2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-i
CHAPTER 18.0 CLIMATE CHANGE
18.0 CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................... 18-1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 18-1
Legislation, Policy and Guidance .................................................................. 18-2
Consultation .................................................................................................. 18-6
Assessment Methodology ............................................................................. 18-9
Baseline ...................................................................................................... 18-19
Assessment of Effects ................................................................................ 18-20
Summary .................................................................................................... 18-21
APPENDICES (bound separately in Volume 3)
Appendix 18-1 ................................................................................. Carbon Assessment
Please note that a full list of acronyms is provided the contents to this PEIR and should
be referred to when reading this Chapter.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-1
18.0 CLIMATE CHANGE
Introduction
18.1.1 This Chapter of the PEIR considers the carbon impact of the treatment of
residual waste in the Proposed Extension. The Existing Station is not included
within the scope of this assessment as an assessment has previously been
undertaken for this consented operation. Therefore, only the emissions from the
Proposed Extension and associated flue within the combined stack have been
assessed. The assessment takes into account the following factors when
determining the carbon impact of the development:
• Carbon dioxide emissions released from the combustion of fossil-derived
carbon in the waste processed in the Proposed Extension;
• Emissions of other greenhouse gases from the combustion of waste in the
Proposed Extension;
• Emissions from the combustion of auxiliary fuel in the auxiliary burners at
the Proposed Extension;
• Emissions from the transport of waste and reagents to and residues from
the Site associated with the operation of the Proposed Extension; and
• Emissions offset from the export of electricity from the Proposed Extension.
18.1.2 The findings of the assessment are summarised in this PEIR chapter, with the
full assessment presented as Technical Appendix 18.1.
Competence
18.1.3 This Chapter and supporting Technical Appendix have been prepared by Katie
Hampton and reviewed by Stephen Othen at Fichtner Consulting Engineers.
Katie (BSc, AMIEnvSc) is an associate member of the Institution of
Environmental Sciences (IES). Katie has experience in undertaking carbon and
climate change assessments for planning and permitting purposes for a wide
range of developments including Energy from Waste facilities across the UK.
Stephen (MA, MEng, CEng, MIChemE) has 24 years’ experience working in
engineering consultancy services, environmental services and technical
advisory work. Stephen has supported most of Fichtner’s Energy from Waste
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-2
and Biomass projects, and is an authority on energy and environmental
legislation, having acted as Expert Witness in this context at public inquiries.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Legislation
18.2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2017 (as amended) introduced a requirement to consider climate
and greenhouse gas emissions. Schedule 4 of the regulations states: “A
description of the factors specified in regulation 4(2) likely to be significantly
affected by the development: … climate (for example greenhouse gas
emissions, impacts relevant to adaptation)” and “A description of the likely
significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from, inter
alia: … (f) the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and
magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions)…”
18.2.2 The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 require information on
“…climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions, impacts relevant to
adaptation)” to be included within the Environmental Statement, alongside a
description of the likely effects of the development on the environment including
“the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of
greenhouse gas emissions)”.
18.2.3 Due to its nature and scale, the Proposed Extension has the potential to either
produce significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (or significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions compared to the baseline scenario, i.e. the disposal
of waste within a landfill). Therefore, this PEIR includes a carbon assessment.
The detailed methodology for the assessment, including defining the baseline
scenario, is presented within further detail in the sections below.
18.2.4 The UK government set a commitment to reduce GHG emissions in the UK to
50% of 1990 levels by 2025, and to 80% by 2050 through the implementation of
the Climate Change Act 2008, the framework for UK climate change policy. More
recent legislation (The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment)
Order 2019) has introduced a new binding target of “net zero by 2050”.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-3
National Policy
18.2.5 The relevant National Policy Statements to the development are EN-1 (Energy)
and EN-3 (Renewable Energy Infrastructure). In relation to carbon and
greenhouse gas emissions, Section 2.2 of EN-1 sets out the road to meeting
greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2050 and describes how the UK must
reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, pursue its objectives for renewables and
ensure that electricity consumed is almost exclusively from “low-carbon”
sources. Section 1 of EN-3 identifies that a significant increase in generation
from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15%
renewable energy target. Specifically, in regards to Energy from Waste, section
2.5 of the statement identifies the following:
“The recovery of energy from the combustion of waste, where in accordance
with the waste hierarchy8, will play an increasingly important role in meeting
the UK’s energy needs. Where the waste burned is deemed renewable, this
can also contribute to meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets. Further, the
recovery of energy from the combustion of waste forms an important element
of waste management strategies in both England and Wales”
18.2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; 2019) sets out the
government’s planning policies for England and how they are expected to be
applied. In relation to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, section 14 of the
NPPF states that:
“The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a
changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It
should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience;
encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing
buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated
infrastructure.”
Local Planning Policy
18.2.7 The Site is located in the majority within the Tonbridge and Malling Borough,
however a small section of the site adjacent to the existing access lies within the
Maidstone Borough Council area. Therefore, a review of local planning policy
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-4
for both Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) and Maidstone
Borough Council (MBC) has been undertaken as this is deemed appropriate for
the context of the Proposed Extension.
18.2.8 TMBC (The Borough) is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan, which has
been consulted on and is currently at the examination phase. The Stage 1
hearing sessions were postponed but have now been rescheduled for October
and November 2020. Once the hearing sessions have been undertaken, the
plan will be modified accordingly to reflect the recommendations made by the
Inspector. Once finalised and adopted, the Local Plan will form part of the
council’s Development Plan up to 2031. Strategic Objective 9 is to “ensure
development mitigates its impact on the environment and is resilient to the
effects of climate change”. The Sustainability Appraisal produced to inform the
Local Plan identifies some key sustainability issues which affect TMBC – one
being “reducing the amount of non-hazardous waste sent to landfill and increase
the reuse and reducing of waste”. The appraisal also sets out key objectives,
including “to ensure that the borough responds positively, and adapts to, the
impacts of climate change” and “to reduce waste and achieve sustainable waste
management”. The Proposed Extension will reduce the amount of waste sent to
landfill, have a positive impact on climate change compared to the baseline and
promotes sustainable waste management by handling residual waste following
recycling only.
18.2.9 Policy CP1 in TMBC’s currently adopted Core Strategy seeks to achieve high
quality sustainable development in the borough. It is considered that the
development of renewable and low-carbon technologies such as the Proposed
Extension supports local sustainable development. The Managing Development
and the Environment Development Plan Document (MDE DPD) forms part of
the Local Development Framework for the borough, and aims to address issues
which may not be covered in the Core Strategy, such as how to “minimise the
impact of new development on climate change by reducing carbon emissions,
optimising the harnessing of energy from renewable sources and minimising
waste”. The MDE DPD sets out objectives including “optimising the use of low
or zero carbon technologies”. The Proposed Extension will lead to a reduction
in carbon emissions through the following:
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-5
18.2.10 offset of grid electricity with electricity generation from the Proposed Extension
and the avoidance of carbon emissions from landfill (refer to paragraph 18.4.21);
.
18.2.11 Key local issues set out in the MBC Local Plan include the provision of local
infrastructure to support new development including “sustainable waste
management” and “energy infrastructure”, both of which will be met by the
Proposed Extension.
Guidance
18.2.12 The Committee on Climate Change, the UK’s independent advisory body to the
government, recently published a technical report (referred to hereafter as the
CC Report) which sets out recommendations to the UK government on how to
achieve the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The CC Report sets
out how key biodegradable waste streams should be diverted from landfill within
the UK alongside an increase in recycling. To achieve this and deliver
substantial emissions reductions in the waste sector, the report advises that key
investment is required in alternative waste treatment facilities (such as
anaerobic digestion, mechanical-biological treatment and energy from waste).
The report acknowledges that a lack of investment in these areas may
encourage the export of waste.
18.2.13 The CC Report envisages a future generation mix where renewables dominate,
which includes generation from both hydro and energy from waste plants. The
continued development and investment in low carbon technologies will be key
in achieving a net-zero future. The intermittency of renewables is recognised
and there is support for base-load low-carbon generating plants. Consequently,
energy from waste (which supplies a steady and reliable source of renewable
energy) would play a key role in UK renewable power generation and contribute
to achieving a net zero future.
18.2.14 The Waste Management Hierarchy ranks waste management options in order
of sustainability, with more sustainable waste management options placed
higher in the Waste Management Hierarchy. The thermal treatment of residual
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-6
waste in an efficient energy-from-waste plant is a recovery operation, meaning
it should be favoured over the disposal of waste in a landfill.
18.2.15 The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), the
largest professional body for environmental practitioners, has published
guidance on the approach to EIA for carbon emissions, titled ‘Assessing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance’ (2017). The
guidance sets out areas for consideration at all stages of the assessment to
assist EIA practitioners in taking an informed approached to the treatment of
GHG emissions within an EIA.
Consultation
18.3.1 The proposed scope of this Climate Change Assessment was set out in the
Scoping Report submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in November
2019 (see Appendix 6-1). A Scoping Opinion was received from PINS in
December 2019 as adopted by the Secretary of State. Table 18.1 below
summarises the relevant response from PINS in relation to climate change:
Table 18.1: Consultation responses
Consultee Comment Response to Consultation
Scoping Responses
PINS (3.3.13) The Inspectorate states that the assessment should include a description and assessment (where relevant) of the likely significant effects the Proposed Development has on climate, such as having regard to the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions.
This Chapter addresses the impact of the Proposed Extension on climate change, with the full carbon assessment included in Technical Appendix 18.1.
PINS (6.12.3) The Inspectorate states that, the effects of the Proposed Extension on climate would be considered through a qualitative assessment; however, no further information on how this assessment will be undertaken has been provided. The Inspectorate state that the assessment should ensure the qualitative assessment clearly explains how carbon emissions are calculated.
This Chapter clearly sets out how carbon emissions for the Proposed Extension have been calculated, with the full methodology presented in Technical Appendix 18.1.
Meetings
None
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-7
Data Sources
18.3.2 The data sources and their relevance to this assessment are shown in Tables
18.2 and 18.3 below. This data covers both the activities to occur as part of the
Proposed Extension (project-specific data, such as transport distances) and the
emissions factors for these activities. Emissions factors have been carefully
selected, with multiple emissions factors considered when calculating the
carbon benefit of grid displacement (the reduction in carbon emissions when
comparing the carbon intensity of the UK grid and the carbon intensity of the
electricity exported from the Proposed Extension) (refer to paragraph 18.4.26).
Table 18.2: Data sources
Guidance Relevance to Assessment
IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vol 2, Table 2.2 Default Emissions Factors for Stationary Combustion in the Energy Industries, Municipal Wastes (non-biomass) and Other Primary Solid Biomass
Emissions factors:
• N2O default emissions factor: 0.04 kg N2O/tonne waste
• CH4 default emissions factor: 0.3 kg CH4/tonne waste
United Nations Framework for Climate Change Global Warming Potentials
Global Warming Potentials:
• GWP – N2O to CO2: 310 kg CO2e/kg N2O
GWP – CH4 to CO2: 25 CO2e/kg CH4
DEFRA, 2019, “Greenhouse gas reporting: Conversion factors 2019”
Emissions factor:
Emissions from gasoil: 0.25 tCO2e/MWh
DEFRA, 2019, “Fuel Mix Disclosure Table – 01/04/2018 – 31/03/2019”
Emissions factor:
Natural gas CO2 emissions: 349 g/KWh
DEFRA, 2014, “Review of Landfill Methane Emissions Modelling (WR1908)”
Landfill assumptions:
• Degradable decomposable organic carbon content (DDOC): 50%
• CO2 percentage of LFG: 43%
• CH4 percentage of LFG: 57%
• LFG recovery efficiency: 68%
• Methane captured used in gas engines: 90.9%
• Methane leakage through gas engines: 1.5%
• Landfill gas engine efficiency: 36%
Resource Futures, 2013, “Defra EV0801 National Compositional estimates for local authority collected waste and recycling in England, 2010/11” (Kerbside Residual)
Waste composition data
Environment Agency Wales/SLR, 2007, "Determination of the Biodegradability of Mixed Industrial and Commercial Waste Landfilled in Wales"
DEFRA, 2014, “Energy from waste: A guide to the debate”
Guidance used in carbon assessment methodology
DEFRA 2014, “Energy recovery for residual waste – a carbon based modelling approach”
Basis/main structure for carbon assessment methodology
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-8
IEMA, 2017, “Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance”
Basis for EIA methodology/PEIR Chapter structure
Where CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Table 18.3: Transport assumptions included in the assessment
Parameter Units Value Source
Average payload – Waste to landfill tonnes 18 Project-specific assumption Average payload – Waste to the
Proposed Extension tonnes 18
Payload – IBA tonnes 20
Payload – APCr tonnes 24.5
Payload – Reagents 20 tonnes
Articulated lorry CO2 factor - 100% loaded
kg CO2/km 1.02676 BEIS "Greenhouse gas reporting:
conversion factors 2017" HGV (all
diesel) Articulated (>3.5- 33t)
Articulated lorry CO2 factor - 0% loaded
kg CO2/km 0.67711
Waste distance to landfill (one way) km 48 Project-specific assumption Waste distance to the Proposed
Extension (one way) km 89
IBA distance to recovery km 27
APCr distance to disposal/recovery km 370 Assumed to be transported to
Knostrop Treatment Works in Leeds[1]
Lime distance to Site km 344 Tarmac Lime Quarry, Buxton
Activated carbon distance to Site km 72 Environmental Protection Industries
Ltd, Essex
Ammonia distance to Site km 402 CF Fertilisers UK Ltd, Ince
Fuel oil distance to Site km 200 Watsons Fuel UK Ltd, Chippenham
Mass of waste tonnes 300,000 Nominal waste throughput
Mass of IBA tonnes 72,000 Approximately 24% of input waste
Mass of APCr tonnes 16,000 Approximately 5% of input waste
Mass of lime tonnes 4,000 Project-specific assumption Mass of activated carbon tonnes 80
Mass of ammonium hydroxide (SNCR reagent)
tonnes 480
Mass of fuel oil tonnes 415
[1] Worst case scenario (greatest distance) assumed – in reality, only a small percentage of the APCr is expected to be transported here as a more local solution will be sought.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-9
Assessment Methodology
Scope
18.4.1 The objective of this assessment is to assess the carbon impact of GHG
emissions associated with the Proposed Extension against the baseline
scenario of disposing of the annual tonnage of waste in a landfill and generating
electricity using the marginal technology (refer to paragraph 18.4.21).
18.4.2 The elements of the baseline landfill comparator included within the assessment
are identified in Table 18.4.
Table 18.4: Elements of the Landfill Comparator to be included in the Assessment
Comparator Element included
Landfill
Emissions of methane (CO2e) released to atmosphere in the fraction of landfill gas that is not captured. This is calculated taking into account the following elements:
• Biogenic carbon
• Total DDOC content (biogenic carbon not sequestered)
• Methane in LFG, of which: o Methane captured o Methane oxidised in landfill cap o Methane released to atmosphere directly
Methane leakage through gas engines
Emissions offset from the generation of electricity from landfill gas, taking into account the following elements:
• Methane captured
• Methane flared
• Methane leakage through gas engines
• Methane used in gas engines
• Fuel input to gas engines Power generated
18.4.3 The elements of the Proposed Extension scoped into the carbon assessment
are identified in Table 18.5.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-10
Table 18.5: Elements of the Proposed Extension to be included in the Assessment
Development phase
Element of the Proposed Extension
Operation
Emissions released from the combustion of fossil carbon in the waste
Emissions of other greenhouse gases from the combustion of waste
Emissions from the combustion of auxiliary fuel in the auxiliary burners
Emissions from the transport of waste, reagents and residues to and from the site
Emissions offset from the export of electricity from the proposed development
18.4.4 The methodology within this Chapter differs from the methodology applied in
the rest of the PEIR. There is limited guidance on the assessment of carbon
and greenhouse gas emissions for the purposes of undertaking an
Environmental Impact Assessment. It is difficult to quantify the impact of carbon
and greenhouse gas emissions and the receptor will be the worldwide climate.
18.4.5 It is acknowledged that the other chapters within the PEIR consider two
scenarios – one with and one without the HWRC. The HWRC has not been
included within the scope of the carbon assessment as its operation will not
result in the direct release of greenhouse gas emissions. It is acknowledged
that there may be some indirect carbon emissions associated with the transport
of waste to and from the HWRC in addition to minor operational carbon
emissions from power consumption, lighting etc.
Study Boundaries
18.4.6 A fully comprehensive GHG assessment will typically cover all life cycle stages
including construction, operation and end-of-life stage (i.e. decommissioning
and demolition). The IEMA (2017) guidance states that certain life cycle stages
can be excluded as long as this approach is justified; it is expected that “direct
GHG emissions from a project’s use and/or operation would be reported as a
minimum” within the boundaries of the study. The chosen study boundaries are
set out and justified in paragraphs 18.4.7 to 18.4.9 below.
18.4.7 The emissions associated with the construction and end-of-life stages will be
minor when compared to the carbon impact over the operational lifetime of the
Proposed Extension. Therefore, construction emissions and end-of-life
emissions (e.g. decommissioning and site closure) have been scoped out of the
assessment in relation to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. This is
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-11
supported by the IEMA guidance which states that a balance should be “struck
between the amount of GHG emissions emitted by the project and the effort
committed to the actual GHG assessment”.
18.4.8 The adopted Scoping Opinion requests that carbon emissions are calculated
for the following three matters:
1. The combustion of waste from the operation of the Proposed Extension;
2. The displacement of heat and power which would otherwise be generated
from the combustion of fossil fuel; and
3. The alternative waste management solutions for the waste to be processed
at the Proposed Extension (assumed to be landfill).
The three matters above have been considered when calculating carbon
emissions for the Proposed Extension. As a conservative measure it has been
assumed that the Proposed Extension will not export heat. If the Proposed
Extension was to export heat the net carbon emissions would be lower. The
CHP assessment presented in Appendix 5-6 provides further detail on the
viability of heat export from the Facility.
18.4.9 The IAQM (2017) Guidance explains that the boundary of assessment should
consider the physical boundary, geographical location and temporal boundary.
A physical boundary cannot be defined – the effects will be on the worldwide
climate. The temporal boundary has been taken into consideration with the
assessment of a future baseline (18.4.26) and the operational lifetime of the
development (refer to paragraph 18.4.10). The geographical location of the
Proposed Extension has been taken into consideration via the assessment of
transport emissions.
Study Period
18.4.10 The Proposed Extension will operate for as long as it is required, however it is
expected to have an operational lifetime of at least 25 years. Therefore, this has
been chosen as a suitable long term Study Period for the assessment.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-12
Level and Significance of Effect
18.4.11 The IEMA (2017) guidance explains that in the absence of any significance
criteria or a defined threshold, it might be considered that all GHG emissions
are significant. Climate change has the potential to lead to significant
environmental effects on all topics in the EIA directive (population, fauna, soil
etc.) The guidance states that: “When evaluating significance, all new GHG
emissions contribute to a significant negative environmental effect; however;
some projects will replace existing development that have higher GHG profiles.
The significance of a project’s emissions should therefore be based on its net
impact, which may be positive or negative.”
18.4.12 The significance of effect is defined in accordance with the IEMA (2017)
guidance and therefore the Proposed Extension will have either a net positive
significant impact (i.e. a reduction in carbon emissions compared to the
baseline), a net negative significant impact (i.e. an increase in carbon emissions
compared to the baseline) or zero impact/significance (i.e. no change in carbon
emissions compared to the baseline).
18.4.13 The ultimate goal of establishing a baseline is being able to assess and report
the net GHG impact of the Proposed Extension. Therefore, the primary aim of
this assessment is to estimate the net GHG impact and significance associated
with the Proposed Extension compared to the baseline landfill scenario.
Cumulative impacts
18.4.14 In relation to cumulative effects, the IEMA guidance acknowledges that “GHG
emissions from all projects will contribute to climate change; the largest inter-
related cumulative effect”. Appendix C of the guidance describes how “GHG
impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts because no single
project makes a significant contribution to global climate change”. As the scope
for cumulative effects has the potential to be unlimited, it is not viable to assess
cumulative effects resulting from the operation of the Proposed Extension. It is
acknowledged that the methodology applied within the assessment differs to
other chapters of the PEIR – refer to paragraph 18.4.4.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-13
Limitations and assumptions
18.4.15 The following limitations and uncertainties have been identified in the
assessment:
• There is considerable uncertainty in literature surrounding the amount of
biogenic carbon that is sequestered in landfill.
• The future of the UK electricity grid mix is uncertain; therefore, the current
‘marginal’ comparator has been used to assess grid displacement (refer to
paragraph 18.4.21).
18.4.16 The following conservative assumptions have been used in the assessment:
• There will be 10 start-ups a year where the gasoil-fired auxiliary burners will
be in operation (in reality, there will typically be around 4 start-ups and
shutdowns per year).
• Recent bidding of Energy from Waste plants into the capacity market means
they are competing primarily with Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT),
gas engines and diesel engines. CCGT has been used as the comparator
for displaced electricity and may possibly be conservative compared to the
other options providing balancing services.
• A sequestration rate of 50% for biogenic carbon in landfill has been applied.
• A relatively high landfill gas capture rate of 68% gas been used.
• The methodology used to calculate the carbon burden of transporting the
waste is conservative as it may be possible to coordinate HGV movements
to reduce the number of trips.
• The Proposed Extension will generate approximately 31.4 MWe of
electricity, of which approximately 28.7 MWe will be exported to the grid.
This is conservative, as the development may generate more electricity at
the upper-end of the NCV (approximately 14 MJ/kg) range. The assessment
has currently been undertaken based on the nominal design capacity of the
(8,000 hours operation, 300,000 tonnes per annum of waste). The
development may operate for more than 8,000 hours per annum
(consequently processing more waste per annum) if there are limited
periods of shutdown/outage.
• The assessment has assumed that the Proposed Extension will not export
heat. The Proposed Extension is designed as a combined heat and power
plant (CHP), and if heat is exported this would significantly increase the
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-14
carbon benefits of the development. As detailed in the Heat and Power Plan,
there are potential CHP opportunities available which are being considered.
Detailed Methodology
18.4.17 The standard methodology described earlier in the PEIR does not apply to this
Chapter – refer to paragraphs 18.4.4 to 18.4.5. As the receptor for GHG
emissions will be the worldwide climate, it is not feasible to assess the sensitivity
of individual receptors. The environmental effects scientifically linked to global
warming include polar ice melts, sea level rise, ocean acidification, increases in
extreme weather events and ecosystem disruption among other effects. In
addition, the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions cannot be determined.
For the purposes of this Chapter, an alternative methodology has been applied
as described in the following sections.
Parameters
18.4.18 It is acknowledged that certain design parameters such as building layouts etc
are subject to detailed design of the Facility. The ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach
has been employed as certain details of the Proposed Extension (e.g. precise
dimensions of structures) have not yet been confirmed. However, a change in
the parameters adopted under the Rochdale Envelope would not affect the
outcome of the carbon and greenhouse gas emissions assessment, due to the
nature of the parameters used in the carbon assessment.
Baseline
18.4.19 The IEMA (2017) guidance defines the baseline as a reference point against
which the impact of a new development can be compared against (sometimes
referred to ‘business as usual’, where assumptions are made on current and
future greenhouse gas emissions). The baseline can be in the form of:
A) “GHG emissions within the agreed physical and temporal boundary of a
project but without the proposed project; or
B) GHG emissions arising from an alternative project design and
assumptions”.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-15
18.4.20 The Proposed Extension is a ‘new project’, therefore a current baseline cannot
be established in relation to emissions from the site boundary of the Proposed
Extension prior to commencement of development. In this instance, there are
zero GHG emissions to report. Furthermore, as the impact of GHG emissions
from the development will be worldwide, a physical boundary to their impact
cannot be defined. Therefore, option b) has been chosen to establish the
baseline.
18.4.21 For this assessment, the ‘alternative project design and assumptions’ for the
Proposed Extension will be sending the waste to landfill as this is currently the
most likely alternative destination for the waste, and generating electricity via
gas-fired power stations, as this is the current ‘marginal’ technology. This is
supported by the DEFRA guidance document ‘Energy from Waste – A guide to
the debate’ which states that “a gas fired power station (Combined Cycle Gas
Turbine – CCGT) is a reasonable comparator as this is the most likely
technology if you wanted to build a new power station today".
18.4.22 When considering the landfill comparator it is acknowledged that when waste is
disposed of in a landfill, the biogenic carbon degrades and landfill gas is
produced (comprised predominately of methane and carbon dioxide). Some of
the methane in this landfill gas can be recovered and used to generate
electricity, through combustion in a landfill gas engine. Both the carbon dioxide
released in landfill gas and the carbon dioxide produced as a result of
combustion in landfill gas engines (alongside the escape of gas from the
collection system and the landfill cap itself) are derived from the biogenic carbon
in the waste. Carbon from biogenic sources has a neutral carbon burden,
therefore, have been excluded from the calculations. Consequently, the focus
of the calculations is the methane which is released to atmosphere.
18.4.23 Landfill is typically the most likely alternative destination for residual waste if it
was not to be processed within a UK EfW plant. Residual waste treatment
capacity varies around the UK with some regions closer to foreign export
markets. It is acknowledged that currently, a significant proportion of waste from
the surrounding areas to the Proposed Extension is transported to Dover, where
it is then exported overseas for processing. The ‘need’ for the developing the
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-16
Proposed Extension relates in part to securing future UK-based waste
management solutions.
18.4.24 Whilst the export of waste is permissible, the energy recovered from this waste
would not contribute towards UK renewable energy targets and would
effectively be a lost resource to the UK. The UK government is keen to support
domestic markets where that can provide better environmental outcomes, to
ensure that the UK benefits from the energy generated from UK waste. Recent
estimates indicate that over the past few years the UK has been reducing the
amount of waste exported (‘UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2018’, Tolvik,
2019).
18.4.25 Taking the above into consideration, landfill is considered to be a suitable
baseline comparator for the purposes of the assessment. Should the alternative
baseline be considered (exporting the waste abroad for processing), it is
expected that the conclusions of the assessment will remain the same and that
the Proposed Extension would have a net benefit as the transport emissions
associated with the export of waste abroad will be significantly greater than the
transport emissions associated with processing the waste within the UK.
Future Baseline
18.4.26 According to the IEMA (2017) guidance, future baselines should capture both
direct and indirect (‘operational and use’) GHG emissions. This has been
reflected by the assessment of transport emissions (indirect) in addition to direct
emissions. For the purposes of this assessment, the Proposed Extension is
estimated to have a 25-year lifetime (refer to paragraph 18.4.10), and this has
been taken into consideration when assessing operational emissions and the
net impact of the Proposed Extension. In addition, a change in UK grid mix over
time and how this affects the net impact of the Proposed Extension has been
examined within a sensitivity analysis.
Operational Phase
18.4.27 Although the quantification of GHG emissions for an EIA or PEIR may vary in
methodology and approach between projects, it is expected that in almost all
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-17
cases, a calculated (not measured) approach is taken because these are
completed in advance of a project commencing development. The assessment
has been undertaken in line with IEMA (2017) guidance, which recommends
the following structure to calculate GHG emissions:
𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛/𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 × 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎
18.4.28 The DEFRA (2014) document ‘Energy from waste: A guide to the debate’
indicates that biogenic carbon dioxide released from the combustion of waste
or the burning of landfill gas should be ignored in this type of assessment.
Therefore, the calculations exclude carbon dioxide produced as a result of
combustion in landfill gas engines which is derived from the biogenic carbon
content of the waste in line with government guidance.
18.4.29 In accordance with Volume 5 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) (2006) Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, it has been
assumed that all of the carbon in the waste is converted to carbon dioxide in the
combustion process as waste incinerators have combustion efficiencies of close
to 100%.
18.4.30 The factors identified in Table 18.5 have been taken into consideration when
calculating the total carbon emissions associated with the operational phase of
the Proposed Extension. The detailed methodology including equations is
presented within Technical Appendix 18.1, and is broadly in line with the
methodology presented in both the IEMA guidance and the government
guidance document ‘Energy recovery for residual waste – A carbon based
modelling approach’.
Transport
18.4.31 The following indirect carbon emissions have been included within the scope of
the assessment:
• carbon emissions associated with the transport of waste to the Proposed
Extension;
• carbon emissions associated with the transport of reagents to the
Proposed Extension;
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-18
• carbon emissions associated with the transport of residues from the
Proposed Extension; and
• carbon emissions associated with the transport of waste to landfill.
18.4.32 The carbon burden is determined by calculating the total number of loads
required and multiplying it by the transport distance to generate an annual one-
way vehicle distance. This is multiplied by the respective empty and full carbon
dioxide factor for HGVs to determine the overall burden of transport. Full details
of the assumptions are provided in Appendix 18.1.
Sensitivity Analysis
18.4.33 A sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to assess the impact on the results
when changing the electricity grid displacement factor and the landfill gas
capture rate.
18.4.34 There is some debate over the type of power that would be displaced by the
electricity generated by the Proposed Extension and so lower figures have been
considered for the grid displacement factor, which would only be relevant if the
Proposed Extension were to displace other renewable sources of electricity.
This type of assessment is in line with IEMA (2017) guidance which states that
it is often necessary to assess multiple GHG factors for the same activity,
particularly when the assessment is studying a life cycle with a long time period.
The guidance specifically refers to this in the context of a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the national electricity grid.
18.4.35 The DEFRA (2014) report ‘Review of Landfill Emissions Modelling’ states that
the collection efficiency for large, modern landfill sites was estimated to be 68%
and the collection efficiency for the UK as a whole was estimated to be 52%.
There have been suggestions in other guidance that a conservative figure of
75% should be used. For example, the DEFRA report ‘Energy recovery for
residual waste: A carbon based modelling approach’ (2014) describes how the
government have historically used an assumption of 75% capture, e.g. for
Greenhouse Gas Inventory and other purposes. However this is described as
‘optimistic’ and it is stated that a figure between 50-60% might be more realistic
with the assumption that this will improve with newer technology over time.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-19
Therefore, a range of landfill gas capture rates have been assessed in the
sensitivity analysis.
Baseline
18.5.1 The quantity of GHG emissions associated with the baseline landfill scenario
has been calculated in accordance with the stated methodology.
18.5.2 The results are presented in Table 18.6.
Table 18.6: Emissions from landfill gas
Item Units Value
Biogenic carbon tonnes 43,632
Total DDOC content (biogenic carbon not sequestered – degradable) tonnes 21,816
Methane in LFG, of which: tonnes 16,580
-Methane captured tonnes 11,275
-Methane oxidised in landfill cap tonnes 531
-Methane released to atmosphere directly tonnes 4,775
Methane leakage through gas engines tonnes 154
Total methane released to atmosphere tonnes 4,929
CO2e released to atmosphere tCO2e 123,221
18.5.3 The amount of CO2e emissions offset through electricity generation for the
landfill comparator are presented in Table 18.7 below.
Table 18.7: Offset of CO2e emissions from the Export of Electricity from Landfill
Gas Engines
Item Units Value
Methane captured, of which: tonnes 11,275
-Methane Flared tonnes 1,025
-Methane leakage through gas engines tonnes 154
-Methane used in gas engines tonnes 10,096
Fuel input to gas engines GJ 474,503
Power generated MWh 47,450
Total CO2e offset through grid displacement tCO2e 16,608
18.5.4 The emissions associated with the transport of waste to and from a landfill is
presented in Table 18.8.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-20
Table 18.8: Indirect transport Emissions from Landfill
Parameter Nominal tonnage
(tpa)
Number of loads
required (p.a.)
One-way distance
(km)
One-way total
distance per year (km)
Total emissions
(CO2e)
Waste to landfill 300,000 16,667 48 800,016 1,363
Assessment of Effects
Operation Phase Effects
18.6.1 The detailed carbon assessment is included in Appendix 18.1. A summary of
the key results from the assessment are provided in the following table.
Table 18.15: Summary of Key Results from the Assessment
Parameter Emissions (CO2e)
Releases from landfill gas 123,221
Transport of waste and outputs to landfill 1,363
Offset of grid electricity from landfill gas engines -16,608
Total baseline emissions 107,976
Transport of waste to and outputs from the Proposed Extension 134,249
Offset of grid electricity with Proposed Extension generation 3,247
Emissions from the Proposed Extension -80,360
Total Proposed Extension Emissions 57,136
Net benefit of Proposed Extension 50,840
18.6.2 As shown, there will be a net carbon benefit of approximately 50,840 tCO2e per
annum for the Proposed Extension when compared to the baseline. Over the
expected lifetime of the Proposed Extension (assumed to be 25 years for the
purposes of this assessment), the net carbon benefit of the Proposed Extension
will be approximately 1,271,000 tCO2e compared to the baseline. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the Proposed Extension will have a significant positive
effect to reducing carbon emissions when compared to the baseline.
18.6.3 Another way to express the benefit of the Proposed Extension is to consider the
additional power generated by the Proposed Extension as compared to the
landfill counterfactual and calculate the effective net carbon emissions per MWh
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 18-21
of additional electricity exported. The effective carbon intensity is calculated to
be 0.0709 tCO2e/MWh.
Sensitivity Analysis
18.6.4 A sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to take into account future baseline
scenarios. A summary is presented in the following table.
Table 18.14: Net benefit of Proposed Extension from sensitivity analysis (t CO2e)
Grid displacement
factor (tCO2e/MWh)
Landfill gas capture rate
75% 68% 60% 52%
0.35 23,413 50,840 82,186 113,532
0.32 18,095 45,376 76,554 107,733
0.28 11,004 38,090 69,045 100,000
18.6.5 As shown in Table 18.14, there will be a net carbon benefit (and a significant
positive effect) in all cases assessed.
Summary
18.7.1 The Proposed Extension will have a net carbon benefit when compared to the
baseline. In addition, when comparing a range of sensitivities to account for
varying grid displacement factors there remains a net benefit associated with
the development of the Proposed Extension. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the Proposed Extension will have a significant positive effect to reducing
carbon emissions when compared to the baseline.