
17,400
19,800
Glass (to bottles)
1.9
1,300
5,100
5,800
Source: Allaway, Oregon DEQ, draft)
Break even: transport energy = energy saved displacing virgin feedstock
SERA
US GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS (REVISED)
Local Passenger
Transport
12%
Building Energy
Use
31%
Inter-city
Passenger
Transport
7%
Provision of
Goods &
Materials
38%
Food
12%
Source: USEPA (Prelim); from Allaway (ORDEQ)
SERA
AUXILIARY IMPACTS AND
POLICY ISSUES
Or how all kWh (or MTCE) may not
be created equal…
JOB MULTIPLIERS FOR ENERGY
AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS
More local & national job impacts in
10
weatherization because labor intensive pgm; 9
Appliance replacement programs more
8
limited impact (appliances not made in US)
1200
1000
800
CA
WI
Nat'l
600
400
200
0
Weatheriz
Appliance
ENERGY JOBS
(per $1 million investment)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Job/10K
Tons
Landfill
YW
Recy
SOLID WASTE JOBS
(per 10,000 tons)
Sources: Energy Job Multipliers - Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO
All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author; Solid waste job mult from Institute of Local
Self Reliance, Washington DC.
SERA
MULTIPLIERS – GHG, JOBS,
AND $ FOR DIVERSION & EE
12
18x
Diversion cheaper
per MTCE than EE 10
or renewables.
8
EE labor intensive
per MTCE, but
diversion comparable in jobs/$1M

6
4
2
$/MTCO2E
Jobs/MTCO2E
PV
*
Wi
nd
EE
*
Re
s
E
Co
m'
lE
YT
PA
YW
CS
CS
Re
cy
0
Jobs/$1M
Source: DRAFT figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)
Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.
SERA
OTHER PROGRAM / POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
Dollars aren’t the whole picture
either…
SPEED / COVERAGE / AUTHORITY –
COMPARISONS
 Speed to implement
 Stroke of a pen…
 Coverage
 All households vs. slow buildup
 Authority
 Cities / counties often no authority over energy…. But
states have regulatory authority over both…
 Retention…
 Studied in energy, not solid waste (PAYT exception)
  Advantage, solid waste on these issues…
SERA
RELATIVE COST (PER MTCO2E) AND
COVERAGE – “RECYCLING” VS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Normalized Multiplier for Cost per MTCO2E
(SERA)
Speed to implement and full scale
implementation coverage
Commercial Energy
Efficiency
1.0 – baseline
1-3 years;
Residential Energy
Efficiency
3 times as expensive as com’l EE
1-3 years; fraction of customer
Wind
7-8 times as expensive as
TBD, Phase 2
PhotoVoltaic (PV)
18-25 times com’l EE
TBD, Phase 2
Curbside Recycling
0.6-0.7 times the cost of com’l EE
0.5- 2 years; covers all households
0.2-0.3 times cost of com’l EE
3-9 months after political approval;
Prevention & reuse
0 cost
No lag; education
Yard Waste program
0.5 +/- times cost of com’l EE (Phase 2)
1-2 years, Phase 2
Pay As You Throw (PAYT)
fraction of customer base
com’l EE
households
(HH) in area
covers all single family HH
NOTE: Conservative estimates (Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates SERA 2007-2008; DRAFT);
may be used with permission of author
SERA
PROGRAM SELECTION /
DELIVERY IMPLICATIONS
Integrated planning…
SUPPLY CURVE - PORTFOLIO FOR
GHG STRATEGY– YEAR 1… YEAR N
Cost $/MTCE
Other criteria –
risk, reliability,
Control, etc for
portfolio…
Technical potential issue;
Also RETENTION a factor….
T1
Etc…
R3
EE2
R1
R2
EE1
Local, state, federal…
Quantity (tons, kwh MTCE)
SERA
AVOIDED GHG SUPPLY CURVE:
RAMP UP MORE QUICKLY &
CHEAPLY
Percent of GHG Goal
100%
80%
Years to
With
Without
Goal
Recycling Recycling
25%
2
5
50%
6
10
75%
10
27
90%
18
61
60%
With Recycling
40%
Without Recycling
20%
Costs
0%
1
6
11
16
Year
21
26
25%
50%
75%
90%
Pct Sav
49%
32%
38%
20%
Hypothetical / template program assumptions…Illustrative Purposes Only
SERA
CONCLUSIONS &
IMPLICATIONS
 Measurable impacts from GHG reductions

Millions in savings and premiums per ton diverted.
 Cost to achieve GHG reductions from strategies


Some “recycling” cheaper than energy conservation
Faster to implement / greater coverage / have authority –
early “big bang” programs (phase 2)
 Broader context… “making the case” for diversion
beyond economics…



Comparisons on other factors – jobs, stimulus implications
Not 3% - Solid waste is faster / cheaper…
Near term – Solid waste should be at the table for climate
change… policy / programs local, state, federal.
SERA
Happy to provide slides – leave business card or send email
CONTACT INFORMATION
Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.
SERA, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
Phone: 303/494-1178
Email: [email protected]
Web www.serainc.com
Thanks to communities that fill out surveys on www.serainc.com –
helps us with these statistical surveys!!
SERA