Page 1 1 58107 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTOR IN VIETNAM Background Paper Prepared by: RCEE Energy and Environment JSC (Vietnam), and Full Advantage Co., Ltd. (Thailand) Submitted to the World Bank Carbon Finance Assist Program – Vietnam May 2009 Page 2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................... 3 1. Brief Description of the Sector .............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Wastewater......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Domestic Wastewater.................................................................................................................. 4 1.1.2 Industrial wastewater .................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Solid wastes...................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.1 Municipal solid waste ............................................................................................................... 11 1.2.2 Industrial solid waste................................................................................................................. 15 1.2.3 Healthcare solid waste (HSW).................................................................................................. 15 1.2.4 Agricultural solid waste ............................................................................................................ 16 1.3 Livestock waste................................................................................................................................ 17 2. GHG Emissions from the Sector ......................................................................................................... 18 3. Key Potential Climate Change Mitigation Opportunities in the Sector.......................................... 21 3.1 Overview of the potential................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Typologies of potential CCM projects in the sector......................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of domestic wastewater.......................... 22 3.2.2 Methane recovery through anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater................................. 28 3.2.3 Composting of municipal solid waste....................................................................................... 30 3.2.4 Landfill gas capture and its use................................................................................................. 33 3.2.5 Use of agricultural solid wastes for energy generation............................................................. 36 3.2.6 Methane recovery at livestock farms ........................................................................................ 38 4. References.............................................................................................................................................. 42 Page 3 3 Abbreviations and Acronyms BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CCM Climate Change Mitigation CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEETIA Center for Environmental Engineering in Towns and Industrial Areas CH 4 Methane CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CMESRC Center for Marine Environment Survey Research and Consultation CO 2 Carbon dioxide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DOC Degradable Organic Carbon DONRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment (city or provincial) DONRE&H Department of Natural Resources, Environment and Housing (Hanoi) DS Domestic Sewage DWW Domestic Wastewater GHG Greenhouse Gases HCMC Ho Chi Minh City HEPA HoChiMinh City Environmental Protection Agency HSW Healthcare Solid Waste ISW Industrial Solid Waste IWW Industrial Wastewater LFG Landfill gas MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MSW Municipal Solid Waste N 2 O Nitrous oxide NOCCOP [Vietnam] National Office for Climate Change and Ozone Protection PDD Project Design Document PIN Project Idea Note SEV The State of the Environment in Vietnam SME Small and Medium Enterprises WB World Bank WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant URENCO Urban Environment Company VEM Vietnam Environment Monitor VEPA Vietnam Environment Protection Agency Page 4 4 1. Brief Description of the Sector Along with economic growth and improved living standards, waste from households, industries, and commercial/service establishments is expected to increase rapidly over the next years. Managing this waste is a hard challenge for the Government of Vietnam because of its substantial cost and lack of awareness and participation of people and businesses. Wastes can be classified according to: · their form (wastewater, solid waste,…), · their origin (industrial wastes, agricultural wastes, urban (municipal) wastes, …), · their hazardous nature (non-hazardous, hazardous,…). The actual and forecasted amounts of waste generated in Vietnam and their sources are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Waste generation in Vietnam Amount generated Type of waste Source 2006 2010 Wastewater (billion m 3 ) Domestic wastewater Residential, commercial, service 0.97 1.66 Industrial wastewater Industries 0.40 (2004) N/A Solid wastes (million tons) Municipal solid waste Residential, commercial, markets, etc. 15.8 21.0 Industrial solid waste Industries 2.9 3.2 Healthcare solid waste Hospitals 0.11 0.13 Agricultural solid waste 68.0 72.0 Livestock waste (million tons) Animal 56.5 60.7 1.1 Wastewater Wastewater originates from a variety of domestic, commercial and industrial sources. Domestic wastewater (DWW) is the used water from households, commercial or service establishments, while industrial wastewater (IWW) is from industrial practices only. The main factors causing GHG emissions from wastewater are organic and biodegradable substances. Table 2: Estimated DWW and IWW generation in Vietnam (in million m3/day) Year DWW 1 IWW Total Urban Rural Total 2000 1.45 1.07 0.38 N/A 2006 2.66 2.01 0.65 1.10 (2004) 2010 4.56 3.58 0.98 N/A Urban centers and industries are largest producers of wastewater. Currently, for the whole country, the total amount of untreated wastewater discharged into the environment is about 1.5 billion m 3 per year (4.1 million m 3 /day), of which over 3 million m 3 /day are from urban centers and industries 2 . Ho Chi Minh city and Hanoi city are the highest producers of wastewater. 1.1.1 Domestic Wastewater Domestic Wastewater Generation: 1 The estimation was based on Vietnam experience that 80-85% of fresh water use returns as wastewater; and domestic wastewater accounts for 60-90% of this amount. 2 MONRE’s website: http://www.monre.gov.vn Page 5 5 Domestic wastewater generation in Vietnam increased from about 1.45 million m 3 /day in 2000 to 2.66 million m 3 /day in 2006. It is expected to reach 4.56 million m 3 /day by 2010. In 2006, urban domestic wastewater accounted for about 75% of total domestic wastewater generation. It is equivalent to over 2.0 million m 3 /day of domestic wastewater, of which Ho Chi Minh City produced more than 0.8 million m 3 /day (40% of total) and Hanoi produced 0.38 million m 3 /day (19%). The urban domestic wastewater volume is expected to be over 3.5 million m 3 /day by 2010 and will account for over 78% of total domestic wastewater in Vietnam. Organic Content of Domestic Wastewater: The organic content is the major pollution-related factor of the domestic wastewater. It reduces oxygen content in natural waters and can produce methane under anaerobic conditions. The forecasted domestic wastewater generation and its BOD loadings by city in 2010 are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Domestic wastewater generation and BOD loadings by city in Vietnam in 2010 City City class Population (thousand person) Wastewater generation (km3/day) BOD loadings (ton/day) HCMC Special 7,200 1,152.0 288.0 Hanoi Special 4,100 656.0 164.0 Hai Phong Class I 2,060 309.0 72.1 Da Nang Class I 1,000 150.0 35.0 Hue Class I 400 56.0 14.0 Nam Dinh Class II 511 51.1 15.3 Thai Nguyen Class II 480 72.0 14.4 Ha Long Class II 650 84.5 19.5 Viet Tri Class II 280 28.0 8.4 Thanh Hoa Class II 350 35.0 10.5 Vinh Class II 300 30.0 9.0 Quy Nhon Class II 350 35.0 10.5 Nha Trang Class II 550 66.0 16.5 Buon Me Thuot Class II 400 40.0 12.0 Da Lat Class II 490 49.0 14.7 Bien Hoa Class II 645 96.8 19.4 Vung Tau Class II 350 52.5 10.5 My Tho Class II 350 35.0 10.5 Can Tho Class II 1,210 181.5 36.3 36 prov. cities/towns Class III 3,960 277.2 99.0 674 dist. towns/townlets Class IV&V 1,968 118.1 39.4 Total 27,604 3,575 919.0 Notes: Estimated BOD generation rates: 40 g/pers/day for special cities; 35 g/person/day for cities of Class I, 30 g/pers/day for cities of Class II; 25 g/pers/day for provincial cities and towns; and 20 g/pers/day for district towns and townlets (The average BOD generation rate is 33 g/pers/day for urban areas). Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Disposal: Currently, in urban areas, about 30% of the total domestic wastewater is being treated. In rural areas, the amount of treated domestic wastewater is smaller. The untreated domestic wastewater is directly discharged into sewer systems, rivers and lakes. This causes heavy pollution and environmental degradation in many canals and rivers in the country. In urban areas , septic tanks, latrines, and the centralized wastewater treatment plants are common technologies used for treatment of the domestic wastewater. In 2004, about 89.6% 3 of urban 3 World Bank,2008. Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Vietnam. A five-country study conducted in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI). Page 6 6 households have access to hygienic septic tanks and latrines. This percentage is expected to reach 99.2% by 2010 4 . Septic tanks (or semi-septic tanks) are mostly used for human waste treatment in urban areas. Most septic tanks are single-chamber type made from brick. Human waste enters the tank, allowing solids to settle and scum to float. The settled solids are anaerobically digested in the tank while scum and liquid component flow directly to the urban sewer system. This type of septic tanks and latrines has low removal efficiency for COD and BOD (20-30% for BOD removal) 5 . In rural areas , the domestic wastewater is treated through open defecation, septic tanks/latrines or direct discharge into the rivers or open ponds. The number of the people having access to hygienic latrines reached 50% in 2004 3 . The target is to achieve 59.8% of rural households having hygienic latrines by 2010 4 . The sanitation types and coverage values (%) in urban and rural areas of Vietnam are showed in Table 4 and Figure 1. Table 4: Sanitation types and coverage values (in %) in Vietnam (2004) Septic tank (Flush/Pour- flush) Ventilated improved pit latrine, latrine with slab, composting toilet Public or shared toilet, Pit latrine without slab Open (no facilities) Others unimproved Total Urban 80.8 8.8 N/A 3.2 7.2 100 Rural 20.5 29.5 N/A 16.3 33.7 100 Total 37.2 23.8 N/A 12.6 26.4 100 N/A: Not Available Figure 1: Sanitation types used in Vietnam (% of population) At present, about 10% (i.e. 200,000 m3/day) of urban domestic wastewater is treated in centralized wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Hanoi city has three centralized WWTPs with a total capacity of 48,000 m3/day, and Da Nang city has four WWTPs of a total capacity of 89,200 m3/day. Large cities such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Can Tho and Danang have ongoing projects to collect domestic wastewater for treatment. Several other small and medium cities within the country are also planning to build centralized wastewater treatment plants. It is expected that 20% of urban 4 World Bank, 2006. Water supply and sanitation strategy – Building on a solid foundation. 5 Nguyen Viet Anh et al. Decentralized wastewater treatment – new concept and technologies for Vietnamese conditions. Proceedings of 5 th Specialised Conference on Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems. Istanbul, Turkey, 24-26 September 2002. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Urban Rural Septic tank Improved aerobic latrine Public/shared toilet Open (no facilities) Othres unimproved Page 7 7 domestic wastewater (i.e. 720,000 m3/day) will be treated in centralized WWTPs in 2010. Table 5 lists down the centralized wastewater treatment plants (existing, under construction or being developed) in large cities/towns of Vietnam. Table 5: Existing and underway centralized WWTPs in large cities/towns in Vietnam City/Town Name of plant Capacity (m3/day) Owner/Developer/Sponsor Status H anoi Van Tri 42,000 Hanoi URENCO In operation Hanoi Truc Bach 2,300 Hanoi URENCO In operation Hanoi Kim Lien 3,700 Hanoi URENCO In operation Hanoi Yen So 6 200,000 Gamuda Corporation ( Malaysia) Under construction ( completion 2010) Hanoi Yen Xa, Phu Do 346,000 Nippon Koei and VIWASE (VN) Feasibility study Ho Chi Minh 7 Binh Hung 141,000 (Phase 1) 371,000 (Phase 2) Ho Chi Minh city URENCO Under construction (phase 1 completed Jan 2009) Ho Chi Minh - - Wijaya Baru Global Bhd (Malaysia) Feasibility study Ho Chi Minh - - SFC Umwelttechnik Gmbh (Austria) and Phu Dien and Hoang Gia Co., Ltd. (VN) 8 Feasibility study Da Nang 9 4 plants 89,200 Da Nang city/World Bank In operation Ha Long 1 plant (Hon Gai) 7,000 Ha Long city/World Bank In operation Nha Trang 1 0 2 plants 22,890 (Phase 1) 77,340 (Phase 2) Nha Trang city/World Bank 2010 (Phase 1) 2020 (Phase 2) Quy Nhon 3 plants 10,470 (Phase 1) 44,560 (Phase 2) Quy Nhon city/World Bank 2010 (Phase 1) 2020 (Phase 2) Dong Hoi 1 plant 4,340 (Phase 1) 8,570 (Phase 2) Dong Hoi city/World Bank 2010 (Phase 1) 2020 (Phase 2) Hoi An 11 - 6,700 Quang Nam province Feasibility study The technology currently used in domestic wastewater treatment plants (Truc Bach and Kim Lien WWTPs in Hanoi) is activated sludge (aerobic fluidized bed). The process flow diagram of this technology is shown in Figure 2. 6 Website: http://tmmt.gov.vn 7 This project will be implemented in two phases. The capacity of phase 1 is 141,000 m3/day completed in January 2009. Phase 2 will increase to 512,000 m3/day completed after 2010. 8 HEPA’s website: http://www.hepa.gov.vn 9 World Bank, 1999. Project Appraisal Document of Three Cities Sanitation Project 10 World Bank,2006. Project Appraisal Document of Coastal Cities Environmental Sanitation Project 11 Website: http://www.mientrung.com Page 8 8 Figure 2: Process flow diagram of Truc Bach and Kim Lien WWTPs in Hanoi 1.1.2 Industrial wastewater Industrial wastewater generation: The surveys conducted by MONRE and World Bank showed that the total industrial wastewater generated in three largest river basins in Vietnam was 910,000 m3/day in 2004 (Table 6). As these surveys cover only 23 cities and provinces, the industrial wastewater generated in the whole of Vietnam should be higher. However, as the largest producers of industrial wastewater were included in the surveys, it is estimated that the surveyed areas represented 80- 90% of Vietnam’s industrial wastewater generation. Thus, the total industrial wastewater generation would be estimated at about 1,100,000 m3/day. Page 9 9 Table 6: Industrial wastewater generation in 2004 1 2 River basin Cities/provinces included Main IWW sources Amount generated (m3/day) Cau river basin (6 provinces) Bac Kan, Thai Nguyen, Vinh Phuc, Bac Giang, Bac Ninh and Hai Duong Paper production; mining and ore exploitation; metallurgy and steel i ndustry; craft villages. 109,000 Nhue-Day river basin (6 provinces) Hoa Binh, Hanoi, Ha Tay, Ha Nam, Nam Dinh and Ninh Binh Food & beverage; chemical & chemical products; textile industry, craft villages. 321,000 Dong Nai-Sai Gon river basin (11 provinces) Lam Dong, Binh Phuoc, Binh Duong, Tay Ninh, Dong Nai, Ho Chi Minh city, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan, Dak Lak and Long An Industrial zones and craft villages 480,000 Total 910,000 The industrial wastewater generation varies from one province to another, depending on the level of industry development. The industry-intensive cities and provinces in the South Eastern region (HCMC, Binh Duong, Dong Nai, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, etc.) and in the Red River Delta region (Ha Noi, Vinh Phuc, Ha Tay, Hai Phong, etc.) share the majority of industrial wastewater generated in Vietnam. A recent study conducted by the World Bank 13 showed that the top 10 BOD-intensive industries in Vietnam are: · Food and beverages (FOO); · Paper and paper products (PAP); · Publishing, printing & recording (PUB); · Tanning & dressing of leather; manufacture of leather products (LEA); · Basic metal (BMT); · Wood & wood products; · Chemical & chemical products (CHE); · Non-metallic mineral products (NMT); · Fabricated metal products, except machinery & equipment (FMT); · Coke & refined petroleum products (CAP). The total BOD emissions from industries was estimated at 66,700 tons in 2004. With an annual growth of 3.1-6.0%, it is projected that the total BOD emissions from industries will reach 158,500 tons by 2015. The BOD emissions from the top 10 BOD-intensive industries are presented in Table 7. Table 7: BOD emissions by industry (WB data) Industry type BOD emissions (ton/yr) 2004 2010 14 2015 FOO 39,000 62,460 82,000 PAP 15,000 25,910 35,000 PUB 6,000 16,360 25,000 LEA 2,000 3,640 5,000 BMT 2,000 3,640 5,000 WOD 1,000 1,820 2,500 CHE 1,000 1,270 1,500 NMT 500 770 1,000 FMT 100 590 1,000 CAP 100 320 500 Total 66,700 116,780 158,500 12 The State of Environment in Vietnam 2005 (MONRE), and Vietnam Environment Monitor 2006 (World Bank, MONRE and DANIDA) . 13 World Bank,2008. Industrial Development and Environmental Management in Vietnam. 14 Estimated by interpolation Page 10 10 The data presented in Table 7 were calculated based on the experience from South Korea. As these values are rather low 15 , the emissions of organic matter from industries will be calculated based on their annual production, wastewater generation per unit of industrial product and the organic content in wastewater. Table 8 presents the estimated COD emissions from 15 COD-intensive industries in Vietnam. Table 8: COD emissions by industry (calculated) Industry type O utput of industry 16 (ton/yr) COD 17 content (mg/l) C OD 1 8 emission rate (kg/ton of output) COD emissions (ton/yr) 2006 2010 2006 2010 Liquor 290,000 380,000 11,000 264.0 76,560 100,320 Beverage 800,000 1,100,000 5,000 100.0 80,000 110,000 Beer 1,548,000 2,500,000 2,900 18.3 28,328 45,750 Canned milk 100,860 150,000 2,700 18.9 1,906 2,835 Fish processing 2,604,350 3,150,000 2,500 25.0 65,109 78,750 Meat processing 2,800,000 6,500,000 4,100 53.3 149,240 346,450 Petroleum refinery 0 6,500,000 1,000 0.6 0 3,900 Plastics and resins 2,271,700 3,561,800 3,700 2.2 4,998 7,836 Paper 997,400 1,450,000 1,500 75.0 74,805 108,750 Paper pulp 399,000 1,000,000 2,000 140.0 55,860 140,000 Soap 531,100 700,000 1,000 9.0 4,780 6,300 Tapioca starch 1,000,000 1,200,000 10,000 90.0 90,000 120,000 Sugar mill 1,032,000 1,400,000 3,200 14.4 1 9 14,861 20,160 Vegetable oil refinery 415,000 500,000 1,000 3.1 1,287 1,550 Bioethanol production 0 240,000 807.5 0 193,800 Total 647,734 1,286,401 Industrial wastewater treatment and disposal: Currently, only 30-40% of the total national industrial wastewater is being treated. In HCMC, a largest producer of industrial wastewater, about 40% of generated industrial wastewater is being treated. Among 183 export processing zones and industrial parks operating in Vietnam, only 55 (30%) have wastewater treatment systems 20 . Untreated industrial wastewater is being discharged directly in the rivers that are already highly polluted. The chemical and aerobic technologies are mostly being used for treatment of industrial wastewater of the industrial zone. The anaerobic treatment technology is used in some industries such as sugar mills and tapioca factories. Typical technology used for wastewater treatment in the industrial zones is shown in Figure 3. 15 If the total BOD emissions from the top 10 BOD-intensive industries in 2004 were 66,700 ton/yr (as in Table 7) and the wastewater generation was 1,100,000 m3/day (i.e. 401,500,000 m3/yr), the average BOD concentration of industrial wastewater would be 166.1 mg/l only, which seems abnormally low. 16 The data on outputs of industries in 2006 are mainly from the 2007 Vietnam Statistical Yearbook. The data for 2010 are from various sector development plans. 17 The data on COD content of industrial wastewater are from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Volume 5: Waste). Some of these IPCC defaults were cross-checked with the some respective ones published in Vietnam. 18 These value are calculated based on default values of wastewater generation (m3/ton of product) given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines. 19 Not included molasses 20 “Tuoi Tre” Newspaper, October 9, 2008. Page 11 11 Figure 3: Process flow diagram of typical wastewater treatment plant at an industrial zone 1.2 Solid wastes Solid wastes in Vietnam are commonly grouped into four categories: · Municipal waste; · Industrial waste; · Healthcare waste; · Agricultural waste. The actual amounts of solid wastes generated in Vietnam are summarized in Table 9. Table 9: Solid waste generation in 2006 Type Amount (million tons/yr) Municipal solid waste 15.8 Industrial solid waste 2.9 Healthcare solid waste 0.11 Agricultural solid waste 68.0 1.2.1 Municipal solid waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) in general includes waste generated in households, commercial establishments, institutions, and market waste. MSW generation: Vietnam’s MSW production was estimated at about 5.9 million tons (19,300 ton/day) in 1997 21 , and 12.8 million tons (35,000 ton/day) in 2003 22 . Cities are the major generators of municipal waste. Urban areas contain only 26% of the country population but produced about 50% of the total municipal waste in 2003. MSW is expected to reach 21 million tons (57,500 ton/day) by 2010, of which 63% would be generated in urban areas (8) . In 2006, HCMC generated about 6,100 ton of MSW per day, accounting for 25.5% of total MSW production in Vietnam, while Hanoi produced a total of 3,220 ton of MSW per day, or 13.5% of total country MSW generation. MSW generation in HCMC increases at a rate of about 10-11% per year. It is expected to reach 9,360 ton/day by 2010. The MSW generation in Hanoi increases at a rate of 15% per year. It would reach 5,740 ton/day by 2010. The per-capita MSW generation rates are presented in Table 10. The growth rate in MSW generation is high, especially in urban areas due to urbanization, increased per-capita income/consumption, and population growth. 21 SEV, 2001. VEPA website: http://www.nea.gov.vn 22 World Bank, MONRE and CIDA. Vietnam Environment Monitor, 2004 Page 12 12 Table 10: The per-capita MSW generation rates in Vietnam (kg/person/day) 1997 2003 2010 Whole Vietnam 0.25 0.43 0.65 Urban areas 0.52 0.84 1.26 Rural areas 0.16 0.29 0.38 Table 11 presents the estimated MSW generation by city in Vietnam for years 2006 and 2010. The estimation was based on population growth and expected MSW generation rates in different cities/towns according to their urban class. Table 11: MSW generation by city, town and townlet in Vietnam Name of city City class 23(1) Population (thousand person) MSW generation (ton/day) 2006 2010 2006 2010 HCM City Special 6,106 7,200 6,720 9,360 Hanoi City Special 3,217 4,100 3,220 5,740 Hai Phong City Class I 1,803 2,060 1,800 2,680 Da Nang City Class I 788 1,000 790 1,300 Hue City Class I 346 400 310 480 Nam Dinh City Class II 295 511 240 610 Thai Nguyen City Class II 290 480 230 580 Ha Long City Class II 498 650 450 780 Viet Tri City Class II 168 280 140 340 Thanh Hoa City Class II 200 350 160 420 Vinh City Class II 260 300 210 360 Quy Nhon City Class II 260 350 210 420 Nha Trang City Class II 400 550 360 660 Buon Me Thuot City Class II 340 400 270 480 Da Lat City Class II 200 490 160 590 Bien Hoa City Class II 549 645 490 770 Vung Tau Class II 290 350 230 420 My Tho Class II 234 350 190 420 Can Tho City Class II 1,140 1,210 1,030 1,450 36 cities and towns Class III 3,600 3,960 2,880 4,360 674 towns and townlets Class IV&V 1,806 1,968 1,260 1,770 Total 22,790 27,604 21,350 33,990 Nineteen special, national and regional cities generated 81.0% of total country MSW in 2006. This figure is expected to decrease to 76.8% in 2010. By 2010, five cities (HCMC, Hanoi, Hai Phong, Da Nang and Can Tho) will generate more than 1,000 ton/day, six (Nam Dinh, Thai Nguyen, Ha Long, Nha Trang, Da Lat and Bien Hoa) cities will generate 500 to 1,000 ton/day, eight cities will generate 300 to 500 ton/day, and 36 provincial cities will generate 100 to 150 ton/day. The dumping sites for these 19 cities with a MSW generation of 300 ton/day and above are potential sites for LFG recovery projects while 36 provincial cities with a MSW generation of 100-150 ton/day may be potential sites for composting projects that may also qualify as CDM projects. MSW Composition: Municipal waste from households, markets, and business in rural areas contains a large proportion (60-75%) of easily degradable organic waste. In urban areas, such biodegradable waste is produced in lower quantities (approximately 50% of MSW). The change in consumption patterns and products is accompanied by a larger proportion of hazardous waste and non-degradable waste, such as plastic, metals, and glass. 23 Urban/city classification in accordance with the Government’s Decree No. 72/2001/ND-CP of October 5, 2001 on the classification of urban centers and urban management levels Page 13 13 MSW Collection and Transportation: MSW management falls under the jurisdiction of several governmental bodies at national, provincial and municipal levels. There is no unified or standardized system for waste collection, thus waste collection rates and efficiency vary from one city to the other, depending on adequacy of waste management, facility and human resource availability, etc. Average MSW collection rates are improving, but remain low in many cities. The national average collection rate of MSW in urban areas rose from 65% to 72% between 2000 and 2004. Collection rates are typically higher in larger cities than in smaller cities. The method of waste collection and transportation varies from one place to another. In urban areas, citizens usually collect their waste in the plastic bag and place it in front of their dwelling for URENCO employees to pick up a few times daily. The trash is transported by handcarts or small motored trucks that the URENCO collectors move from one house to another. When the handcarts or small trucks are full, they are moved to a designated transfer station where bigger waste trucks take the waste to the nearest dumpsite of landfill. In places, where there are no transfer points, residents are provided with the communal containers and are responsible for disposing their waste into these containers. The URENCO trucks will come daily to unload the communal containers and transport the waste to the dumpsites. In general, most MSW is not sorted at the source or at the transfer points. Regardless of the type of waste being collected (domestic, industrial, healthcare, hazardous or non- hazardous,…), it is all disposed of in the same landfill. MSW Disposal: Some part of MSW is recovered and recycled. No information is available on the amount of MSW recycled at the national level. However, it seems like approximately 20% of Hanoi MSW was recycled in 2003. MSW handling (collection, treatment and disposal) in Vietnam is mainly carried out by public URENCOs, which are responsible for the collection and disposal of municipal waste, including domestic, institutional, and in most cases also industrial and healthcare wastes. There are 91 landfills located throughout Vietnam, but only 17 are engineered and sanitary landfills (VEM 2004). The largest engineered and sanitary landfills in Vietnam are listed in Table 12. Open and controlled dumping areas are the dominant form of MSW disposal in Vietnam. Only 12 out of 64 cities and provincial capitals have engineered or sanitary landfills. Most of them do not have the necessary ground linings or adequate top covers; many of them are located within 200-500 meters of residential areas. Many landfills and dumpsites are poorly operated, posing an enormous health threat to local populations due to ground and surface water contamination from untreated leachate. These also result in increased GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Table 12: Largest engineered and sanitary landfills in Vietnam No . Name of landfill Location Area (ha) Designed Capacity (mil. tons) Actual receivability (ton/day) Status 1. Dong Thanh HCMC 40 8.0 - Closed (2001) 2. Phuoc Hiep 1 HCMC 20 3.0 - Closed (2006) 3. Go Cat HCMC 25 4.9 - Closed (2007) 5. Phuoc Hiep 2 HCMC 98 - 3,000 Operating 6. Da Phuoc HCMC 128 - 3,000 Operating 7. Me Tri Hanoi N/A - Closed (2001) 8. Tay Mo Hanoi N/A - Closed 9. Nam Son Hanoi 83 15.0 2,500 Operating 10. Lam Du Hanoi 14 - 1,000 Operating 10. Thuong Ly Hai Phong N/A - Closed 11. Gia Minh Hai Phong N/A - Closed 12. Trang Cat Hai Phong 60 800 Operating Page 14 14 13. Khanh Son 1 Da Nang N/A Closed (2006) 14. Khanh Son 2 Da Nang 50 6.0 700 Operating 15. Dong Thanh Can Tho 4.7 0.27 - Closed (2005) 16. Tan Long Can Tho 20 350 Operating S ource: websites of different public media in Vietnam 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Open dumps Controlled dumps Engineered and sanitary landfills N u m b e r o f c i t i e s a n d p r o v i n c i e s Figure 4: Number of Waste Disposal Facilities by type (VEM, 2004) Self-disposal is common in areas with no collection and disposal services (VEM 2004). Households (usually, the poor) that do not have access to collection and disposal services use their own means of waste disposal. The waste is often dumped in nearby rivers or lakes, or discarded at sites near houses. Other methods of self-disposal include burning or burying waste. All of these methods cause serious environmental damage, endanger human health and increase GHG emissions due to uncontrolled decay of waste in open air. In recent years, modern technologies are employed for MSW treatment. · LFG recovery: This technology is currently used for only one sanitary landfill, Go Cat, located outside of HCMC. The landfill covers 25 hectares with a total amount of waste of 4.9 million tons accumulated in place until its closing in 2007. It also includes a system for collecting and treating leachate. The LFG recovered is used for powering 3 gas engines with a total capacity of 2.43 MW. · MSW composting: A few centralized composting facilities are currently operated in Vietnam. However, the combined capacity of these composting facilities is less than 1,000 ton/day that accounts for less than 5% of current amount of MSW generated in the whole of Vietnam. · Incinerating MSW is not a common practice in Vietnam. This technology is being used for treatment of healthcare solid waste only. According to Vietnam’s strategy for solid waste management until 2020 24 , the MSW disposal practices will be improved with sanitary landfill, biological treatment and incineration becoming the main methods for MSW treatment. The percentages of MSW treated by each method in 2010 and 2020 are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Strategic objectives to 2020 for MSW management in Vietnam (in % of generated MSW) Used technology Special and Class I cities Class II & Class III cities Class IV & Class V cities and towns 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Controlled Sanitary landfills 40-50 40-50 60-65 60-65 55-60 55-60 Biological treatment 10-15 20-25 20-25 20-25 25-30 25-30 Incineration 10-15 15-20 2-4 4-8 2 4-5 Other 2-5 5-10 2 4 2 4 24 N.T.K. Thai, 2005. Page 15 15 1.2.2 Industrial solid waste Industrial solid waste generation: Industrial solid waste is generated by manufacturing or industrial processes such as construction, fabrication, light and heavy manufacturing, refineries, chemical plants, demolition plants, power plants, , etc. In Vietnam, industrial solid waste is classified into two groups: (i) industrial non- hazardous waste (e.g. paper, cardboard, plastics, metal, wood, glass, etc.); and (ii) industrial hazardous waste (e.g. consumer electronics, batteries, oil, tires, chemicals, etc.). In 1997, Vietnam’s industrial solid waste amounted to about 1.48 million tons. This figure was 2.64 million tons in 2003, of which industrial non-hazardous waste accounted for 95.1%, industrial hazardous waste for 4.9%. The total industrial solid waste is projected to be 3.2 million tons by 2010 (8,770 ton/day) 25 . Industrial solid waste is mainly concentrated in the South. Nearly half of the Vietnam industrial solid waste is produced in the South East region. In 2007, HCMC, the main city in this region, generated 1,800 ton/day accounting for 23% of the total industrial solid waste generated in Vietnam 26 . Hanoi produced about 1,100 ton/day of industrial solid waste that accounts for 14% of the whole country’s production 27 . Industrial solid waste composition: The average composition of industrial solid waste is very different from the average composition of municipal solid waste. It also varies by type of industry. However, many types of waste can be included in both industrial and municipal solid wastes. No data is available on the composition of ISW generated in Vietnam. ISW Disposal: At least 80% of industrial non-hazardous waste is recycled and reused. The remaining part (about 20%) is mixed and dumped along with municipal solid waste 28 . Most industrial hazardous wastes generated from larger industries are either treated on-site by simple furnaces or industrial boilers, or by specialized small private enterprises, which recycle part of the waste and use cheap, locally made furnaces. As a result, the risk of posing an additional environmental threat from air emissions and ash is quite high. For SMEs, there are even fewer options for proper treatment of industrial hazardous waste. The lack of combined treatment facilities has led industries, especially SMEs, to practice a variety of unsafe methods of treatment and disposal, including co-disposal with municipal solid waste, storage onsite, or sale to recyclers. 1.2.3 Healthcare solid waste (HSW) The total amount of healthcare solid waste generated in Vietnam is rather small. It was 107,500 tons in 2003, of which about 20% (21,500 tons) were considered hazardous. The hazardous healthcare waste is expected to reach 25,000 tons (68.5 ton/day) by 2010 (12) . Healthcare solid waste is mainly generated from hospitals and clinics. It includes non-hazardous (paper, foods, plastic bags, etc.) and hazardous (tissue samples, blood, used syringes, etc). There is limited data on the HSW composition. The organic content of HSW is around 52.9%, with an average bulk density of 150 kg/m3; a moisture content of 42% and a calorific value of 2,150 kcal/kg. The major part of healthcare solid waste is currently burned in modern waste incinerators. The remaining part, including paper, wasted foods, plastics, is disposed in landfills. 25 Vietnam Environment Monitor 2004. World Bank, MONRE and CIDA 26 DONRE of HCMC. Website: http://www.donre.hochiminhcity.gov.vn 27 DONRE&H of Hanoi city. Website: http://tnmtnd.hanoi.gov.vn 28 World Bank, MONRE, CIDA. Vietnam Environment Monitor 2004. Page 16 16 1.2.4 Agricultural solid waste Agricultural solid wastes consist of unusable materials, that result from agricultural practices. Agricultural wastes include both natural (organic) and non-natural wastes. Main non-natural waste arises from packaging and non-packaging plastics, agrochemicals (e.g. fertilizers and pesticides), animal health products (e.g. used syringes), waste from agricultural machinery (e.g. oil, tyres, batteries), etc. Natural agricultural waste includes mainly crop residues and animal wastes. As the GHG emissions from agricultural activities are mainly caused by inappropriate management of natural agricultural waste, this report therefore focuses on this type of wastes. Table 14 presents the main crop residues and their related energy content for 2006. Table 14: Production (ktons) and heat input (kTOE) of main crop residues in 2006 Crop production Crop residues generated Crop residues used 29 (ktons) (ktons) (kTOE) 30 (ktons) (kTOE) Main Agricultural wastes: 48,167 14,830 12,920 3,505 Paddy straw 35,827 35,827 11,990 5,830 1,950 Rice (paddy) husk 35,827 7,170 1,950 3,360 915 Sugarcane bagasse 15,679 5,170 890 3,730 640 Others: 19,800 6,730 4,900 1,690 Cane trash 15,679 1,570 470 Maize trash 3,819 9,550 2,850 Cassava stem 7,714 2,310 690 Coconut shells and leaves 982 5,890 2,540 Peanut shell 465 140 40 Coffee husk 854 340 140 Total 67,967 21,560 17,820 5,195 The total crop residues generated in 2006 was about 68 million tons (21,560 kTOE) in which the largest are paddy straw, maize trash, coconut shell, rice husk and bagasse. Current use of biomass: Rice husk: Currently, rice husk is collected and used by the inhabitants in rural areas as cooking fuel. It is also used as “shock absorber” for fruit transportation, and as fuel in brick kilns, paddy dryers, etc. However, in the Mekong Delta provinces where rice husk residue is abundant during the milling season, a large amount of surplus rice husk is thrown into rivers that cause a serious threat to the environment. Bagasse: All bagasse generated in the sugar mills is being used for heat and electricity generation to supply to the sugar mills. However it is used in a very inefficient way in old low pressure boilers. Much more energy could be produced from bagasse if it is used in higher efficiency cogen plants. Other biomass: Other biomass such as paddy straw, cane and maize trash are mainly used as fuels for cooking in rural households, production of building material (e.g. in brick kilns, pottery furnaces) as well as for other non-fuel applications (material for house roofing, raw material for cultivating mushroom, cattle food, etc.). 29 Pham Khanh Toan, 2008. 30 1 TOE equals 41.84 GJ Page 17 17 1.3 Livestock waste In 2006, the livestock population in Vietnam included about 26.9 million pig-heads, 6.5 million cattle- heads, 2.9 million buffalo-heads and 214.6 million poultry-heads. The total number for other animals (horse, goat, sheep, etc.) is around 1.6 million heads 31 . Livestock in Vietnam is concentrated in small, individual household farms (5-20 animal heads) that account for close to 99% of the total livestock population in Vietnam 32 . The number of larger-scale livestock farms accounting for just over 1% of livestock population, was estimated at be over 16,700 in 2006 15 . In the recent years, there was a tendency to move from small household-scale to larger livestock farms. However, this trend was slow, as larger farms are unable to compete with small household-scale farms. Animal waste includes livestock and poultry manure, bedding and litter, plus such things as dairy parlor waste water, feedlot runoff, silage juices from trench silos and even wasted feed. Table 15 shows the manure generation from main livestock types in 2006. Table 15: Manure generation from main livestock types in 2006 (million tons) Livestock type Livestock population (million heads) Manure generation 3 3 (million tons) Pig 26.9 26.9 Cattle 6.5 16.3 Buffalo 2.9 13.3 Total 56.5 Limited data is available on the composition of animal waste. Table 16 presents the typical composition of cattle and pig manure in Vietnam. Table 16: Composition of animal manure in Vietnam Component Cattle manure Pig manure Dry matter (DM), % 15.3 29.1 Organic matter, % 83.6 76.5 pH 7.19 - Total N, mg/kg 3,730 4,350 NH 3 -N, mg/kg 640 654 NH 3 -N in total N, % 17.2 15.0 A major part of animal manure is discharged into streams or rivers. This causes a serious threat to the environment. Only a small part of animal manure is reused, mainly for feeding fish and fertilizing fields and gardens. Another part is used for biogas production. Currently, about 60,000 biogas digesters (40,000 brick and 20,000 plastic digesters) have been installed. These digesters can produce about 110 million m 3 of biogas per year, which accounts for more than 3% of the biogas potential 34 . Most of installed biogas digesters are family-sized (1-10 m 3 ). The number of large biogas digesters for livestock farms is low. An ongoing “Biogas Program for the Animal Husbandry Sector in Vietnam” plans to install 140,000 family-sized biogas plants in 58 provinces of Vietnam by 2010 35 . With this program implemented, the biogas production could reach about 10% of the identified potential. 31 Vietnam Statistical Yearbook 2006 32 ENERTEAM, 2001. 33 The amount of pig manure is 1.0 ton/year/head, cattle 2.5 ton/year/head, and buffalo 4.6 ton/year/head. 34 The potential for biogas production is estimated at about 3,400 million m3/yr,based on the data of the year 2006. 35 Biogas program website: http://www.biogas.org.vn Page 18 18 2. GHG Emissions from the Sector The main GHG emissions arising from inappropriate waste management are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ). The major source of GHG emissions from industrial and municipal wastewater is CH 4 . The latter is mainly produced when the wastewater degrades in open anaerobic systems such as polluted waterways (rivers, lakes), septic tanks, open pit latrines, or open anaerobic treatment systems without biogas capture. The sludge generated from wastewater treatment plants will also produce methane if it is directed to and degraded in the open sludge pits that are clearly under anaerobic conditions. N 2 O and CO 2 emissions from wastewater decay in open anaerobic systems or sludge pits are not significant.. Municipal solid waste is usually collected and transported to landfills. The major source of GHG emissions from municipal solid waste is methane generated by organic decomposition of waste at the landfill site. Methane is also emitted from the uncontrolled decay of a part of municipal solid waste that can not be collected and delivered to the landfill. N 2 O and CO 2 emissions from decomposition of municipal solid waste are usually small compared to CH 4 emission. In case of uncontrolled burning of municipal solid waste, the main emission will be CO 2 . GHG emissions from agricultural residues occur from uncontrolled burning or decay of surplus crop residues and animal wastes. Carbon dioxide emissions are primarily related to burning of wastes, nitrous oxide emissions are linked to using of manure and synthetic fertilizers for crop cultivation, while methane emissions are generally related to animal manure. The GHG emissions from the waste sector are presented in Table 17. The total GHG emissions in 1994 were 5,273,600 tCO-e. They increased to 25,248,305 tCO-e in 2006 and are expected to reach 33,891,044 tCO-e in 2010. Table 17: GHG emissions from waste sector (in tCO 2 -e/year) Waste stream Urban Rural Total % 1994 (1) : DWW (2) 1,156,167 21.9 IWW (3) 16,590 0.3 MSW (4) 1,392,258 26.4 ISW NA - HSW NA - Animal waste (1) 2,708,580 51.4 Total for 1994 5,273,595 100.0 2006 (5) : DWW (6) 1,244,865 2,867,845 4,112,710 16.3 IWW (7) 646,115 2.6 MSW 5,933,480 1,456,000 7,389,480 29.3 ISW (10) NA - HSW (11) NA - Animal waste (10) 13,100,000 51.9 Total for 2006 25,248,305 100.0 2010 (5) : DWW (6) 1,643,716 2,976,470 4,620,186 13.6 IWW (7) 1,812,338 5.3 MSW 10,844,120 2,114,400 12,958,520 38.2 ISW (8) NA - HSW (9) NA - Animal waste (10) 14,500,000 42.8 Total for 2010 33,891,044 100.0 Notes: (1)- 1994 National GHG Inventory for Vietnam; (2)- estimated for DDW generated in urban areas only; (3)- estimated for 8 selected industries (liquor, beer, tinned milk, sugar, fish processing, refined vegetable oils, pulp & paper, and rubber industry); (4)- for urban areas only; (5)- The calculations based on 2006 IPCC Page 19 19 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories; (6)- estimated for 100% DDW generated in Vietnam; (7)- estimated for 15 selected industries presented in Table 8; (8)- the GHG emissions from 20% of IWW that is dumped along with MSW, is included in MSW; (9)- GHG emissions from HSW are negligible as its generation is too small; (10)- these figures are from MONRE (The proceedings of the final workshop of the project “Vietnam National S trategy Study on Clean Development Mechanism”, Hanoi, 2003). The distribution of emission sources is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: Emission sources from waste sector Key factors affecting emissions from the waste sector: Wastewater (i) Untreated wastewater is concentrated geographically: · Methane is produced by untreated wastewater disposed in highly polluted waterways. · Less than 10% of urban domestic wastewater is treated. · Roughly 30-40% of industrial wastewater is treated. (ii) Use of anaerobic systems in septic tanks and latrines in urban and rural areas: · In urban areas, 90% are anaerobic or semi-anaerobic septic tanks and latrines. · In rural areas, 50% are anaerobic or semi-anaerobic septic tanks and latrines. (iii) Inappropriate methods of sludge disposal: · Sludge from septic tank maintenance is disposed to unknown areas, a portion of which is discharged into the rivers and treated in other anaerobic systems. · Sludge from centralized wastewater treatment plants goes to landfills and open disposal sites. Total emissions from waste sector in 2006: 25,248,300 tCO2-e Municipal Solid Waste 29.3% Industrial Wastewater 2.6% Domestic Wastewater 16.3% Livestock Waste 51.9% Total emissions from waste sector in 2010: 33,891,040 tCO2-e Livestock Waste 42.8% Domestic Wastew ater 13.6% Industrial Wastewater 5.3% Municipal Solid Waste 38.2% Page 20 20 Solid wastes: (i) High proportion of organic matter (50-70%) in municipal solid wastes (ii) Methane produced from dump sites is not mitigated through collection of gas (except for one in HCMC) or large scale composting (<5% composted). (iii) The low quality of the disposal sites (81% of disposal sites are open dump) and lack of collection and formal disposal in rural areas reduces emissions relative to modern sanitary landfill disposal. Trends in emissions from waste sector: The trends in emissions from waste sector are shown in Figure 6. The main reasons for growth in emissions from waste sector are: Domestic wastewater: · Population growth (1.4% annually) · Growth in urban population due to rapid urbanization (4.4% annually) · Installation of centralized aerobic/anaerobic treatment systems in urban areas (will grow from 10% in 2006 to 20% in 2010) · Continued use of landfills as wastewater sludge disposal practices · Continued use of anaerobic/semi-anaerobic septic tanks and latrines in rural and urban areas. Industrial wastewater: · Industry growth (5-30% annually depending the sector) · Installation of aerobic/anaerobic systems without methane capture (will grow from 40% to 65% in 2010). · Establishment of new high BOD-emitted industry such as bioethanol production. Municipal solid waste: · Population growth · Growth in urban population · Increase in consumption but with a lower proportion of organic matter in municipal solid waste · Establishment of sanitary landfills without methane capture or composting will increase emissions. Livestock waste: · Growth in livestock population (1.0-2.5% annually for the 2006-2010 period) · Continued use of open manure management practices in livestock industry Figure 6: Trends in emissions from waste sector - 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 2006 2010 t C O 2 - e / y r DWW IWW MSW Livestock waste Page 21 21 3. Key Potential Climate Change Mitigation Opportunities in the Sector A list of potential typologies of interventions were evaluated to understand their potential for sector wide reductions in emissions of GHGs. Based on the sector potential and the relative challenges of implementing the typology in a portion of the sector, potentially feasible interventions were characterized based a set of criteria important to their implementation potential including estimates of potential emission reductions, in-roads institutionally, and methodology and additionality issues. While all interventions are believed to have potential as “win-win” or “no-regrets” interventions under the CDM, considerations on the related co-benefits and financial cost (if any) related to the intervention was also included in the evaluation and as summarized in the Annexes. All calculations of the emission reduction potentials were based on the sector structure over the time span of 2010 and 2015 and used CDM and IPCC methodologies where available and local emission factors where available. 3.1 Overview of the potential There are several waste management practices and technologies whose use can create opportunities to reduce the GHG emissions. These practices and technologies can be grouped according to the type of waste being managed: · Wastewater management (including industrial and municipal wastewater); · Organic solid waste management (including organic parts of industrial and municipal solid wastes and crop residues); and · Animal waste management. Wastewater management: As mentioned in Section 2, untreated wastewater or sludge generated from an existing wastewater treatment plant will produce significant methane emission if they are directed to the open anaerobic systems, such as polluted waterways, lagoons, septic tanks, latrines, open anaerobic treatment systems, etc. Anaerobic digestion of untreated wastewater can reduce methane emission if the biogas (methane) is extracted from the anaerobic digester in a controlled way. This biogas can be used for electricity and/or heat production that reduce the on-site electricity use and/or on-site fossil fuel consumption. Methane recovery in an existing wastewater treatment system is applicable if the sludge generated from an existing wastewater treatment system is not treated, but discharged into open lagoons or sludge pits where sludge will be naturally decayed. The methane emission reduction can be achieved if the sludge is treated in a new anaerobic digester or under aerobic conditions (e.g. dewatering and land application). Methane (biogas) recovery from sludge treatment can be used for energy production. Organic solid waste management: There are three opportunities for mitigating GHG emission from organic solid wastes. The first opportunity is the composting of organic solid wastes. This project type includes construction and/or expansion of compost production facilities as well as activities that increase capacity utilization at an existing composting production plant. These measures can help to avoid the production of methane from organic wastes that would have otherwise been left to decay anaerobically in a solid waste disposal site without methane recovery. This project type is also applicable for co-composting wastewater and organic solid wastes. The second opportunity is landfill gas capture and its use. This measure avoids the partial or even total release of the GHG emissions from a landfill to the atmosphere. The captured gas is flared (if generated in small amount) or is used to produce energy (e.g. electricity and/or thermal energy). Incineration of organic solid wastes for energy generation (electricity and/or thermal energy) is another opportunity for climate change mitigation. Electricity generated is either consumed on-site, exported to the grid or to a nearby facility. The thermal energy generated is either consumed on-site Page 22 22 and/or sold to a nearby facility. This type of project can avoid GHG emissions (mainly methane) caused by uncontrolled anaerobic processes in open air through controlled combustion of organic solid wastes in an incinerator/furnace and by utilizing combustion heat generated for electricity and/or thermal energy production. This type of project also includes gasification (i.e. combustion taking place in a low/insufficient oxygen environment) of organic solid wastes to produce syngas/producer gas which is used for electricity and/or thermal energy generation. Animal waste management: The technology/measure used to mitigate the GHG emissions (mainly, methane) in this area is recovery and destruction of methane from animal manure and waste that would be otherwise left to decay anaerobically with methane is released to the atmosphere. The recovered methane is flared or gainfully used as fuel for cooking and lighting (in household/small livestock farms) and for thermal or electrical energy generation (in large-scale livestock farms). 3.2 Typologies of potential CCM projects in the sector Below is the list of possible project interventions W1: Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of urban domestic wastewater W2: Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of rural domestic wastewater W3: Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of industrial wastewater W4: Composting of municipal solid waste W5: Landfill gas capture and its use W6: Use of agricultural solid wastes for energy generation W7: Methane recovery at livestock farms 3.2.1 Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of domestic wastewater (i) Project technologies/activities This project type comprises the technologies/activities that recover and avoid methane emissions from biogenic organic matter in domestic wastewater by means of the following options: · Option 1: Desludging and treatment of sludge from septic tanks and latrines by using aerobic (land farming) and/or anaerobic (biogas) systems; · Option 2: Increase in treatment of wastewater in centralized wastewater treatment plants by using aerobic and/or biogas (with methane recovery) systems; · Option 3: Treatment of sludge from centralized wastewater treatment plants by using biogas (with methane recovery) and/or land farming. · Option 4: Increase in use of aerobic/semi aerobic sanitation systems (composting toilets, ventilated improved pit latrines) and/or biogas systems. (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality Figure 7 shows the conceptual diagram of the baseline practices of domestic wastewater disposal. For urban domestic wastewater: At present, a majority part of organic degradable material in urban domestic wastewater (from human manure) generated in the cities is being treated in on-site septic tanks and latrines. The remaining part is discharged into the sewer system or to the polluted urban waterways (rivers or lakes). Only small amount (less than 10%) of wastewater is sewered to and treated in centralized wastewater treatment plants. The remains are untreated and discharged into the polluted urban waterways. The sludge from septic tanks and latrines is disposed in unknown areas, a portion of which is discharged into the polluted urban waterways and other anaerobic systems. The sludge from wastewater treatment plants goes to landfill/disposal sites. Page 23 23 All existing domestic wastewater treatments in Hanoi, Da Nang, etc., and the new plants under development in large cities (Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh city) use aerobic technology. The anaerobic methane recovery systems are not common practice and not being adopted for treatment of domestic wastewater. The lack of financial sources is a main barrier to these projects. For rural domestic wastewater: In case of rural domestic wastewater, a larger portion of organic degradable material is being treated in septic tanks, improved latrines and other unimproved systems. The smaller part is discharged to ground and into the rivers and lakes. Sewer systems do not exist in rural areas. D omestic Wastewater C ollected U ncollected Treated on site: septic tanks, latrines Untreated Rivers, lakes, estuaries, sea To ground Sludge Untreated Treated Sewered to WWTPs Aerobic treatment Anaerobic treatment Lagoon Reactor type Sludge Anaerobic digestion Land Disposal Landfills Rivers, lakes, estuaries, sea Figure 7: Domestic Wastewater Baseline (Based on 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies Some approved CDM methodologies and tools do exist. They can be used for the demonstration and assessment of additionality of this type of CDM projects: · AMS-III.H (Small scale projects): Methane recovery in wastewater treatment; · AMS-III.I (Small scale projects): Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of anaerobic lagoons by aerobic systems; · EB 36 (Annex 13): Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality; · EB 28 (Annex 13): Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane. These methodologies and tools can be downloaded from UNFCCC website (18) . (18) http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html Page 24 24 (iv) GHG emission reduction potential For calculation of emission reduction (ER) potential, the selected baseline scenario will be as follows: For urban domestic wastewater: · 40% of total organic degradable material (BOD) in urban domestic wastewater generated in 2010 is treated in on-site sanitation systems. The remaining is discharged into sewer system (50%) and to the polluted rivers or lakes (10%). · The urban sanitation systems include anaerobic/semi-anaerobic septic tanks (81%), improved aerobic septic tanks (12%), public/shared toilets (1%), open systems, i.e. no facility (1%), and other unimproved systems (5%). · The wastewater from septic tanks and latrines is discharged into sewer system. The sludge is disposed in unknown areas. · 20% of wastewater from sewer system is treated in open anaerobic centralized aerobic wastewater treatment plants. The remaining 80% wastewater from sewer system is discharged into rivers and lakes. · The sludge from treatment plants goes to landfills. For rural domestic wastewater: · 60% total organic degradable material (BOD) in rural domestic wastewater is treated in on-site sanitation systems. The remaining is discharged into sewer system (10%) and to ground or into waterways (30%). · The rural sanitation systems consist of anaerobic/semi-anaerobic septic tanks (30%), improved aerobic septic tanks (30%), open systems (10%), and others unimproved systems (30%). · The wastewater from septic tanks and latrines is disposed to ground or discharged into rivers and lakes. The sludge is disposed in unknown areas. · No centralized wastewater treatment plants in rural areas. The GHG emission reduction potential is calculated by using the methodology AMS-III.H and AMS- III.I with some simplification. For urban domestic wastewater: The results of ER estimation by intervention typology for domestic wastewater generated in all urban areas in Vietnam in 2010 are presented in Table 18 and Figure 8. Table 18: Estimated ER potential from treatment of domestic wastewater in all urban areas in Vietnam (in tCO2-e/yr) Typology 1: Adoption of aerobic systems for new centralized WWTPs alone Typology 2: Land farming of sludge from centralized WWTPs Typology 3: Desludging and treatment of sludge from septic tanks Typology 4a: Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Typology 4b: Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems 0% 00 00 0 10% 12,771 6,771 8,226 58,336 5,756 20% 25,542 13,542 16,452 116,671 11,513 30% 38,313 20,314 24,678 175,007 17,269 40% 51,084 27,085 32,903 233,342 23,026 50% 63,854 33,856 41,129 291,678 28,782 60% 76,625 40,627 49,355 350,013 34,539 70% 89,396 47,399 57,581 408,349 40,295 80% 102,167 54,170 65,807 466,685 46,052 90% 114,938 60,941 74,033 525,020 51,808 100% 127,709 67,712 82,258 583,356 57,565 % of sewage/sludge treated or sanitation technology changed Intervention typology: Page 25 25 Figure 8: ER vs urban wastewater treatment level and technology changes in sanitation systems The total estimated ER potential from treatment of domestic wastewater in the five largest cities in Vietnam is presented in Table 20. The calculations are performed for 7 combinations of interventions as shown in Table 19. It can be seen from Table 20 that the emission reduction potential from the treatment of domestic wastewater in the five largest cities (Ho Chi Minh city, Hanoi, Hai Phong, Da Nang and Can Tho) accounts for 64-65% of the total emission reduction potential that could result from the treatment of domestic wastewater in all urban cities. The cumulative emission reduction vs technology changes in sanitation systems these five cities are shown in Figure 9. Table 19: Seven combinations of interventions considered (shown as a % of sewage/wastewater treatment and sanitation technology conversion by city) For all urban areas 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of sewage/sludge treated or sanitation technology changed t C O 2 - e / y r Typology 1: Adoption of aerobic systems for new centralized WWTPs alone Typology 2: Land farming of sludge from centralized WWTPs Typology 3: Desludging and treatment of sludge from septic tanks Typology 4a: Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Typology 4b: Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems Combination of Interventions New aerobic centralized WWTPs only Land farming of sludge from centralized WWTPs Desludging and treatment of sludge from septic tanks Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems 1 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 2 50% 100% 50% 0% 0% 3 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 4 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 5 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 6 100% 100% 100% 50% 50% 7 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 26 26 Table 20: Estimated ER potential from treatment of domestic wastewater generated in five largest cities of Vietnam (in tCO2-e/yr) Figure 9: Cumulative emission reduction by combination of interventions For rural domestic wastewater For rural domestic wastewater, two intervention typologies are considered. The results of emission reductions for these intervention typologies are presented in Table 21 and Figure 10. The emission reduction potentials estimated for the combination of interventions are shown in Table 22. C ombination of Interventions HCMC H anoi (HN) H ai Phong (HP) Da Nang (DN) C an Tho (CT) Total for five cities T otal for all urban areas s hare of five cities 1 63,382 36,093 16,107 7,819 9,461 132,862 206,552 64.3% 2 94,066 53,565 23,715 11,512 13,930 196,789 308,121 63.9% 3 158,401 90,201 39,895 19,366 23,433 3 31,296 509,755 65.0% 4 167,676 95,482 42,358 20,562 24,880 350,960 548,529 64.0% 5 189,085 107,673 47,503 23,060 27,902 395,223 611,323 64.7% 6 257,287 146,511 64,792 31,452 38,057 538,100 834,474 64.5% 7 346,898 197,539 87,226 42,343 51,235 725,240 1,120,419 64.7% 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 H C M C H C M C + H N H C M C + H N + H P H C M C + H N + H P + D N H C M C + H N + H P + D N + C T City included t C O 2 - e / y r Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 3 Combination 4 Combination 5 Combination 6 Combination 7 Page 27 27 Table 21: Estimated ER potential from treatment of domestic wastewater in all rural areas in Vietnam (in tCO2-e/yr) Figure 10:Emission reduction vs technology changes in sanitation systems in rural areas Table 22: Emission reduction potentials for rural domestic wastewater by combination of interventions (tCO2-e/yr) Intervention typology: Typology 1: Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Typology 2: Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems 0% 0 0 10% 59,508 105,284 20% 119,016 210,568 30% 178,525 315,851 40% 238,033 421,135 50% 297,541 526,419 60% 357,049 631,703 70% 416,557 736,986 80% 476,066 842,270 90% 535,574 947,554 100% 595,082 1,052,838 % of sanitation technology changed For all rural areas 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of sanitation switched or adopted t C O 2 - e / y r Typology 1: Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Typology 2: Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems Combination of interventions Switching from anaerobic septic tanks to aerobic sanitation systems Switching from unimproved to improved aerobic sanitation systems Emission Reduction Potential (tCO2-e/yr) 1 10% 10% 164,792 2 50% 50% 823,960 3 100% 100% 1,647,920 Page 28 28 (v) Potentially feasible sector-wide interventions Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Increasing centralized wastewater treatment to 50% with aerobic sludge treatment; land farming of 100% sludge from centralized wastewater treatment plants; and desludging and aerobic treatment of 50% of septic tanks for five major cities Through participating cities 198,000 tCO2-e per year $1.98 million per year Rural domestic wastewater: (1) Methane avoidance through switching 50% of septic tanks to aerobic sanitation and (2) 50% adoption of aerobic sanitation systems for those without sanitation Through national sanitation program. 820,000 tCO2-e per year $8.2 million per year 3.2.2 Methane recovery and avoidance through treatment of industrial wastewater (i) Project technologies/activities This project type includes the technologies/activities that recover and/or avoid methane emission from biogenic organic matter in industrial wastewater. As the high BOD/COD-intensive industries have better potential for GHG emission reduction, the project will focus in six industries: · Bioethanol production · Meat processing · Liquor, beverage and beer · Pulp and paper · Tapioca starch · Fish processing (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality The use of open anaerobic lagoons is common practice for treatment of wastewater in these six industries. The wastewater from industrial process will be directed to open lagoons for settling, then it is discharged to rivers or lakes. For the industries, where wastewater is being treated, the aerobic process is used. The anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater with methane recovery is being used in some industries. The main barriers to this type of project are: · High investment and operation cost of the anaerobic wastewater treatment plant; · The industries like to maintain the open lagoons if they would work well; Page 29 29 · More complicated technology for methane recovery is not know. (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies Several approved CDM methodologies and tools can be used for calculation of the emission reduction potential for this type of CDM projects. · ACM0014: Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from treatment of industrial wastewater; · EB 36 (Annex 13): Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. (iv) GHG emission reduction potential The GHG emission reduction potential is estimated for some selected industries that generate the wastewater with high organic matter. The selected baseline scenario is the situation in 2010 where, in the absence of the CCM project activity, 50% of industrial wastewater will be treated in aerobic treatment plants (but not well managed and overloaded), 15% will be treated in anaerobic systems with and without methane recovery, and 35% is not treated, but discharged to sewer system, river or lake. The project activity includes: · Upgrading and rehabilitation of existing overloaded aerobic systems and improvement of the way they are managed; · Introduction of anaerobic wastewater treatment with methane recovery and combustion to existing WWTPs without methane recovery; · Introduction of aerobic or anaerobic treatment systems with methane recovery to untreated wastewater streams. The GHG emission reduction potential is calculated by using methodology AMS-III.H with some simplification. The total estimated ER potential for industrial wastewater is 1,170,746 tCO2-e/yr for all of 15 industries listed in Table 8, and 1,137,212 tCO2-e/yr for six highest COD-intensive industries (This estimation does not include the emission avoidance resulting from the use of recovered methane to substitute the diesel or fuel oil currently burned in the several industries). Table 23: GHG emission reduction potential from treatment of industrial wastewater in six selected industries Industry sector tCO2-e/yr % Bioethanol production 310,322 27.3 Meat processing 272,829 24.0 Liquor, beverage & beer 201,665 17.7 Pulp and Paper 195,891 17.2 Tapioca starch 94,500 8.3 Fish processing 62,015 5.5 Total 1,137,212 100.0 Page 30 30 Figure 11: Emission Reduction vs % of industrial wastewater treated (for 15 subsectors) Figure 12: Emission Reduction vs % of industrial wastewater treated (for each of six main sub-sectors) (v) Potentially feasible sector wide interventions Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Industrial wastewater: Methane recovery (biogas) and avoidance (aerobic systems) for 75% wastewater of bioethanol, meat & poultry, pulp & Through industries or bank intermediary 520,000 tCO2-e per year $11 million per year B ased on 2010 IPCC data - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1 ,000,000 1 ,200,000 5 % 1 5 % 2 5 % 3 5 % 4 5 % 5 5 % 6 5 % 7 5 % 8 5 % 9 5 % % of total wastewater treated t C O 2 - e / y r Excluding bioethanol production Including bioethanol production Based on 2010 IPCC data - 50,000 100,000 150,000 2 00,000 250,000 300,000 5 % 1 5 % 2 5 % 3 5 % 4 5 % 5 5 % 6 5 % 7 5 % 8 5 % 9 5 % % of total wastewater t C O 2 - e / y r Liquor & beverage & beer Meat processing Fish processing Pulp & paper Tapioca starch Bioethanol production Page 31 31 paper, liquor & beer, tapioca starch, and fishing processing industries 3.2.3 Composting of municipal solid waste (i) Project technologies/activities This project type comprises measures to avoid the production of methane from MSW that would have otherwise been left to decay anaerobically in a solid waste disposal site without methane recovery. This project would be recommended for small cities. The project activities include construction and expansion of compost production facilities as well as activities that increase capacity utilization at an existing composting production facility. Due to the project activities, the uncontrolled anaerobically decay is prevented through aerobic treatment by composting of MSW and proper soil application of the compost. (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality The baseline scenario of this project type is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, MSW containing biodegradable organic matter is left to decay anaerobically within the project boundary and methane is emitted to the atmosphere. The project boundary of this project type is the physical, geographical site where (i) the solid wastes would have been disposed and the methane emission occurs in absence of the proposed project activity; (ii) the treatment of MSW through composting takes place; (iii) the soil application of the produced compost takes place; and (iv) the itineraries between them (i, ii, and iii) where the transportation of MSW or compost occurs. (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies Several approved methodologies and tools do exist. They can be used for the demonstration and assessment of additionality of CDM projects related to the composting of municipal solid waste: · AM0025: Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment processes; · AM0039: Methane emissions reduction from organic waste water and bio-organic solid waste using co-composting; · AMS-III.F (Small scale projects): Avoidance of methane production from decay of biomass through composting; · EB 39: Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site. (iv) GHG emission reduction potential The emission reduction achieved by the project activity will be estimated as the difference between the baseline emission and the sum of the project emission and leakage. The selected baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, MSW is left to decay at the site of the landfill and methane is emitted to the atmosphere. Baseline emissions shall exclude methane emissions that would have to be removed to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations. The project activity includes construction of new composting facility or expansion of capacity of existing facilities. The GHG emission reduction potential is calculated by using the AM0025 with some simplification. It was assumed that 40% of the organic matter of MSW will be composted in the landfills. The total estimated ER potential through composting of MSW collected in 36 small cities and 674 townlets is 898,752 tCO 2 -e for year 2010 (Table 24). Page 32 32 Table 24: Estimated ER potential from MSW composting in small cities of Vietnam in 2010 Name of city City class Daily MSW disposal rate (ton/day) ER potential (tCO 2 -e) 36 small cities/towns Class III 4,360 512,755 674 towns/townlets Class IV&V 1,770 208,160 Total (urban) 6,130 720,915 The estimated emission reductions potential from composting MSW in the cities the World Bank has an ongoing dialogue with are presented in Table 25. The cumulative emission reduction from MSW composting in these cities is shown in Figure 13. Table 25: Estimated ER potential from MSW composting in selected cities City Daily MSW disposal rate (ton/day) Emission Reduction (tCO2-e/yr) (Average for 7 years) Hanoi 6,000 705,627 Lao Cai 120 14,113 Phu Ly 110 12,936 Nam Dinh 610 71,739 Vinh 360 42,338 Hue 480 56,450 Quy Nhon 420 49,394 Vung Tau 420 49,394 Total 8,520 1,001,991 Page 33 33 Figure 13: Cumulative Emission Reduction from MSW Composting in 8 selected cities (v) Potentially feasible sector wide interventions Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Urban solid waste: Methane avoidance through solid waste composting in 8 selected cities Through participating cities. 1,000,000 tCO2-e per year $10 million per year 3.2.4 Landfill gas capture and its use (i) Project technologies/activities The project technologies/activities of this project type include the closing of landfills, capture and combustion of methane from landfills (i.e. solid waste disposal sites) used for disposal solid residues from municipal, industrial, and other solid wastes containing biodegradable organic matter. The recovered methane from the above project activities will be flared or utilized for electrical energy generation. The landfill gas recovery technology is most suitable for the landfills with the following conditions (20) : · A landfill should receive at least 200 tons of waste per day; (20) VEM, 2004. Emission Reduction from MSW Composting - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 H a n o i L a o C a i P h u L y N a m D i n h V i n h H u e Q u y N h o n V u n g T a u City included t C O 2 - e / y r Page 34 34 · It must be designed for a minimum total capacity of 500,000 tons of waste; · The waste should be compacted and the surface covered with an impermeable or low permeability top-cover; · The climate must be sufficiently wet to promote biological activity; · The filling height should be minimum 10 meters high. Notwithstanding the “basic requirements” mentioned above and in consideration of the different generation rates in different climatic conditions, a feasibility study should be conducted to determine the technical and economic viability in installing a LFGTE system. For technical viability, parameters such as the waste characteristics (% biodegradable), amount in place, age, moisture, leachate levels, soil cover, etc. should be observed. Ideally, the waste should be more than 10 meters in height, leachate levels are beyond 5 m from the surface of the garbage and the waste not more than 5-10 years in place. Considering a minimum of one to two years for planning and construction of a new sanitary landfill and a minimum of six months to two years operational time until it is worthwhile to collect and utilize methane it is rather unlikely that a new sanitary landfill project can produce enough emission reductions until 2012 to be economically attractive. Of course, factors like amount of waste disposed and waste characteristics should also be considered as these factors may make the project viable. Therefore, existing large sanitary landfills that can be covered and where gas collection can be installed should be chosen for CDM projects, because gas production is higher from the start of the project. (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality The baseline scenario of this type of CCM projects is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, solid wastes containing biodegradable organic matter are left to decay anaerobically within the project boundary (i.e. the physical, geographical site of the landfill where the gas is captured and destroyed/used) and methane is emitted to the atmosphere. Several CDM projects in this area have been submitted to Vietnam DNA. So far, there is one project with its PDD having been approved, and four projects with their PINs having been endorsed. There are also other projects in the pipeline. However, the implementation of these projects is progressing slowly. The major barriers are the difficult access to available financing sources and the complexity of legal procedures. (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies Several approved methodologies and tools do exist. They can be used for the demonstration and assessment of additionality of this type of CDM projects: · ACM0001: Consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology for landfill gas project activities; · AMS-III.G (Small scale projects): Landfill methane recovery. · EB 39: The tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site. (iv) GHG emission reduction potential The GHG emission reduction potential is calculated by using the methodological tools EB 39. Table 26 presents the results of calculation of potential emission reduction from landfill gas (LFG) capture at all existing and new landfills with capacity of more than 200 ton/day. Table 26: Potential emission reduction from landfill gas capture at landfills No. City/landfill Daily waste disposal Emission Reduction (tCO2-e/yr) (Average for 7 years) Page 35 35 rate (ton/day) ER from LFG capture & flaring ER from LFG capture & e lectricity g eneration 1. Ho Chi Minh city Phuoc Hiep 2 3,000 176,407 200,831 D a Phuoc 3,000 176,407 200,831 New landfill(s) 4,000 235,209 267,774 2. Hanoi city Nam Son 2,500 147,006 167,359 Lam Du 1,000 58,802 66,944 New landfill(s) 2,500 147,006 167,359 3. Hai Phong city Trang Cat 800 47,042 53,555 New landfill(s) 2,000 117,604 133,887 4. Da Nang city Khanh Son 2 700 41,162 46,860 New landfill 1,000 58,802 66,944 5. Can Tho city Dong Thanh 300 17,641 20,083 Tan Long 350 20,581 23,430 New landfill(s) 1,500 88,203 100,415 6. Hue city 480 28,225 32,133 7. Nam Dinh city 610 35,869 40,836 8. Thai Nguyen city 580 34,105 38,827 9. Ha Long city 780 45,866 52,216 10. Viet Tri city 340 19,993 22,761 11. Thanh Hoa city 420 24,697 28,116 12. Vinh city 360 21,169 24,100 13. Quy Nhon city 420 24,697 28,116 14. Nha Trang city 660 38,809 44,183 15. Buon Me Thuot 480 28,225 32,133 16. Da Lat city 590 34,693 39,497 17. Bien Hoa city 770 45,278 51,547 18. Vung Tau city 420 24,697 28,116 19. My Tho city 420 24,697 28,116 Total 29,980 1,762,892 2,006,969 There will be 27 landfills in 19 cities, for which the LFG capture projects could be implemented. The classification of the landfills by their potential emission reduction is shown in Table 27. Table 27: Classification of the landfills by their potential emission reduction Existing landfills New landfills Total ER level (tCO2-e/yr) No. of landfills Total ER (tCO2-e/yr) No. of landfills Total ER (tCO2-e/yr) No. of landfills Total ER (tCO2-e/yr) LFG capture and flaring > 100,000 3 499,820 3 499,819 6 999,639 50-100,000 1 58,802 2 147,005 3 205,807 < 50,000 18 557,446 0 0 18 557,446 Total 22 1,116,068 5 646,824 27 1,762,892 LFG capture and electricity generation > 100,000 3 569,021 4 669,435 7 1,238,456 50-100,000 4 224,262 1 66,944 5 291,206 < 50,000 15 477,307 0 0 15 477,307 Total 22 1,270,590 5 736,379 27 2,006,969 Page 36 36 The cumulative emission reduction potential from landfill gas capture at landfills in the cities the World Bank has an ongoing dialogue with is shown in Figure 14. Figure 14: Cumulative emission reduction from LFG capture at landfills in 8 selected cities (v) Potentially feasible sector wide interventions Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Urban solid waste: Methane recovery through landfill gas to energy projects in urban disposal sites for 8 selected cities Through participating cities. 1,650,000 tCO2-e per year $16.5 million per year 3.2.5 Use of agricultural solid wastes for energy generation (i) Project technologies/activities This project technology/activity is a small grid-connected zero-emissions biomass electricity generation plant. The generated electricity is either consumed on-site to displace electricity supplied from an electricity distribution grid, exported to the grid and/or exported to a nearby facility. The thermal energy generated is either consumed on-site and/or exported to a nearby facility. As biomass has low bulk density, its transport is costly. Therefore, this project will focus in rice husk and bagasse because these types of biomass can be collected and used at the site, where they are generated, i.e. in or very near the sugar mills and rice mills. The project activities involve both the construction of new facility and upgrading/modification of an existing facility using agricultural solid wastes for energy generation. Emission Reduction from LFG capture 500,000 700,000 900,000 1,100,000 1,300,000 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 H C M C H a n o i H a i P h o n g D a N a n g C a n T h o N a m D i n h H a L o n g N h a T r a n g City included t C O 2 - e / y r Page 37 37 In Vietnam, this technology is most suitable for rice husk and bagasse that are generated in rice mills and sugar mills. The use of other types of agricultural solid wastes such as paddy straw, maize trash, coconut husks, etc. for energy generation is complicated by problems related to their collection and transportation from the fields to the energy plants. (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality The baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, the power grid generates electricity by operation of the planned power plants as usual and/or adjust power development plant to compensate the generated electricity by the project.. Recent statistics showed that about 1.4 million ton/yr of rice husk can be used for electricity generation. However, there is no any rice husk-fired power plant having been built up to now. This may be an argument for justification of the project additionality. The main barrier is that the electricity generation cost of the rice husk power plant is high while the tariff of selling electricity to the grid is too low. At present, the cost of electricity generation by rice husk power plant is around 1,400 VND/kWh (US$0.084/kWh) while the maximum selling tariff of electricity to the grid is only 750 VND/kWh (US$0.045/kWh). Even the Government of Vietnam is planning to increase the selling tariff of electricity to the grid to 1,000 VND/kWh (US$0.06/kWh),non of rice husk power projects appear to be economic. The economical and financial analysis of the rice husk-fired power projects showed that they may become feasible if the ash produced from rice husk combustion can be sold at reasonable prices, and the sales of CER are taken into account. At present, the total amount of bagasse produced at all sugar mills in Vietnam is estimated at 3.1 million ton/yr. It is being used for generation of electricity and heat (steam) to supply the energy demand of the sugar mills. The total installed power capacity of existing cogeneration systems in the sugar mills is around 150 MW. However, due to the age and low efficiency of the cogeneration systems, the generated electricity is about 440,000 MWh/yr only (generation of 1 kWh of electricity requires 7 kg of bagasse). In case, the existing old and low-efficiency cogeneration systems in sugar mills are upgraded or replaced by high-efficiency cogeneration technologies, the electricity generated would be up to 775,000 MWh/yr. The surplus electricity of 335,000 MWh/yr could be sold to the grid. However, the current electricity generation cost of the cogeneration system is 800-950 VND/kWh, which is still higher than the tariff of electricity sold to the grid. It makes less attractive for the sugar millers to invest in the upgrading their existing cogeneration plants or in the construction of new projects. It was estimated that if the tariff of electricity sale to the grid could be increased up to 1000 VND/kWh, and the CER could be sold at about US$15/tCO2-e, the bagasse-fired cogeneration projects would be feasible. In addition to the above barriers, other problems of the implementation of the grid-connected biomass power project are: · The difficult access to finacing sources for the project; · The regulations and procedures for selling electricity to the grid is still complicated. · The high cost of rice husk collection and transport. (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies Several approved methodologies and tools do exist. They can be used for the demonstration and assessment of additionality of this type of CCM projects: · AM0007: Analysis of the least-cost fuel options for seasonally-operating biomass cogeneration plants; · AM005: Baseline methodology (barrier analysis, baseline scenario development and baseline emission rate, using combined margin) for small grid connected zero-emissions renewable electricity generation; · ACM0006: Consolidated methodology for electricity generation from biomass residues; · AMS-I.D (Small scale projects): Grid connected renewable electricity generation (iv) GHG emission reduction potential Page 38 38 The GHG emission reduction potential is estimated for two agricultural solid residues: rice husk and bagasse. The selected baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the CCM project activity, the electricity would have been supplied by the national power grid. The project activity includes: · the construction of new rice husk fired power plants. · the replacing or upgrading of the existing old and low-efficient cogeneration systems in sugar mills by using high-efficient cogeneration technologies. According to the Draft Master Plan of Renewable Energy Development in Vietnam up to 2015 with an orientation until 2025, about 1.5 million tons of rice husk and 4.4 million tons of bagasse could be used for energy generation since 2010. 33 rice husk-fired power plants and 27 bagasse-fired cogeneration plants are planned to be built until 2025. The total installed capacity of 33 rice husk-fired power plants could be 169 MW. The total annual electricity generation would be 1,000,000 MWh. It is planned that all amount of electricity generated by rice husk-fired power plants will be sold to the grid. The total installed capacity of 27 bagasse-fired cogeneration plants could be 250 MW. The total annual electricity generation would be 800,000 MWh. However, 420,000 MWh (53%) of this amount of electricity will be used by the sugar mills to cover their own electricity demand. The remaining 380,000 MWh of electricity could be sold to the grid. The estimation of emission reduction potential from the use of rice husk and bagasse for energy generation is shown in Table 28. Table 28: Potential emission reduction from the use of rice husk and bagasse for energy generation Type of waste No. of projects Range of capacity (MW) Total installed capacity (MW) Total electricity sold to grid (MWh/yr) Emission factor of Vietnam power grid (tCO2- e/MWh) Potential emission reduction (tCO2-e/yr) Rice husk 33 1-15 169 1,000,000 0.656 656,000 Bagasse 27 5-16 250 380,000 0.656 249,280 Total 60 419 1,38,000 0.656 905,280 (v) Value-added to the World Bank and their funds Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Utilization of 20% of rice husk production and 40% of bagasse production for power generation Through intermediary bank. 150,000 tCO2-e per year $1.5 million per year 3.2.6 Methane recovery at livestock farms (i) Project technologies/activities The technologies/activities of this type of projects involve the construction of a new biogas digester system, replacement and/or modification of an existing biogas digester to achieve methane recovery and its use for electricity and/or thermal energy generation. This project type is recommended to apply for the large-scale livestock farms. The project activities shall satisfy the following conditions: (i) the final sludge must be handled aerobically. In case of soil application of final sludge, the proper conditions and procedures (not resulting in methane emissions) must be ensured; (ii) technical measures shall be used to ensure that all biogas produced by the digester is used or flared. Page 39 39 The recovered methane from the above project activities will be utilized for electricity and/or thermal energy generation. The generated energy will be used to supply the energy demand of the farm, that in baseline case should be supplied from the grid or by fossil fuels. (ii) Baseline Practices and Additionality At present, the open anaerobic lagoons are commonly used for treatment of animal manure generated in large-scale livestock farms. These lagoons are usually poorly maintained. The effluents from lagoons, which obviously still contain high organic matter are discharged into the rivers or canals. Up to now, there is no project that use the biogas for energy generation in livestock farms in Vietnam. The main barriers to implementation of this project type are: · The investment costs of the systems are high, that the farms usually can not bear. · The price of electricity purchased from the grid is still low that do not stimulate interest of the farm in recovery of biogas for electricity generation. (iii) Assessment of Applicable CDM methodologies There are some approved methodologies and tools that can be applicable for the demonstration and assessment of additionality of CCM projects in animal waste management sub-sector: · ACM0010: Consolidated methodology for GHG emission reductions from manure management systems; · AMS-III.D (Small scale projects): Methane recovery in animal manure management systems; · AMS-III.R (Small scale projects): Methane recovery in agricultural activities at household/small farm level. (iv) GHG emission reduction potential The GHG emission reduction potential is estimated for three types of livestock: pig, cattle, and buffalo. The estimated emission reduction potential from methane recovery and electricity generation in large- scale livestock farms in Vietnam is presented in Table 29. The total GHG emission reduction potential could be 1,317,215 tCO2-e/yr. The GHG emission reduction potential per each farm is as follows: · Pig farm: 3,840 tCO 2 -e/yr per farm. · Cattle farm: 383 tCO 2 -e/yr per farm. · Buffalo farm: 166 tCO 2 -e/yr per farm. Table 29: Estimated emission reduction potential from methane recovery from livestock farms Emission reduction potential (tCO2-e/yr) Farm No. of farm Animal heads Manure generation (ton/yr) From methane recovery From electricity generation Total Pig 200 1,000,000 1,000,000 673,986 93,480 767,466 Cattle 1,000 500,000 1,250,000 336,993 46,740 383,733 Buffalo 1,000 100,000 460,000 148,816 17,200 166,016 Total 1,159,795 157,420 1,317,215 The emission reduction according to the percentage of manure digested in large-scale livestock farms in Vietnam is shown in Figures 15 and 16 and Figure 17 includes household and large scale piggeries. Page 40 40 Figure 15: Emission reduction from methane capture and flaring vs % of manure to be digested (commercial farms) Figure 16: Emission reduction from methane capture and electricity generation vs % of manure to be treated (commercial farms) Emission Reduction from methane capture and f laring in large-scale livestock farms - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 % 6 0 . 0 % 7 0 . 0 % 8 0 . 0 % 9 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % % of manure to be digested t C O 2 - e / y r Pig Cattle Buffalo Emission Reduction from methane capture and electricity generation in large-scale livestock farms - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 % 6 0 . 0 % 7 0 . 0 % 8 0 . 0 % 9 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % % of manure to be digested t C O 2 - e / y r Pig Cattle Buffalo Page 41 41 Figure 17: Emission reduction from methane capture and electricity generation vs % of manure to be treated (household and commercial piggeries) (v) Potentially feasible sector-wide intervention Intervention Potential structure and in-roads Estimated GHG reduction Estimated CDM Revenues Methane capture and electricity generation in large-scale livestock farms (200 pig farms with 1,000,000 heads; 1,000 cattle farms with 500,000 heads; and 1,000 buffalo farms with 100,000 heads) Through MARD 1,320,000 tCO2-e per year $13.2 million per year Emission Reduction from methane capture and electricity generation in large-scale livestock farms - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 % 6 0 . 0 % 7 0 . 0 % 8 0 . 0 % 9 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % % of manure to be digested t C O 2 - e / y r Pig Cattle Buffalo Page 42 42 Annex 1: Selected References Bui Phan Thu Hang, 2003. Effect of dimensions of plastic biodigester (width:length ratio) on gas production and composition of effluent. CanTho University. CMESRC, 2004. Onland-based pollution in Vietnam. ENERTEAM, 2003. Identification of biomass energy projects in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) likely to be financed by Global Environment Programmes (in Vietnamese) IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5: Waste L. Raschid-Sally et al., 2001. National Assessments on Wastewater use in Agriculture and an Emerging Typology: The Vietnam Case Study. N.T.K. Thai, 2005. Application of 3R for domestic solid waste management in Vietnam. N. T. Viet et. al., 2006. Sustainable technology for municipal solid waste treatment in HoChiMinh City, Vietnam. Van Lang University, HCMC. P.K. Toan, 2008. Summary of status of renewable energy utilization in Vietnam. Proceedings of the seminar on Energy Efficiency Policies in Vietnam. April 9-10, 2008, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. San Thy et. al., 2005. Effect of length:diameter ratio in polyethylene biodigesters on gas production and effluent composition. Livestock Research for Rural Development 17 (11) 2005. SEV, 2001. State of the Environment in Vietnam 2001. MONRE SEV, 2005. State of the Environment in Vietnam 2005. MONRE VEM, 2004. Vietnam Environment Monitor 2004. World Bank, MONRE and CIDA VSY, 2006. Vietnam Statistical Yearbook 2006 VSH, 2007. Vietnam Statistical Handbook 2007 Websites: HEPA – http://www.hepa.gov.vn MONRE – http://www.monre.gov.vn VietnamNet – http://vietnamnet.vn VTC News – http://www.vtc.vn Page 43 43 Annex 2: Greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of interventions Note: Estimates based on annual reductions during 2010-2015 Page 44 4 4 A n n e x 3 : P o t e n t i a l l y f e a s i b l e s e c t o r - w i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n s G H G r e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l ( 2 0 1 0 t o 2 0 1 5 ) N o . S e c t o r F e a s i b l e I n t e r v e n t i o n G H G e m i s s i o n s i n 2 0 1 0 ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e ) T o t a l P o t e n t i a l ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) F o r p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n t i o n ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) M e t h o d o l o g y a n d a d d i t i o n a l i t y i s s u e s C o - b e n e f i t s a n d F i n a n c i a l c o s t s 6 W a s t e 3 3 . 9 1 9 . 8 5 . 7 W 1 U r b a n w a s t e w a t e r U r b a n d o m e s t i c w a s t e w a t e r : I n c r e a s i n g c e n t r a l i z e d w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t t o 5 0 % w i t h a e r o b i c s l u d g e t r e a t m e n t ; l a n d f a r m i n g o f 1 0 0 % s l u d g e f r o m c e n t r a l i z e d w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s ; a n d d e s l u d g i n g a n d a e r o b i c t r e a t m e n t o f 5 0 % o f s e p t i c t a n k s f o r f i v e m a j o r c i t i e s 1 . 1 2 0 . 1 9 8 0 . 0 9 4 ( H C M C ) 0 . 0 5 4 ( H a n o i ) 0 . 0 2 4 ( H a i P h o n g ) 0 . 0 1 2 ( D a N a n g ) 0 . 0 1 4 ( C a n T h o ) ( 1 ) D o m e s t i c w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m s p l a n n e d t o b e a d o p t e d i n c i t i e s , i t a p p e a r s t o b e p a r t i a l l y a e r o b i c a t l e a s t - a d d i t i o n a l i t y n o t c l e a r ; ( 2 ) A e r o b i c s l u d g e m a n a g e m e n t i s n o t c o m m o n p r a c t i c e ; ( 3 ) M e t h o d o l o g i e s e x i s t . R e d u c e d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n , i m p r o v e d h e a l t h ; e n e r g y s a v i n g s ; C a n b e p r o f i t a b l e w i t h r i g h t i n s t i t u t i o n s W 2 R u r a l w a s t e w a t e r R u r a l d o m e s t i c w a s t e w a t e r : ( 1 ) M e t h a n e a v o i d a n c e t h r o u g h s w i t c h i n g 5 0 % o f s e p t i c t a n k s t o a e r o b i c s a n i t a t i o n a n d ( 2 ) 5 0 % a d o p t i o n o f a e r o b i c s a n i t a t i o n s y s t e m s f o r t h o s e w i t h o u t s a n i t a t i o n 1 . 6 5 0 . 8 2 0 . 3 0 0 f o r ( 1 ) 0 . 5 3 0 f o r ( 2 ) ( 1 ) I t n e e d s t o c h e c k a r e t h e t e c h n o l o g i e s n e w ? ; ( 2 ) N o m e t h o d o l o g y ; ( 3 ) M a y b e v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o m o n i t o r . R e d u c e d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n , i m p r o v e d h e a l t h ; e n e r g y s a v i n g s ; N o r m a l l y n o t p r o f i t a b l e W 3 I n d u s t r i a l w a s t e I n d u s t r i a l w a s t e w a t e r : M e t h a n e r e c o v e r y ( b i o g a s ) a n d a v o i d a n c e ( a e r o b i c s y s t e m s ) f o r 7 5 % w a s t e w a t e r o f b i o e t h a n o l , m e a t & p o u l t r y , p u l p & p a p e r , l i q u o r & b e e r , t a p i o c a s t a r c h , a n d f i s h i n g p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r i e s 1 . 1 0 0 . 5 2 0 . 1 8 3 ( b i o e t h a n o l ) 0 . 1 1 6 ( m e a t & p o u l t r y ) 0 . 0 7 6 ( p u l p & p a p e r ) 0 . 0 6 3 ( l i q u o r & b e e r ) 0 . 0 5 6 ( t a p i o c a s t a r c h ) 0 . 0 2 6 ( f i s h i n g p r o c e s s ) ( 1 ) U s e o f b i o g a s a n d a e r o b i c s y s t e m s i n i n d u s t r i e s a r e n o t c o m m o n p r a t i c e ; ( 2 ) A p p r o v e d m e t h o d o l o g i e s e x i s t . R e d u c e d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n ; e n e r g y s a v i n g s ; S o m e t i m e s p r o f i t a b l e w i t h C D M Page 45 4 5 G H G r e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l ( 2 0 1 0 t o 2 0 1 5 ) N o . S e c t o r F e a s i b l e I n t e r v e n t i o n G H G e m i s s i o n s i n 2 0 1 0 ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e ) T o t a l P o t e n t i a l ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) F o r p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n t i o n ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) M e t h o d o l o g y a n d a d d i t i o n a l i t y i s s u e s C o - b e n e f i t s a n d F i n a n c i a l c o s t s W 4 U r b a n w a s t e U r b a n s o l i d w a s t e : M e t h a n e a v o i d a n c e t h r o u g h s o l i d w a s t e c o m p o s t i n g i n 8 s e l e c t e d c i t i e s 4 . 3 0 1 . 0 0 0 . 7 0 5 ( H a n o i ) 0 . 0 7 2 ( N a m D i n h ) 0 . 0 5 6 ( H u e ) 0 . 0 4 9 ( Q u y N h o n ) 0 . 0 4 9 ( V u n g T a u ) 0 . 0 4 2 ( V i n h ) 0 . 0 1 4 ( L a o C a i ) 0 . 0 1 3 ( P h u L y ) ( 1 ) O n l y o n e e x i s t i n g p r o j e c t / s o m e p l a n n e d ; ( 2 ) N o g o v e r n m e n t p l a n o r l e g i s l a t i o n ; ( 3 ) M e t h o d o l o g y a p p r o v e d b u t M e t h o d o l o g y P a n e l i s s c r u t i n i z i n g m e t h o d o l o g y . S a v i n g s o n d i s p o s a l c o s t s , u s e f o r f a r m i n g ; S o m e t i m e s p r o f i t a b l e w i t h C D M W 5 U r b a n w a s t e U r b a n s o l i d w a s t e : M e t h a n e r e c o v e r y t h r o u g h l a n d f i l l g a s t o e n e r g y p r o j e c t s i n u r b a n d i s p o s a l s i t e s f o r 8 s e l e c t e d c i t i e s 2 . 0 0 1 . 6 5 0 . 6 6 9 ( H C M C ) 0 . 4 0 0 ( H a n o i ) 0 . 1 8 7 ( H a i P h o n g ) 0 . 1 4 3 ( C a n T h o ) 0 . 1 1 4 ( D a N a n g ) 0 . 0 5 2 ( H a L o n g ) 0 . 0 4 4 ( N h a T r a n g ) 0 . 0 4 1 ( N a m D i n h ) ( 1 ) A p p l i e d i n s o m e s m a l l c i t i e s b u t n o t c o m m o n p r a c t i c e ; ( 2 ) L a c k o f s k i l l s / k n o w l e d g e ; ( 3 ) L a c k o f p o l i c y ; ( 4 ) M e t h o d o l o g y a p p r o v e d . R e d u c e d o d o r , e n e r g y s a v i n g s ; T y p i c a l l y p r o f i t a b l e w i t h C D M W 6 R e n e w a b l e e n e r g y / A g r i c u l t u r a l w a s t e A g r i c u l t u r a l s o l i d r e s i d u e s : U t i l i z a t i o n o f 2 0 % o f r i c e h u s k p r o d u c t i o n a n d 4 0 % o f b a g a s s e p r o d u c t i o n f o r p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n 0 . 9 1 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 6 ( 2 0 % r i c e h u s k ) 0 . 0 9 ( 4 0 % b a g a s s e ) ( 1 ) R i c e h u s k p o w e r p l a n t s a r e n o t c o m m o n p r a t i c e i n c o u n t r y ; ( 2 ) 4 2 s u g a r m i l l s u s i n g b a g a s s e f o r p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n b u t o n l y 3 s o l d e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e g r i d ; ( 3 ) M a n y f i n a n c i a l o b s t a c l e s f o u n d ( m a i n l y p u r c h a s i n g p r i c e b y E V N ) ; ( 4 ) A p p r o v e d m e t h o d o l o g i e s e x i s t . E l e c t r i f i c a t i o n , r e d u c e d p o l l u t i o n i n r i v e r s a n d o f a i r ; T y p i c a l l y p r o f i t a b l e w i t h C D M Page 46 4 6 G H G r e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l ( 2 0 1 0 t o 2 0 1 5 ) N o . S e c t o r F e a s i b l e I n t e r v e n t i o n G H G e m i s s i o n s i n 2 0 1 0 ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e ) T o t a l P o t e n t i a l ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) F o r p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n t i o n ( m i l l i o n t C O 2 - e / y ) M e t h o d o l o g y a n d a d d i t i o n a l i t y i s s u e s C o - b e n e f i t s a n d F i n a n c i a l c o s t s W 7 l i v e s t o c k w a s t e L i v e s t o c k w a s t e : M e t h a n e c a p t u r e a n d e l e c t r i c i t y g e n e r a t i o n i n l a r g e - s c a l e l i v e s t o c k f a r m s ( 2 0 0 p i g f a r m s w i t h 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 h e a d s ; 1 , 0 0 0 c a t t l e f a r m s w i t h 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 h e a d s ; a n d 1 , 0 0 0 b u f f a l o f a r m s w i t h 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 h e a d s ) 7 . 8 0 1 . 3 2 0 . 7 6 7 ( p i g f a r m s ) 0 . 3 8 4 ( c a t t l e f a r m s ) 0 . 1 6 6 ( b u f f a l o f a r m s ) ( 1 ) I s n o t c o m m o n p r a t i c e i n c o u n t r y a n d a d o p t i o n i s n o t w i d e s p r e a d ; ( 2 ) I n v e s t m e n t c o s t s a r e h i g h f o r t h e f a r m e r s ; ( 3 ) S o m e a p p r o v e d m e t h o d o l o g i e s e x i s t . P o w e r s a v i n g s f o r f a r m e r s ; r e d u c e d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n ; T y p i c a l l y p r o f i t a b l e w i t h C D M Page 47 47