Bilan Carbone Emission - Factors

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities
EMISSION FACTORS GUIDE

Version 5.0
Emission Factors Calculation and Bibliographical Sources Used

JANUARY 2007
French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management
Interministerial Mission on the Greenhouse Effect
The development of this Authorities Version received the support of :
Bilan Carbone Companies and Local Authorities Version
The Bilan CarboneTM Method was developed for ADEME by Jean-Marc Jancovici, from the Manicore Consulting Firm. The development of the Authorities Version is supported by the Groupe Caisse dEpargne Bilan CarboneTM is a registered trademark of ADEME.
2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0
2 / 249
Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... 3 Introduction............................................................................................................. 12 1 - Default Uncertainties......................................................................................... 13

1.1 Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 13
1.1.1 Fossil fuels.......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.2 Bioenergy ........................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.3 Electricity ........................................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2 ............................................................................. 14 1.3 Transport ................................................................................................................................... 14 1.4 Materials entering and tertiary services ................................................................................. 14
1.4.1 Incoming materials ............................................................................................................................. 14 1.4.2 Tertiary services ................................................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Waste and wastewater/sewage ................................................................................................. 15 1.6 Capital assets ............................................................................................................................. 15
2 - Factors related to direct energy consumption ............................................... 17

2.1 Type of emissions ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Fossil fuels.................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.1 Gross heating value and nett heating value......................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Conversion table for energy units....................................................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Liquid fuels......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.3.1. Emissions linked to combustion of liquid fuels ......................................................................... 20 2.2.3.2. Upstream emissions for liquid fuels ............................................................................................... 21 2.2.3.3. Uncertainty ..................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.4 Natural gas.............................................................................................................................. 24

2.2.4.1. Emissions linked to combustion of natural gas............................................................................... 24 2.2.4.2. Upstream emissions for natural gas ................................................................................................ 25 2.2.4.3. Uncertainty ..................................................................................................................................... 26
2.2.5 Solid fuels................................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.6 Plastics used as fuel ................................................................................................................ 28
2.3 Bioenergy .......................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Biofuels.................................................................................................................................... 29
2.3.1.1 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.1.2 Gases covered by emission factors .................................................................................................. 29 2.3.1.3 Emission factors .............................................................................................................................. 30 2.3.1.3.1 Coproducts and byproducts used on-site............................................................................. 30 2.3.1.3.2 Coproducts or byproducts directed to a supply chain ......................................................... 31 2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 3 / 249
2.3.1.3.3 Biofuels from dedicated crops............................................................................................. 31
2.3.2 Liquid Biofuels ....................................................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.1 Definition......................................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2.1.1 Bioethanol production......................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2.1.2 Vegetable oils...................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2.2 Emission factors .............................................................................................................................. 32 2.3.2.2.1 Principle................................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.2.2.2 Default values .......................................................................................................................... 33 2.3.2.3 Systematic blending with gasoline and diesel fuel...................................................................... 34
2.4 Electricity................................................................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.2 Grid electricity.................................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.3 Emission factors by producer for European electricity suppliers ....................................................... 38
2.4.4 Intermittent and fatal renewable sources ............................................................................ 39

2.4.4.1 General Information.................................................................................................................... 39 2.4.4.2 Wind power ..................................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.4.3 Photovoltaic ................................................................................................................................ 40
2.4.5 Seasonal nature of electricity generated by EDF (producer)............................................. 40 2.4.6 Factors broken down by usage for grid power in France .................................................. 41 2.4.7 Standard consumption figures for the principal residential electric appliances.............. 42 2.4.8 Specific electricity consumption for a tertiary service........................................................ 44 2.4.9 Electricity transmission losses............................................................................................... 45 2.4.10 Precautions to take within the framework of action plans............................................... 45 2.5 Steam purchases........................................................................................................................ 46
2.5.1 General information............................................................................................................................ 46 2.5.2 CPCU.................................................................................................................................................. 46 2.5.3 Electricity transmission losses............................................................................................................ 47
2.6 Space heating without corresponding meter readings........................................................... 47

2.6.1 Tertiary-sector activities, non-electric heating ................................................................................... 47 2.6.1.1. Heating with fuel oil .................................................................................................................. 48 2.6.1.2. Heating with natural gas ............................................................................................................ 48 2.6.1.3. Accounting for location and climate............................................................................................... 49
2.6.2 Average residential consumption.......................................................................................... 50

2.6.2.1 Heating emission factors by primary residence .......................................................................... 50 2.6.2.2 Sanitary hot water emission factors by primary residence.......................................................... 51 2.6.2.3 Proportion of energy type in the heating of principal residences................................................ 52 2.6.2.4 Proportion of energy type for sanitary hot water in principal residences.................................... 53
3 - Accounting for non-energy emissions ............................................................ 54

3.1 GWP of the main gases involved ............................................................................................. 54 3.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer.................................. 56 3.3 Leakage of refrigerant fluids ................................................................................................... 57
3.3.1 Commercial cooling equipment.......................................................................................................... 57 3.3.2 Industrial Cooling ............................................................................................................................... 58 3.3.2.1 Food processing industry ............................................................................................................ 58 3.3.2.2 Other industries........................................................................................................................... 59 3.3.2.3 Average for all industries............................................................................................................ 60 2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 4 / 249
3.3.3 Cooling in the service sector (air conditioning).................................................................................. 60
3.4 Other cases................................................................................................................................. 61
4 - Accounting for transport .................................................................................. 62

4.1 Road transportation of persons ............................................................................................... 63
4.1.1 Personal vehicles ................................................................................................................................ 63 4.1.1.1 Amortization of private cars ....................................................................................................... 63 4.1.1.2 Calculating reference consumption for personal vehicles........................................................... 66 4.1.1.2.1 Emissions approximated by fuel type and residential zone................................................. 66 4.1.1.2.2 Emissions approximated by fuel type and length of time in use ......................................... 68 4.1.1.2.3 Emissions approximated by fuel type and fiscal horsepower rating ................................... 69 4.1.1.3 Commuting travel ....................................................................................................................... 71 4.1.1.3.1 Emission factors for people commuting by car................................................................... 71 4.1.1.3.2 Emission factors for people commuting by car, when distance travelled is known ............ 73 4.1.1.4 Work-related travel by car .......................................................................................................... 74 4.1.1.5 Travel by car for the daily mobility of a territorys residents ..................................................... 74
Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution modal for daily trips......................................... 75
4.1.1.6 Long-distance travel by car for mobility of residents in a territory ......................................... 75
4.1.2 Buses and cars ........................................................................................................................ 77

4.1.2.1 Amortization of buses and coaches............................................................................................. 77 4.1.2.2 Emissions per vehicle.km ........................................................................................................... 77 4.1.2.3 Emissions per passenger.km ....................................................................................................... 78 4.1.2.3.1 General case ........................................................................................................................ 78 4.1.2.3.2 Overall factor for commuting travel.................................................................................... 79 4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for the daily mobility of a territorys residents..................................................... 79 4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for long distance mobility of a territorys residents ............................................. 82
4.1.3 Two-wheeled vehicles............................................................................................................. 82

4.1.3.1 Amortization and upstream emissions for two-wheeled vehicles ............................................... 82 4.1.3.2 Combustion emissions per vehicle.km........................................................................................ 83
4.1.4 Mass transit: suburban rail, metro and tramway............................................................... 84

4.1.4.1 Emission factor ........................................................................................................................... 84 4.1.4.2 Kilometres travelled for daily mobility ........................................................................................... 84
4.2 Goods transport by road .......................................................................................................... 84

4.2.1 Amortization of trucks and utility vehicles......................................................................................... 85 4.2.2 Average fuel consumption per vehicle.km by GVW weight class ..................................................... 89 4.2.3 Emission factors per vehicle.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips ........................... 92 4.2.3.1 Reasoning ................................................................................................................................... 92 4.2.3.2 Determining consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles ................................................. 94 4.2.3.3 Reintegrating manufacturing emissions...................................................................................... 96 4.2.4 Emission factors per ton.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips.................................. 96 4.2.4.1 Typology of goods transport....................................................................................................... 97 4.2.4.2 Determining emissions per ton.km in Bilan Carbone ............................................................. 97 4.2.5 Uncertainties in the methods described in 4.2.3 and 4.2.4................................................................ 99 4.2.6 Accurate calculation of road distances ............................................................................................... 99 4.2.7 Tons.km per capita and region.......................................................................................................... 100 4.2.7.1 Tons.km shipped per capita and region .................................................................................... 100
4.3 Air transport............................................................................................................................ 101

4.3.1 Fuel consumption per passenger.km................................................................................................. 101 4.3.2 Fuel consumption per ton.km for freight .......................................................................................... 105 4.3.3 Determining distances travelled per trip........................................................................................... 107 4.3.3.1 General case.............................................................................................................................. 107 2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 5 / 249
4.3.3.2 Long distance mobility mileage................................................................................................ 107 4.3.4 Adding accuracy ............................................................................................................................... 108
4.4 Rail transport .......................................................................................................................... 109

4.4.1 General information.......................................................................................................................... 109 4.4.2 Passenger travel ................................................................................................................................ 109 4.4.2.1 Passengers travelling by train in France.................................................................................... 109 4.4.2.2 Passengers travelling by train in Europe................................................................................... 110 4.4.2.3 Long distance mobility mileage................................................................................................ 111 4.4.3 Freight .............................................................................................................................................. 111 4.4.3.1 Rail freight in France ................................................................................................................ 111 4.4.3.2 Rail freight in Europe ............................................................................................................... 112 4.4.4 Accurate calculation of rail distances ............................................................................................... 112
4.5 Sea and waterway freight ....................................................................................................... 112

4.5.1 Emissions linked to ship manufacture .............................................................................................. 113 4.5.2 Specific emissions linked to fuel consumption................................................................................. 113 4.5.2.1 Container ships ......................................................................................................................... 114 4.5.2.2 Bulk cargo carriers.................................................................................................................... 116 4.5.2.3 Cargo Carriers........................................................................................................................... 117 4.5.3 Calculating sea routes ....................................................................................................................... 117
4.6. River and waterway goods transport ................................................................................... 117
5 - Accounting for inputs: purchased materials and services.......................... 121

5.0 Preliminary remarks on inputs.............................................................................................. 121 5.1 Steel and ferrous metals ......................................................................................................... 121 5.2 Aluminium ............................................................................................................................... 123 5.3 Other metals ............................................................................................................................ 124 5.4 Plastics...................................................................................................................................... 127
5.4.1.1 Polystyrene ............................................................................................................................... 127 5.4.1.2 Polyvinyl chloride..................................................................................................................... 127 5.4.1.3 High-density polyethylene ........................................................................................................ 128 5.4.1.4 Low-density polyethylene......................................................................................................... 129 5.4.1.5 Polyethylene terephtalate (PET) ............................................................................................... 129 5.4.1.6 Nylon ........................................................................................................................................ 130 5.4.1.7 Average values.......................................................................................................................... 131
5.5 Glass ......................................................................................................................................... 131 5.6 Building materials ................................................................................................................... 133

5.6.1 Cement, concrete .............................................................................................................................. 133 5.6.1.1 Some definitions ....................................................................................................................... 133 5.6.1.2 Emission factors........................................................................................................................ 133
5.6.2 Other materials .................................................................................................................... 134

5.6.2.1 Quarried stone ............................................................................................................................... 134 5.6.2.2 Wood ............................................................................................................................................. 134 5.6.2.3 Other building materials ................................................................................................................ 135
5.7 Paper and cardboard.............................................................................................................. 136 5.8 Miscellaneous purchases and supplies, default factor ......................................................... 136
5.8.1. Small supplies.................................................................................................................................. 136 5.8.2. Consumable office equipment supplies ........................................................................................... 137 2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 6 / 249
5.9 Services..................................................................................................................................... 137

5.9.1 Preliminary remarks ......................................................................................................................... 137 5.9.2 Suggested ratio ................................................................................................................................. 138 5.9.3 Information technology expenditures, miscellaneous services......................................................... 138
6 - Accounting for other inputs: products used in agriculture, livestock raising and food processing ............................................................................................ 139
6.1 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................... 139 6.2 Fertilizer................................................................................................................................... 140 6.3 Phytosanitary (plant protection) products............................................................................ 141
6.3.1 Herbicides......................................................................................................................................... 141 6.3.2 Fungicides......................................................................................................................................... 142 6.3.3 Insecticides ....................................................................................................................................... 142 6.3.4 Molluscicidal agents ......................................................................................................................... 142 6.3.5 Growth regulators ............................................................................................................................. 143 6.3.6 Default value .................................................................................................................................... 143
6.4 Grains, flour ............................................................................................................................ 143

6.4.1 Wheat................................................................................................................................................ 144 6.4.2 Maize for fodder ............................................................................................................................... 145 6.4.3 Flour ................................................................................................................................................. 147
6.5 Fruits and vegetables .............................................................................................................. 147 6.6 Beef and veal............................................................................................................................ 147
6.6.1 Annual livestock emissions .............................................................................................................. 148 6.6.2 Imputation of nursing cows .............................................................................................................. 149 6.6.3 Milk-fed calves ................................................................................................................................. 150 6.6.4 Dairy cows and milk......................................................................................................................... 150 6.6.5 Steers ................................................................................................................................................ 151 6.6.5.1 Beef cattle ................................................................................................................................. 151 6.6.5.2 Average values.......................................................................................................................... 152
6.7 Dairy products......................................................................................................................... 152

6.7.1 Boiled cheese ............................................................................................................................... 152 6.7.2 Fresh cheeses, yoghurt ................................................................................................................. 152 6.7.3 Raw milk cheeses......................................................................................................................... 153 6.7.4 Butter, cream................................................................................................................................ 153
6.8 Industrial swine....................................................................................................................... 153

6.9 Poultry and poultry products........................................................................................................... 154 6.9.1 Industrial chicken......................................................................................................................... 154
6.9.2 Eggs ....................................................................................................................................... 155 6.10 Sheep ...................................................................................................................................... 155

6.10.1 Milk-fed lambs........................................................................................................................... 156 6.10.2 Grass-fed lambs ......................................................................................................................... 156
6.11 Fish ......................................................................................................................................... 157 6.12 Alcoholic spirits, sugar ......................................................................................................... 157 6.13 Other products ...................................................................................................................... 158 6.14 Consolidated emission factors for farms............................................................................. 158
6.14.1 Emissions per hectare for the main crops .................................................................................. 158 6.14.1.1 Nitrous oxide emanations ....................................................................................................... 158 2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 7 / 249
6.14.1.2 Manufacture of fertilizer ......................................................................................................... 159 6.14.1.3 Farm machinery ...................................................................................................................... 160 6.14.2 Methane emissions from livestock............................................................................................. 161
7 - Accounting for direct waste and sewage ...................................................... 163

7.0 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................... 163 7.1 Inert waste ............................................................................................................................... 163
7.1.1 Inert waste materials landfill disposal and incineration................................................................. 163 7.1.2 Inert waste materials default value ................................................................................................ 164
7.2 Non-fermentable but combustible materials ........................................................................ 165

7.2.1 Plastic sent to landfill ....................................................................................................................... 165 7.2.2 Plastic incinerated without energy recovery ..................................................................................... 165 7.2.3 Plastic incinerated with energy recovery .......................................................................................... 165 7.2.4 Recycled plastic................................................................................................................................ 167 7.2.5 Breakdown of types of disposal in France and average values......................................................... 167 7.3 Fermentable and combustible materials .............................................................................................. 167 7.3.1 Materials sent to landfill without energy or materials recovery ....................................................... 168 7.3.1.1 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 168 7.3.1.2 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 168 7.3.2 Material sent to landfill with energy or materials recovery ......................................................... 169 7.3.2.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 169 7.3.2.2 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 169 7.3.3 Incineration without energy recovery ............................................................................................... 170 7.3.3.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 170 7.3.3.2 Paper and cardboard.................................................................................................................. 170 7.3.4 Incineration with energy recovery .................................................................................................... 170 7.3.4.1 Food waste ................................................................................................................................ 170 7.3.4.2 Paper and cardboard ...................................................................................................................... 171 7.3.5 Recycling ..................................................................................................................................... 171 7.3.6 Statistical average for waste disposal in France........................................................................... 171
7.4 Hazardous industrial waste.................................................................................................... 172 7.5 End-of-life non-energy emissions and leakages.................................................................... 174 7.6 Wastewater .............................................................................................................................. 174
8 - End-of-life disposal of packaging .................................................................. 177 9 - Accounting for amortized assets................................................................... 179
9.0 Preliminary remarks............................................................................................................... 179 9.1 Buildings .................................................................................................................................. 179
9.1.1 Rough approach for building surface area........................................................................................ 179 9.1.2 Overall approach based on energy consumption .............................................................................. 182 9.1.3 A more detailed approach, based on quantities of materials used .................................................... 182
9.2 Roadways and parking areas ................................................................................................. 183

9.2.1 Primary components ......................................................................................................................... 183 9.2.2 Emission factors per m for roadways and parking areas ................................................................. 185 9.2.2.1 Types of roadways .................................................................................................................... 185 9.2.2.2 Emissions per m....................................................................................................................... 186 9.2.2.3 Emissions related to safety barriers .......................................................................................... 186 9.2.2.4 Parking areas............................................................................................................................. 187
9.3 Machinery and vehicles ................................................................................. 187

2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0 8 / 249
9.3.1 Vehicles ............................................................................................................................................ 187 9.3.2 Production machinery....................................................................................................................... 187 9.3.3 Office and computer equipment ....................................................................................................... 188 9.3.3.1 Manufacture of computer chips ................................................................................................ 188 9.3.3.2 Printed circuit boards ................................................................................................................ 189 9.3.3.3 Screens...................................................................................................................................... 189 9.3.3.4 Other components and total ...................................................................................................... 190 9.3.3.5 Printers and servers ................................................................................................................... 191 9.3.3.6 Method based on purchase price............................................................................................... 192 9.3.3.7 Reprographic equipment........................................................................................................... 192
10 - Bibliographical References .......................................................................... 193 10.1 - Sources ....................................................................................................... 193

10.1.1 - List of individuals consulted in the course of preparing the emission factors............ 193
10.1.2 - Literature consulted for the elaboration of the emission factors .................................................. 196 10.1.3 - Main websites consulted in elaborating the Bilan Carbone methodology................................ 200
10.2 General bibliography.................................................................................... 200

10.2.1 - IPCC publications ........................................................................................................................ 200 10.2.2 - CITEPA publications ................................................................................................................... 201 10.2.3 - ADEME publications ................................................................................................................... 201 10.2.4 - Publications issued by other French organizations....................................................................... 202
Appendix 1 Power production in Europe ........................................................ 203 Appendix 2 Carbon content of electricity generated by EDF ........................ 205 Appendix 3 Carbon dioxide emission factors for fuels.................................. 207 Appendix 4 Background note on the CO2 content per kWh by use in France ............................................................................................................................... 211
1. 2. 3. Background........................................................................................................................... 211 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 211 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 212
Appendix 5 Distribution of agricultural lands in France ................................ 215 Appendix 6 Carbon content of poultry ............................................................ 216 1 - Industrial turkey .............................................................................................. 216 2 - Industrial duck and guinea fowl..................................................................... 216 3 - Free-range poultry........................................................................................... 217 Appendix 7 Breakdown of road vehicles for goods transport by Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)........................................................................................................ 218 1 - Lightweight utility vehicles GVW < 1,5 t........................................................ 219 2 - Utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW................................................. 219 3 - Utility vehicles between 2,51 t and 3,5 t GVW............................................... 220 4 - Utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW.................................................. 220 5 - Trucks between 5,1 and 6 t GVW ................................................................... 221
6 - Trucks between 6,1 and 10,9 t GVW .............................................................. 221 7 - Trucks between 11 and 19 t GVW .................................................................. 222 8 - Trucks between 19,1 and 21 t GVW ............................................................... 223 9 - Trucks between 21,1 and 32,6 t GVW ............................................................ 224 10 - Articulated trucks (tractor-trailers) .............................................................. 224 Appendix 8 Fuel consumption of passenger vehicles: breakdown by fiscal horsepower ........................................................................................................... 225 1 - Gasoline vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rating ...................................... 225 2 - Gasoline vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rating..................................... 226 3 - Gasoline vehicles, over 11 fiscal horsepower rating ................................... 227 4 - Diesel vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rating ........................................... 228 5 - Diesel vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rating ......................................... 228 6 - Diesel vehicles, 11 fiscal horsepower and over ........................................... 229 Appendix 9 Operating range and seating in Airbus aircraft .......................... 230 1 - Operating range............................................................................................... 230
1.1 A300 cargo aircraft ................................................................................................................. 230 1.2 A310.......................................................................................................................................... 230 1.3 A318.......................................................................................................................................... 231 1.4 A319.......................................................................................................................................... 231 1.5 A320.......................................................................................................................................... 232 1.6 A330-200 .................................................................................................................................. 232 1.7 A330-300 .................................................................................................................................. 233 1.8 A340-200 .................................................................................................................................. 233 1.9 A340-300 .................................................................................................................................. 234 1.10 A340-500 ................................................................................................................................ 234 1.11 A340-600 ................................................................................................................................ 235
2. Passenger seats ............................................................................................... 235

2.1 A320.......................................................................................................................................... 235 2.2 A330-200 .................................................................................................................................. 236 2.3 A340-200 .................................................................................................................................. 236 2.4 A340-600 .................................................................................................................................. 237
TABLES ................................................................................................................. 238 FIGURES................................................................................................................ 244 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 246
ADEME EXPERTS................................................................................................. 249
11 / 249
Introduction
This document allows the detail calculation of each of the emission factors1 contained in the various main spreadsheets forming the Bilan CarboneTM Method, and specifies its sources. It is inseparable from the series of documents linked to the Bilan CarboneTM Method. The division of the Bilan CarboneTM into several separate documents responds to a practical concern, and not to the fact that these documents are autonomous. Since the release of the first version of the Bilan CarboneTM which were more particularly intended for companies, this method was the object of constant improvements - as much on formation level than in content, in order to be current with version n 4 (or V4). This evolutions new decisive step is perfected into a version specifically intended for territorial authorities, and this justified that the series of spreadsheets and associated 5 documents in the Bilan CarboneTM henceforth carries a version number, and thus n (or V5). A first version of the "authority"-spreadsheet was, as a test, the objective of experimentation with approximately fifteen French territorial authorities, and for 18 months. The first feedback from this experience steered towards significant modification of the initial spreadsheet, which was divided into 2 distinct modules: 1. A "heritage & services"-module, which relates to emissions generated by the authoritys activity or the services that it renders; and 2. A "territory"-module, which largely relates to the emissions generated by the series of activities taking place in the considered authoritys territory. It is the release of Version n that justifies the update of this Guide, which 5 recaptures the calculation of the emission factors in totality, as included in the three main spreadsheets, namely "companies", "local authorities heritage & services" and "local authorities territory"; overall forming the whole Bilan CarboneTM Method. Note: The two updated editions in comparison to this Emission Factors Guide should be taken into account - the one of June 2006 for emission factors relating to the main "companies" spreadsheet, and the other one of December 2006 for the emission factors relating to the main "authorities" spreadsheet. We will indicate the paragraphs modified at the time of these last two updates with a red border in the left margin, the same as is the case for this paragraph.
12 / 249
1 - Default Uncertainties
As indicated in the basic methodological guidelines, is each emission factor1 associated with a degree of uncertainty. This chapter lists the uncertainty values that apply by default, in the absence of specific uncertainty values given in the following chapters.
1.1 Energy 1.1.1 Fossil fuels

Greenhouse gas emissions linked to the combustion of natural gas, coal and oil are well documented as a result of a lot of research. A major source of uncertainty lies in obtaining accurate knowledge of the fuel used, especially for coal that greatly varies from one type to another in composition. When a fuels composition is well known, variability linked to combustion conditions is low. Accordingly, the emission factors derived here and used in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet were assigned an uncertainty by default of: - - 5% for petroleum and gas products, - - 20% for coal and coal-derivates.
1.1.2 Bioenergy
Due to the classification of Bioenergy (liquid and solid Biofuels) being relatively detailed and production processes fairly well documented, its emission factors were allocated an uncertainty by default of 10%.
1.1.3 Electricity
Today electricity producers publish their own emission factors with low uncertainties, because the amount of fuel used in flame-combustion power plants is well known to its operators. There may be differences between producers, however, as to how other contributing factors are taken into account. For low greenhouse gas (GHG)
1 The calculations that allow the conversion of observable data of greenhouse gas emissions in its entirety (expressed as carbon equivalent) are called emission factors. The carbon equivalent is the "official" measure of greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of companies however, use the "CO2 equivalent", giving values 3.67 times higher (within a ratio of 44/12 to be exact); a factor that corresponds to the report (molecular mass of CO2) / (atomic mass of carbon). The Bilan Carbone Method spreadsheet hereafter proposes the results with the two units - however the emission factors are merely in carbon equivalent. Attention: Do not confuse "CO2 equivalent" with "emissions of CO2 only" which is alas a common confusion.
13 / 249
emitting power production in particular (nuclear and renewable energy), deciding to include or exclude the manufacture of plant equipment makes in huge difference in relative terms, even if the values remain low in absolute terms (from 10 to 20 is an increase of 100%!). Furthermore, the degree of uncertainty retained depends a good deal on whether or not an average GHG content per kWh is assigned by convention. If not, the degree of uncertainty depends on how closely the factor used matches the reality of the situation that the calculations attempt to represent. Uncertainty by default for electricity emission factors is 10%.
1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2

Emission factors for greenhouse gases other than CO2 are expressed by the GWP2 (see 3.1). These values are approximations and considered by IPCC3 to be valid within a range of 30%. Emission factors for greenhouse gases other than CO2 thus carry an uncertainty by default of 30%.
1.3 Transport
Uncertainty for transport emission factors varies greatly from one category to another. No default uncertainties are assigned in this category, and uncertainty ranges are always specified for the transport emission factors given below.
1.4 Materials entering and tertiary services 1.4.1 Incoming materials

The uncertainty by default value for the emission factors of entering materials for food products is set at 30%, designating the variation around a mean value for the GHG content of raw materials. Uncertainty is set at 10% for emission factors related to building construction materials listed in the INIES4 database, as this information is based on detailed studies. Primary raw materials are assigned an uncertainty factor of 20%. Once again, determining a degree of uncertainty means knowing what conventions are adopted. If the emission factor is meant to reflect - with great accuracy - the emissions per ton of steel used in the reporting company, uncertainty is likely to be greater than 20%. When steel is made with electricity, for example, it is crucial to
GWP: Global Warming Potential IPCC: International Panel on Climate Change INIES: Information sur lImpact Environnemental et Sanitaire. The INIES is a database of life-cycle assessments for various building construction materials and products. See 9.1.3.
3 4 2
14 / 249
know the country that provided the steel, and the power supplier from whom the producer obtained its electricity, etc, and a factor 2 between these extremes seems a minimum. If the emission factor however conventionally reflects average emissions linked to the production of a ton of steel - all countries and processes combined - then the uncertainty on the emission factors is due only to uncertainty about the data used for the calculations (e.g. tons of coal consumed worldwide). In this case 20% uncertainty is probably too pessimistic. Ultimately, the issue is to know what degree of inaccuracy applies to the marginal emissions avoided if less material is used. This inaccuracy will depend, among other things, on the size of the marginal reduction.
1.4.2 Tertiary services

Barring further investigation, uncertainty for services has been set conservatively at 50%. This is perhaps overly pessimistic, seeing that a Bilan Carbone assessment carried out for a tertiary service activity5 has yielded a value that was not too far from the average coefficient used.
1.5 Waste and wastewater/sewage

All calculations regarding end-of-life disposal of waste (including wastewater effluent) have been assigned, conservatively, an uncertainty of 50%. This reflects the approximate nature of our knowledge of certain processes, notably decomposition of fermentable matter in landfills (for food and paper waste). There is one exception however: incineration of plastics is assigned an uncertainty of only 20%, as the fossil carbon content of plastic is relatively easy to ascertain.
1.6 Capital assets

The capital assets category covers emissions linked to manufacture of durable goods owned by the company or service provider (buildings, machinery, etc.). This designation establishes a parallel with material assets that are immobilized for financial accounting purposes. In the absence of detailed research in this area, uncertainty is set at 50% for emissions estimated for buildings (surface area method), machinery, vehicles, computers and office equipment. Only closer analysis of these production chains could reduce these uncertainty figures significantly.
The assessment was conducted by the Direction Gnrale de l'Energie et des Matires Premires (DGEMP, Energy and Raw Materials Division) at the French Industry Ministry (in charge of energy).
15 / 249
By contrast, emission factors for buildings, roadways and parking areas derived by the approach based on materials are assigned lower uncertainty, between 10% and 20%.
16 / 249
2 - Factors related to direct energy consumption

2.1 Type of emissions
Energy use is a source of greenhouse gases, in the following ways: - Carbon dioxide emitted during combustion of fossil fuels (petroleum, gas, coal) which, as the name indicates, were formed long ago by decomposition of living organisms; - Various localized pollutants that may be greenhouse gases, or GHG precursors (this is notably the case for ozone and nitrogen oxides); - Because electricity is partly or totally generated using fossil fuels, depending on the country (see appendixes 1 and 2); - Due to leakage of natural gas during oil and gas drilling operations: methane, the main component of natural gas, is itself a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than CO2. These factors correspond essentially to CO2 emissions. When other gases are taken into account, the only emissions calculated are for methane6 and N2O,7 and their contributions are generally marginal. Emissions of refrigerant fluids (air conditioning, refrigeration for foodstuffs) are also taken into consideration. For more information, refer to the relevant section in this document (cf. 3 on non-energy emissions).
2.2 Fossil fuels

The term fossil fuels refer to all products, crude or refined, derived from petroleum, natural gas and coal. The emission factors given here are designed to calculate GHG emissions from data that are readily available for the reporting company or audited site (tons of coal, kWh of gas, litres of gasoline, etc.). All uses of fossil energy are covered: heating, firing of industrial ovens and furnaces, power for stationary or mobile machinery, etc. They are also used, in the framework of this method, to obtain emission factors applicable to other categories of items (use of means of transport, production of primary materials, etc.).
6 Methane may be emitted during combustion in the event of incomplete oxidation; this is notably the case for biomass fires, but is generally not significant for hydrocarbon combustion in a motor. 7 N2O is one of the nitrogen oxides formed during combustion using air as the oxidant. Oxygen and nitrogen combine in various forms, of which N2O.
17 / 249
We propose two sets of emission factors: - "comprehensive" values that comprise most upstream emissions (for example: refining, transport), also known as "well to tank" emissions. - values that cover only in situ combustion may be used in conjunction with certain extractions8. To keep the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet to a reasonable size, emission factors are expressed in a limited number of energy units, those that are most commonly used. Basic rules for conversion of units are included for cases where data are available only in units not directly useable in the spreadsheet. Notice: The fossil fuel emission factors given below (see 2.2.3 to 2.2.5) largely stems from a recent ministerial circular, composed in the framework of the transposition of the "allowed emissions directive. This circular proposes emission factors for fuels (solid, liquid or gaseous) that differ in some % from those that were in force in the preceding Version n of the Bilan CarboneTM. The values of this 3 circular were resumed in the present guide for harmonisation purposes, and to avoid all hesitation regarding the value to employ (the difference remains inferior to the uncertainty on the factors). On the other hand, the fuel factors below are not those used to calculate the transportation emission factors ( 4 of the present document). The latter were adjusted with the fuel emission factors in force in Version n and were not modified 3 in this version, due to a lack of time. This probably resulted in a difference of some %, by order of magnitude, with the transportation factors that would take the values below into account - if they are less than the uncertainty on the transportation factors. This does not at all disturb the approaches by order of magnitude and harmonisation will be carried out for the next version.
2.2.1 Gross heating value and nett heating value

All fossil fuels contain carbon and hydrogen in variable quantities. Combustion of these fuels therefore always produces CO2 and water vapour. Due to the presence of steam, there are two ways to measure the energy available per fuel unit: gross heating (calorific) value and nett heating (calorific) value. The heating value of a fuel is the amount of heat, expressed in kWh or MJ, released by complete combustion of one cubic meter of gas at a constant pressure of 1,01325 bar. The initial temperature of the gas and air is 0 and all combustion products C, are cooled to 0 C.
Extraction is the possibility to reduce the investigation fields. The latter are taken into account according to the extraction detailed in the "Bilan Carbone Methodological Manual" and the "Users Manual of the Bilan Carbone.xls Spreadsheet"..
18 / 249
As at around 0 water may be in a gaseous state or may be a liquid, there are two C heating values, depending on the state of the water released by combustion: - When the water formed during combustion is maintained in a gaseous state (steam) the heat measured corresponds to nett heating value. - When the water formed during combustion is converted to a liquid (all other products remaining in a gaseous state), the heat measured corresponds to gross heating value. The difference between gross and nett heating value lies in the fact that gross heating value includes the energy released by condensation9 of water after combustion (called latent heat), and the figure for nett heating value does not. In most boiler plants, flue gases are evacuated without condensation of the water, because condensation boilers that exploit this latent heat are relatively recent. With this in mind, when the literature does not specify whether available figures are for gross or nett heating value, they are assumed by default to be nett values. Of course, this assumption should be checked whenever possible. Passage from nett to gross heating value (or the opposite) depends on the amount of steam in combustion products, and thereby on the proportion of hydrogen in the fuel; therefore it is not constant for all fuels.
Liquid and gaseous fuels Gross/nett heating value ratio 1,11 1,09 1,08 1,07 1,06 1,05 Source
Natural gas LPG Gasoline Diesel fuel, home heating oil Heavy fuel oil Coal
www.thermexcel.com www.thermexcel.com Author's extrapolation www.thermexcel.com www.thermexcel.com www.thermexcel.com
Table 1: Gross/nett heating value ratio for liquid and gaseous fuels For natural gas, for example, 1 kWh gross heating value is equal to 1,11 kWh nett heating value. The means that the emission factor per unit of energy increases by 11% when passing from gross to nett heating value (or inversely, decreases by 11% when going from nett to gross heating value).
2.2.2 Conversion table for energy units

The table below recaptures the units used to measure energy (toe10, tce11, Joules, kWh nett heating value, BTU12, m3 of gas, tons of wood13) and states the equivalences between the different units.
9
Condensation is the changeover from a gas to a liquid state. toe: ton oil equivalent. 11 tce: ton coal equivalent.
10
19 / 249
toe toe tce Joule kWh nett heating value BTU m3 de gaz t wood 20% 1 0,697 2,38 E-11
tce 1,43 1 3,41 E-11
Joule 4,20 E+10 2,93 E+10 1
Units conversion kWh nett heating value BTU 11 667 39 808 351 8 136 27 759 690 2,78 E-07 0,000948
m of gas ton of wood 20% 1 200 2,99 837 2,09 2,86 E-08 7,12 E-11
8,57 E-05 2,51 E-08 0,00083 0,334
1,23 E-04 3,60 E-08 0,00120 0,479
3,60 E+06 1 055 3,50 E+07 1,40 E+10
1 0,00029 9,7 3 900
3 412 1 33 174 13 307 363
0,10 3,01 E-05 1 401
2,56 E-04 7,51 E-08 0,00249 1
Table 2: Equivalences between the energy measuring units The toe line of the above table lists the equivalent of one ton oil equivalent (toe) in ton coal equivalent (tce), Joules, kWh nett heating value, BTU, m3 of gas, and in tons of wood.
2.2.3 Liquid fuels

Notice: all values given below refer to nett heating value.
2.2.3.1. Emissions linked to combustion of liquid fuels

The basic data available to us have been obtained from the following organizations: ADEME14, Observatoire de l'Energie15, Comit Professionnel du Ptrole (CPDP)16, the French Environment and Sustainable Development Ministry17 and the European Commission18. The information contained in these publications enables us to derive GHG emission factors for various energy units, or to establish equivalencies. The values retained are as follows:
12 13
BTU: British Thermal Unit. 20% humidity content. 14 ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'mission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles (see Appendix 3). 15 DGEMP, Observatoire de l'Energie, L'nergie en France, Repres, Edition 2005, and website http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm 16 CPDP, 2005, Circulaire n 9642, Masses volumiques 20 06. 17 ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'mission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles(see Appendix 3). 18 Commission Directive 1999/100/EC of 15 December 1999, adapting to technical progress of the Council Directive 80/1268/EEC relating to the carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption of motor vehicles (standardised measurement of CO2 emissions).
20 / 249
Source d'nergie
kg quivalent carbone par tonne
kg quivalent carbone par kWh
kg quivalent carbone par tep PCI
kg quivalent carbone par litre
Liquid petroleum gas - GP Premium gasoline (ARS, SP95, SP98) 19 Diesel oil Domestic fuel oil Heavy fuel oil Crude oil 20 Aviation Fuel 876 859 859 851 836 852 0,072 0,074 0,074 0,077 0,072 0,073 836 859 859 893 836 848 0,661 0,726 0,726 0,851 0,726 0,682
Table 3: Emission factors for liquid fuels These values pertain only to the combustion phase of the hydrocarbon fuels, and do not take upstream emissions into account, i.e. the emissions of the industry that produces them from primary materials. The emissions not covered in the above values are emissions due to the extraction, transport and refining of these fuels, as the case may be.
2.2.3.2. Upstream emissions for liquid fuels

Upstream emissions for liquid fuels are those that occur during extraction and transport of crude oil, whether by ship or by pipeline, and during refining, the most emissions-intensive segment of the chain. A document published in 200121 by the Institut Franais du Ptrole (IFP) gives "well to tank" emissions for these fuels, when they are obtained from standard crude oil. These data are expressed in grams of CO2 per MJ of final energy, converted here to kg of carbon equivalent per ton oil equivalent, and then to kg carbon equivalent per ton.
Emissions related to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude oil Grams CO2 per MJ kg C eq per toe kg C eq per ton Gasoline or diesel fuel 13 148 155 LPG
9 103 113
Table 4: Emissions due to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude oil (IFP, 2001)
19 20 21
Equivalent to gasoline. Equivalent to home heating oil. Evaluation des missions de CO2 des filires nergtiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants partir de ressources fossiles, IFP report 55 949, April 2001, page 44.
21 / 249
In the absence of more specific data, we have correlated this supplementary factor to the per unit (nett heating value) emission factor. In the present case emissions from extraction, transport and refining represent more than 15% of final energy (i.e. energy available in the fuel tank) for diesel oil and gasoline, and 13% for LPG. Incidentally, it is important to point out that LPG is for the time being what oil companies call a refinery byproduct, i.e. an oil fraction inevitably produced during refining operations, in small quantities. If more refineries were to be built specifically to produce LPG and stimulate use of this fuel, its upstream carbon balance would be much less positive. The following figures are given in a publication on refinery emissions issued by the French Industry Ministry (Direction Gnrale de l'Energie et des Matires Premires, DGEMP):
Refined products Intrinsic carbon content (source: MEDD) kg C eq per ton 803 876 852 851 859 Carbon content linked to energy consumption for refining (source: DGEMP) kg C eq per ton 90 88 18 56 31 Total carbon content kg C eq per ton 893 964 870 907 890
LPG Gasoline Aviation fuel Heavy fuel oil Home heating oil and diesel oil
Table 5: Emission factors for refinery energy consumption (DGEMP 2002) As we do not have the full information needed to establish a "well to tank" carbon assessment for all types of fuels, the following method of estimation is proposed: - for gasoline, complete upstream-emissions information is available, amounting to 155 kg C eq per ton, from well to tank, and 88 kg C eq per ton for refinery alone (IFP, 2001). Emissions "from well to refinery" are thus equal to 67 kg C eq per ton of gasoline. - IFP and CEREN22 figures for LPG cannot be compared, as the two groups use different methods for assigning refinery emissions. However this affects only a very small fraction of refinery products. - lastly, "well to refinery" emissions are available for the oil industry as a whole, given in the table below (IFP, 2001):
22
Energy by products, CEREN study for ADEME, 1999.
22 / 249
Petroleum extraction and transport emission factors Extraction (g CO2/MJ) Transport (g CO2/MJ) Total (g CO2/MJ) Total (kg C eq per toe) Total (kg C eq per ton)
2,82 2,40 5,22 59,6 61,4
Table 6: Petroleum extraction and transport emission factors The value of 61,4 kg C eq/ton is fairly close to that obtained by subtracting refinery emissions of 88 kg C eq (DGEMP/CEREN) from the upstream total of 148 kg C eq per ton (IFP, 2001), i.e. 60 kg C eq per ton. We retain this value of 61 kg C eq/ton for extraction plus transport emissions for all types of liquid fuels derived from petroleum. Extraction and transport costs can be considered to be the same for all fuel types, to the extent that the fuels cannot be distinguished prior to separation by refining, and in both cases the energy expenditure is proportional to weight, in the first approximation. Using this approach we arrive at the values summarized in the tables below:
Upstream extraction and transport kg C eq per ton 61,4 % of additional emissions compared to combustion alone
Combustion emissions Unit Petroleum kg C eq per ton 836
Refinery emissions kg C eq per ton
Total emissions kg C eq per ton 898
7,3%
Table 7: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for petroleum (IFP, 2001)
Percentage of additional emissions compared to combustion alone
Combustion emissions
Refinery emissions
Upstream extraction and transport emissions
Total emissions
Source MEDD CEREN IFP Unit kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton kg C eq per ton Fuel type LPG Gasoline Aviation fuel Heavy fuel oil Diesel oil 803 876 852 851 859 90 88 18 56 31 61 61 61 61 61 954 1025 931 968 951 18,8% 17,0% 9,3% 13,7% 10,7%
23 / 249
Table 8: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emission factors according to fuel type By extrapolating these new per-ton values to other coefficients (per toe, per kWh, per litre) and using MEDD figures for combustion alone as the reference value, we ultimately obtain the following figures for overall emissions, that is including upstream emissions.
kg carbon equivalent per ton 954 1 025 951 951 968 898 931 kg carbon equivalent per kWh 0,075 0,084 0,082 0,082 0,087 0,077 0,080 kg carbon equivalent per toe (nett heating value) 871 978 951 951 1 016 898 926 kg carbon equivalent per litre 0,513 0,774 0,804 0,804 0,968 0,779 0,745
Energy resource Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) Premium gasoline (ARS, 23 SP95, SP98) Diesel oil Home heating oil Heavy heating oil Crude oil 24 Aviation fuel
Table 9: Conversion of global emission factors (upstream + combustion) according to fuel type It can thus be observed that when upstream emissions are integrated, diesel fuel, gasoline and kerosene are comparable in terms of emissions per unit of final energy. The spreadsheet makes a distinction between on-site combustion emissions and upstream emissions.
2.2.3.3. Uncertainty
As explained in 1 above, all emission factors are assigned an uncertainty figure. In the present case we have assigned an uncertainty range of only 5% to the emission factors, because the processes are relatively standardized, the combustion fuels are well known, and worldwide averages have been calculated for intermediate expenditures.
2.2.4 Natural gas 2.2.4.1. Emissions linked to combustion of natural gas

23 24
Equivalent to gasoline. Equivalent to kerosene or jet fuel.
24 / 249
The ADEME and MEDD studies cited above give the following values for natural gas combustion emissions:
Energy resource Natural gas
kg carbon equivalent per ton 771
kg carbon equivalent per kg carbon equivalent per toe (final kWh energy) 0,056 653
Table 10: Emission factors for natural gas combustion (ADEME, MEDD, 2005)
2.2.4.2. Upstream emissions for natural gas

As for liquid fuels, emissions can be estimated for the upstream processes of extraction, transport and storage of natural gas. The IFP document quoted above presents the results of calculations for emissions linked to different stages in natural gas operations.
Stage Extraction Processing Transport TOTAL g CO2/MJ of final energy 1,9 1,6 2,2 5,7
Table 11: Emission factors for upstream natural gas processes (IFP, 2001) The figure of 5,7 g C eq per MJ is equivalent to 71 kg C eq per toe, i.e. 9% of emissions due to combustion alone (which come to 707 kg C eq per toe). This same source indicates that gas losses from transport and distribution networks in Europe amount to 0,35% of gas sold (p. 70). Losses in Russia are thought to be much higher (greater than 1%), but without knowing the shares to be assigned to capillary distribution and transport respectively, we cannot include losses for gas transport in Russia alone, for the gas imported from Russia for consumption in France. It should not be forgotten that losses of 1% (i.e. 10 kg of gas per ton) raise gas combustion emissions by 10%, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Retaining the figure of 0,35% of losses, it is necessary to extract 1003,5 kg of natural gas for 1 000 kg of final consumption. This is the equivalent of adding 2,9% more emissions in CO2 equivalent25, compared to emissions for combustion alone, meaning that total upstream emissions represented 12,9% of combustion emissions.
Combustion
Extraction Processing
Transport
Transport and distribution
Total emissions
% of additional emissions compared to
25
Assuming a GWP of 23.
25 / 249
network losses
combustion alone
Source Emissions in kg C/GJ % of gas consumed emissions in kg C eq/ton 16 100% 771 25,702 0,518
CITEPA 0,436 100% 21,644
IFP 0,600 100% 100% 29,760 0,35% 21,95 870 12,85%
Table 12: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for natural gas The following table gives the overall emissions.
Energy resource Natural gas kg carbon equivalent per ton 870 kg carbon equivalent per kg carbon equivalent per toe (final kWh energy) 0,063 737
Table 13: Calculation of an overall emission factor (upstream + combustion) for natural gas
2.2.4.3. Uncertainty
As for liquid fuels, emission factors for natural gas are assigned a 5% uncertainty range.
2.2.5 Solid fuels

Emission factors per unit of energy (CO2/GJ) and energy content per unit of weight (GJ/t) for the main solid fuels were published by the French Environment Ministry in 2005, and included in a note issued by ADEME.26 The data given in the table below are for solid fuels from fossil resources:
Energy content per ton (GJ nett heating value) 26 26 26 32 17 17 28 Emission factor (kg CO2/GJ nett heating value) 95 95 96 95 100 98 107
Type of fuel Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) Lignite briquettes Hard-coal coke
26
ADEME, 2005, Facteurs d'mission de dioxyde de carbone pour les combustibles (see Appendix 3).
26 / 249
Lignite coke Petroleum coke Peat Shale Old tyres Plastic Naphtha
17 32 11,6 9,4 26 23 45
108 96 110 106 85 75 73
Table 14: Mass energy and associated CO2 emissions The values below can be derived from this table:
Energy per unit mass (GJ/t) 26 26 26 32 17 17 28 17 32 11,6 9,4 26 23 45 kg C kg CO2/GJ eq/kWh nett nett heating heating value value 95 95 96 95 100 98 107 108 96 110 106 85 75 73 0,093 0,093 0,094 0,093 0,098 0,096 0,105 0,106 0,094 0,108 0,104 0,083 0,074 0,072 kg C eq per toe nett heating value 1 082 1 082 1 093 1 082 1 139 1 116 1 219 1 230 1 093 1 253 1 207 968 854 831
Type of fuel Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) Lignite briquettes Hard-coal coke Lignite coke Petroleum coke Peat Shale Old tyres Plastic Naphtha
kg C eq per ton 674 674 681 829 464 454 817 501 838 348 272 603 470 896
Table 15: Mass energy and CO2 emissions pour unit energy for solid fossil fuels Note: A more complete list of fuels together with emission factors per mass unit or energy unit is available in Appendix 11. The IFP document27 quoted above also includes an analysis of emissions linked to extraction and transport of coal for France, taking into consideration that most coal imports are shipped by sea.
Stage Extraction energy CH4 losses (in CO2 eq) CO2) Transport TOTAL g CO2/MJ of final energy 1,1 4,3 2,2 7,6
Table 16: Upstream emission factors for solid fuels

27
Source: Evaluation des missions de CO2 des filires nergtiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants partir de ressources fossiles, IFP report 55 949, April 2001, page 71.
27 / 249
The figure of 7,6 grams CO2 equivalent per MJ of final energy represents 86,3 kg C equivalent per toe, i.e. 7,7% of final energy. Given the low emissions linked to transport alone, this factor will not change much for a site located in a country with its own domestic coal industry, not requiring long-distance transport. In fact coal quality has a much greater impact on emissions per toe. In the absence of specific data for other solid fuels, we apply the same supplementary percentage of roughly 8% of combustion emissions, to account for upstream processes. Old tyres and plastic are exceptions, because combustion of these fuels constitutes energy recovery from waste, for which by convention production emissions are nil.
kg C eq/kWh nett heating value 0,101 0,101 0,102 0,101 0,106 0,104 0,113 0,115 0,102 0,117 0,112 0.077 kg C eq per toe nett heating value 1 169 1 169 1 181 1 169 1 230 1 205 1 316 1 328 1 181 1 353 1 304 898
TYPE OF FUEL Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 kJ/kg) Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) Lignite briquettes Hard-coal coke Lignite coke Petroleum coke Peat Shale Naphtha
kg C eq per ton 728 728 735 895 501 491 882 541 905 376 293 968
Table 17: Overall emission factors (upstream + combustion) for solid fuels, other than waste-to-energy fuels As the standard deviation from averages is greater for coal than for refined liquid fuels, we apply an uncertainty range of 20% for this standard factor. Naturally users of the tool can always add a line with the emission factor that is best suited to their circumstances.
2.2.6 Plastics used as fuel

Plastic is sometimes used as fuel, in particular in heating facilities that burn household waste. See section 7.2.2 for the values used, knowing that upstream transport (4 kg C eq per ton) is excluded from the without upstream emissions value. Insofar as burning plastic creates value from waste, manufacturing emissions are not imputed to the user's carbon balance.
2.3 Bioenergy 2.3.1 Biofuels 2.3.1.1 Definitions

The Biofuels category includes solids of animal or plant origin that can be burned to provide heat from combustion (for direct use of thermal energy, or with cogeneration of electricity). Today these fuels derived from plants (or less frequently animals) and used in boilers are mainly byproducts or waste products of agriculture, forestry or industrial activities: wood (bark, sawdust, scraps), straw, seeds, pits, rice hulls, bagasse28, etc. Several production chains are being developed to supply energy: wood chips, pellets (compacted sawdust), energy crops (grains, etc.).
2.3.1.2 Gases covered by emission factors

As explained in the methodological guide, greenhouse gas inventories are intended to represent how human activity disturbs natural greenhouse gas cycles. It is the supplementary greenhouse effect caused by accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere due to human activity that must be measured. Supplementary emissions occur when a human action or activity creates a flux of gases into the atmosphere, without a counteracting flux that removes them from the atmosphere. When an organic compound is burned, one of two typical cases will arise: - The burned biomass is not replaced, and emissions should be counted. - The burned biomass is replaced in the course of the year or shortly thereafter, and emissions do not need to be counted, because they are compensated by ensuing new biomass growth. The second situation applies when annual crops are used. For example, burning straw from year N is compensated by straw grown in year N+1. This reasoning holds for fuel wood (and wood products) from forests that are properly managed, where the quantities cut annually are equal to or less than new biomass produced during the year29, so that the equation "combustion + growth" at least zeroes out (if the balance is in favor of plant growth, the forest is a carbon sink). This biomass CO2, integrated into the carbon cycle of forested and agricultural lands, does not contribute to the
28
Bagasse is a woody residue of sugar cane, and is used in power plants located in tropical sugar-producing countries, where it substitutes approximately 33% of the coal used. 29 Called "annual growth" in forestry.
29 / 249
greenhouse effect as long as the cycle is balanced, that is as long as photosynthesis compensates for emissions caused by exploitation of biomass and its combustion. This condition is attested for wooded and forested areas in France, sustainably managed and renewed (forest areas has increased by 0,4% over the last decade; wooded areas has increased by 50% since the century30). The cycle is also respected for agricultural crops that are annually, as explained above. that are annually late 19th renewed
As the organic fraction of Biofuels does not generate CO2 emissions that need to be included in carbon accounts, the emission factors for Biofuels are based on: - gases other the CO2 emitted during combustion (for example CH4), - GHG emissions in the course of fuel production (manufacture of fertilizer, if any, mechanical and/or thermal treatment of harvested crops, wood, etc.) - GHG emissions linked to fuel transport. Calculations demonstrate that the greenhouse impact of on-site CH4 emissions is negligible compared to that of other emissions during the fuel cycle (3,2 g / GJ31). Therefore the carbon-equivalent content of biomass fuel is limited to: - GHG emissions linked to fuel production, - GHG emissions linked to fuel transport,
2.3.1.3 Emission factors

The calculations of GHG emission factors for Biofuels are for the most part based on two studies very recently published by ADEME32.
2.3.1.3.1 Coproducts and byproducts used on-site

This first category includes all coproducts and byproducts of the site's activity or the company's activity that are used on-site. Typical cases are wood and food processing companies that generate bark, sawdust, wood scraps or plant waste which are burned in a boiler to meet on-site needs for heat or steam. In these examples of very short byproduct reprocessing chains, the emission factor is taken to be nil. This assumption is in keeping with observations made in analyses of the wood industry33.
30 31 32
DGEMP, Observatoire de l'Energie website pages on biomass - www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm ADEME Bio Intelligence Service / Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005. ADEME Bio Intelligence Service / Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005; And : ADEME / Bilan nergie et effet de serre des filires crales / 2006. 33 ADEME Bio Intelligence Service, Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois / 2005.
30 / 249
2.3.1.3.2 Coproducts or byproducts directed to a supply chain

This second category includes process coproducts that are not used on-site, but are transformed and sent to another site. In this case, transformation and transport generate emissions to be included in the balance. The following table lists the main Biofuels in this category (corresponding to the major supply chains currently emerging in France) and their emission factors.
Definition Bark, sawdust, ground-up industrial waste (pallets, crates, etc.) Wood chips (from forestry slash) Straw (grain stalks)
Energy content 3,3 MWh GHV / ton at 30% humidity 2,8 MWh GHV / ton at 40% humidity 4,2 MWh GHV / ton at 10% humidity
Emission factor 1,2 kg C eq / MWh GHV 4 kg C eq / MWh GHV 14 kg C eq / MWh GHV
Factor for transformation stage 0,9 kg C eq / MWh GHV 3,5 kg C eq / MWh GHV 13,7 kg C eq / MWh GHV
Factor for transport stage 0,3 kg C eq / MWh GHV 0,5 kg C eq / MWh GHV 0,3 kg C eq / MWh GHV
Table 18: Principal Biofuels and their emission factors (ADEME, 2005 et ADEME, 2006) These assumptions are explained in detail in the literature cited in the bibliography. Here we recall the two main principles: - Production sites are generally located between 50 to 100 km from boiler sites. - The impacts of the different phases of straw cultivation have been allocated on a per-mass basis.
2.3.1.3.3 Biofuels from dedicated crops

Some Biofuels are the main product targeted by a supply chain, and not simply a coproduct or unavoidable byproduct of some other production process. This is the case for short-rotation coppicing (SRC), pluriannual plantations of poplar, willow or eucalyptus, miscanthus, triticale (a rustic cereal plant) or sorghum crops. The (solid) fuels are found in the form of grains, chips, and ground-up whole plants. In the absence of detailed information for this type of dedicated crop (notably the technical pathways of agricultural and forestry production), an average emission factor is adopted, based on wood chips and straw.
Definition Dedicated crops (SRC, annual crops) Energy content 3,3 MWh GHV / ton at 30% humidity Emission factor 9 kg C eq / MWh GHV Factor for transformation stage 8,6 kg C eq / MWh GHV Factor for transport stage 0,4 kg C eq / MWh GHV
Table 19: Emission factors for Biofuels from dedicated crops (ADEME, 2005)
These orders of magnitude are consistent with calculations carried out by ADEME for triticale (ADEME, 2006).
2.3.2 Liquid Biofuels 2.3.2.1 Definition

Liquid Biofuels are obtained from plant feedstocks. At present there are two major types of industrially produced Biofuels: - alcohols - products derived from vegetable oils.
2.3.2.1.1 Bioethanol production

Bioethanol is produced by fermentation of sugars or starches, which in France come mainly from beets and cereals. This alcohol can be blended with gasoline and used without technical modification of vehicle engines, in proportions of up to 5% by volume, and up to 7,5% if the ethanol is first converted with petroleum-based isobutene to ethyl tertio-butyl ether (ETBE). ETBE blends can reach 15% by volume. Bioethanol can also be used in so-called "flexible fuel" vehicles that are adapted to accept 85%-ethanol15%-gasoline blends (E85). In reality, the blending proportions of ethanol and gasoline for these flex-fuel vehicles are variable, allowing some leeway for motor-fuel supply.
2.3.2.1.2 Vegetable oils

The other feedstock for Biofuels is vegetable oil, obtained from pressing oilseed plants, mainly rape and sunflower. Transesterification with methanol or ethanol yields vegetable oil methyl ester (VME), a product that can be blended with diesel fuel. Variants of this process are being developed to use ethanol to obtain vegetable oil ethyl ester, or to achieve esterification of fatty acids from animal feedstocks. Esters are allowed in diesel fuel blends, up to 5% in volume, without modification of current diesel engines, and can go as high as 30%. Esters must comply with the specifications of European standard (NF) EN 14214.
2.3.2.2 Emission factors 2.3.2.2.1 Principle

We apply the same principles as in 2.3.1.2 to calculate emission factors, as there is no particular reason to differentiate between liquid, solid and gaseous organic fuels.
As the liquid Biofuels used in Europe are derived exclusively from annual crops34, the life-cycle analyses carried out for emission factors consider only methane and nitrous oxide emissions of combustion, which are generally negligible, in addition to emissions pertaining to farming, processing and distribution of the energy crops.
2.3.2.2.2 Default values

Published emission factors for liquid Biofuels vary by a factor of four from one study to another35, although they remain within the same order of magnitude. - Alcohol/ether Biofuels: 20 to 80 g CO2 eq/ MJ - Oil/ester Biofuels 10 to 40 g CO2 eq/ MJ In the absence of a specific value for the case being studied, the default values used are taken from work done by ADEME/DGEMP/Ecobilan in 2002 (Bilans nergtiques et gaz effet de serre des filires de production de biocarburants en France).
Emission factor per MJ Before combustion Bioethanol 34 g CO2 eq / MJ 9,3 g C eq / MJ VME (rapeseed) 20,2 g CO2 eq / MJ 5,5 g C eq / MJ After combustion Bioethanol 9,3 g C eq / MJ 34 g CO2 eq / MJ VME (rapeseed) 23,7 g CO2 eq / MJ 6,5 g C eq / MJ Emission factor per kg 912 CO2 eq / kg 755 CO2 eq / kg 912 CO2 eq / kg 888 CO2 eq / kg 249 g C eq / kg 206 g C eq / kg 249 g C eq / kg 242 g C eq / kg
Table 20: Emission factors for liquid Biofuels (ADEME/DGEMP, 2002) Two distinct emission factors are given for VME, before and after combustion. VME is obtained by transesterification of vegetable oil and methanol, and the latter is currently derived from natural gas. VME therefore contains a non-organic carbon fraction, which is released during combustion. This is not the case for Bioethanol, where all the carbon is organic. Using the above values we obtain the following factors, making a distinction between values including "upstream" emissions, and a value for combustion only, called "without upstream":
Emission factor per kWh without upstream with upstream 0 33 g C eq 3,6 g C eq 23 g C eq Emission factor per ton without upstream with upstream 0 249 kg C eq 36 kg C eq 242 kg C eq
Bioethanol VME (rapeseed)
Table 21: Bilan Carbone emission factors for liquid Biofuels
34
This statement is not true for oil palms, which are an annual crop; there is also a methodological difficulty in this case, if the palm trees were planted on a plot of land that was first cleared (usually by burning the vegetation present). 35 ADEME BG EPFL / Bilan environnemental des filires vgtales pour la chimie, les matriaux et lnergie / 2004.
33 / 249
2.3.2.3 Systematic blending with gasoline and diesel fuel

Fiscal incentives have been adopted to encourage oil company and distributors to gradually incorporate Biofuels into gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2004 the motor fuels sold included 0,42% ethanol and 0,95% esters, in nett heating value. The goal is to boost this proportion to 5,75% in 2008, and 7% in 2010. By blending Biofuels with fossil fuels, a little bit of Biofuel is consumed by each vehicle fuelled in France, without having to modify the engines. The inclusion of ETBE and VME in standard fuels calls for no particular correction of Bilan Carbone emission factors. This inclusion is already encompassed in the calculation of emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuel by the Observatoire de l'Energie, and adopted in Bilan Carbone. Above and beyond the systematic and user-independent consumption of Biofuels, heavier use of Biofuels can be achieved by choosing certain types of vehicles or modifying of existing engines. This is the case for flexible technologies (varying proportions of ethanol and gasoline used in the same vehicle), and use of VME in captive fleets. In the case of flexible-fuel technology, simply apply the ethanol emission factor to the amount of ethanol consumed. This technology concerns mainly light vehicles, and is already marketed in Brazil, Canada, Sweden and the United States. In case of captive fleets, standard diesel blends usually include only a small proportion, a few %, of VME. This proportion can be as high as 30% by volume, without necessitating modification of fuel injection and engine operation parameters. The Biofuel proportion can voluntarily be increased for captive fleets: buses, trucks, utility vehicles, even trains. Diesel blends incorporating more than 50% VME require technical modifications. In these cases apply the appropriate emission factor to each fuel component (VME and diesel fuel).
2.4 Electricity 2.4.1 Preliminary remarks

Whether in a coal-fired plant or a nuclear power plant, with a windmill or a hydropower dam, electricity is always generated from a primary energy resource (petroleum, natural gas, nuclear fuel, solar energy, etc.). Ideally it would be necessary to consider the following, in order to calculate the carbon-equivalent content of a kWh of electricity supplied to a consumer: - primary energy used to generate a kWh of power plant output,
34 / 249
- upstream emissions tied to making this primary energy available for use at the power plant, - emissions engendered by construction of the production apparatus (whether it be a mass-production plant or a solar panel), - line losses if electrical power is not produced on-site, because this lost energy itself caused emissions. Electricity is generated using primary energy resources that vary a great deal from one country in Europe to another (see appendix 1). As a result, the average GHG content of a kWh of power plant output is highly variable from one country to the next. In addition, there may be several power producers within a single country who use different primary resources, and therefore sell electricity with different GHG content values. In Britain, for instance, depending on the producer, emissions per kWh of power output will be nearly nil (British Energy, that has only nuclear power plants) or among the highest in Europe (Innogy, that possesses mainly coal-fired plants). As these different national electricity producers are often all connected to the same grid, it is not easy to determine the provenance of a kWh hour of grid power. In France there is only one major electricity producer, but in other countries there may be several. In these countries, while some customers who can choose their supplier know which company they buy electricity from, the same is not necessarily true for "non-eligible" customers (including individuals) who use grid power that draws electricity from different domestic or foreign producers, in proportions that vary over time. Lastly, different power plants are in use at different times of the year, and at different times of the day. For example in France, nuclear plants cannot easily shut down at a few minutes' notice, whereas hydropower dams and coal-or gas-fired plants are much easier to shut down or start up rapidly. In these circumstances, it is the fossil-fuel plants (coal, heavy heating oil, gas) that cause CO2 emissions, and the average CO2 content of a kWh of grid electricity in France will vary significantly, as the high-GHG emitting plants (using coal, oil or natural gas) are brought on or taken off line. Moreover, any increase in electricity consumption resulting from a substitution in energy (electrification for example), would most probably be translated by an increase of the CO2 contents of kWh, in view of the production means that could be mobilized quickly (mainly thermo plants). The CO2 contents proposed in the Bilan CarboneTM are thus relevant for a current evaluation, but should be used with precaution for any future prospective. In the latter situation, the hypotheses assumed for consumed electricity emissions will have to be clarified clearly.
35 / 249
This method proposes emission factors appropriate for the cases which are the most common. - grid power without a designated producer company for most countries in Europe, - electricity purchased from EDF for eligible clients, with or without specification of the month of purchase, - electricity explicitly purchased from another European electricity supplier for eligible clients, expressed as an average annual figure only, - electricity for certain renewable sources. It should be noted that, excepting in 2.4.5, the emission factors given below do not take distribution losses into account36, and do not include amortization of plant installations for European producers (2.4.3). Emission factors correspond to the generating plant(s) used to supply the customer, and are not necessarily limited to plants located in the customer's country. Generally speaking there is a broad geographic correlation (for the most part the kWh supplied by EDF to its customers in France are produced in plants in France), but there can be exceptions, notably when a small French producer serves as a local backup for a much larger producer outside of France.
2.4.2 Grid electricity

Grid power refers to electricity from power mains consumed by a customer in a given country without contracting with a specific power producer for electricity to be supplied exclusively by that producer37. All individual customers, and all so-called non-eligible customers, are consumers of grid power. Emission factors per kWh of grid power reflect the types of primary energy used to produce the electricity for the grid in question, i.e. for the most part primary energy used by national producers, corrected for imports and exports. In France, the emission factor for one kWh of output has been calculated to be 23 grams C equivalent per kWh, in a life-cycle analysis38. Other values have been published more recently for emissions linked to primary energy consumption alone, but as the power pool in France is made up largely of nuclear electricity and hydropower, thus without any primary energy emissions, the corresponding emission factors are much lower. In our opinion the figure of 23 g C equivalent per kWh is closer to reality (excluding distribution losses) and we have decided to keep it until another life-cycle analysis is conducted.
36 37
Distribution losses from power plant to final low-voltage user is in the order of 10%. Obviously, such contracts do not reflect a physical reality; they correspond to simultaneous production and consumption, at two points on the grid, of power of the same value. But it is highly unlikely that the electrons injected into the grid by the producer will wind up at the consumer's site! 38 Source: EDF (see Appendix 2 for more details).
36 / 249
For other countries, figures from the GHG Protocol are used, which refer to International Energy Agency figures (reference year 2004).
Country Electricity in France Electricity in Germany Electricity in Austria Electricity in Belgium Electricity in Denmark Electricity in Spain Electricity in Finland Electricity in Greece Electricity in Ireland Electricity in Italy Electricity in Luxembourg Electricity in the Netherlands Electricity in Portugal Electricity in the United Kingdom Electricity in Sweden European average Electricity in the United States Electricity in Japan kg carbon equivalent per kWh, in 2004 0,023 0,141 0,056 0,073 0,091 0,117 0,069 0,222 0,176 0,139 0,083 0,120 0,137 0,124 0,012 0,096 0,158 0,115
Table 22: Emission factors for power production by country in 200439 In addition, while emission factors for a given producer may change rapidly, if the producer buys or sells a power plant, emission factors for grid electricity evolve much more slowly. Grid power reflects the output of the pool of plants located in a country, and the composition of this pool does not vary all at once from one year to the next. The values below are still fairly close to values for 2006. Inversely, what can change considerably from one year to the next is recourse to plants that generate electricity at times of peak consumption. In many European countries these are flame combustion thermal power plants, i.e. burning coal, gas or petroleum as primary fuel (but there are also hydroelectric dams). Nuclear plants, which supply around 30% of electricity in Europe, operate nearly continuously, providing "base" power supply. A shift from coal to gas can occur within just a few years. Given the slow pace of construction of new power plants and strong variation in the use of peak power plants from one year to the next, and the fact that the above figures date from 2004, the uncertainty range for these emission factors is set at 15%.
39
Data published by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
37 / 249
2.4.3 Emission factors by producer for European electricity suppliers

In October 2005 the firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers published an article40 on the "CO2 content" of the electricity supplied in 2004 by the main European electricity suppliers. These figures per kWh refer only to emissions linked to combustion in power plants; they are not the result of a life-cycle analysis (see appendix 2).
Name Germany, EnBW Germany, Eon Germany, RWE Austria, Verbund Belgium, Electrabel Denmark, Elsam Denmark, Energi E2 Denmark, Elsam Spain, Endesa Spain, Hidrocantabrio Spain, Iberdrola Spain, Union Fenosa Spain, Viesgo generacion Finland, Fortum Finland, PVO France, EDF France France, SNET UK, British Energy UK, Drax UK, EDF Energy UK, Eon UK UK, RWE UK UK, Scottish & Southern Greece, DEI Italy, Endesa Italia Italy, Edison Italy, ENEL Norway, Statkraft Netherlands, Essent Portugal, EDP Czech Republic, CEZ Sweden/Germany, Vattenfall g CO2/kWh 263 381 779 133 327 436 678 436 507 864 179 593 823 187 280 42 985 106 833 812 719 681 524 1 015 550 569 503 0 484 475 575 410
Table 23: Emission factors CO2/kWh by power supplier, Europe 2004 (PWC ENERPRESSE, 2005)
Changement climatique et lectricit. Facteur Carbone europen. Comparaison des missions de CO2 des principaux lectriciens europens, PWC and ENERPRESSE, November 2005 (data for 2004).
40
38 / 249
The Bilan Carbone spreadsheet also includes an emission factor for Compagnie Nationale du Rhne (CNR). CNR produces power from hydroelectric plants, for which the CO2 content per kWh is 0. As mentioned above, only power plant combustion emissions are taken into account here, and by definition hydroelectric plants, which convert hydraulic energy to electrical energy, use no combustion. By taking into account only plant combustion emissions, however, two sorts of underestimations are introduced: - for one, upstream emissions are not included for natural gas and coal, reducing the emission factor values by around 7% or 8%, - secondly, construction of the production plants is not taken into account, reducing estimated emissions by 2 to 6 grams carbon equivalent, when the primary energy source contains "no carbon". As a reminder, hydropower and nuclear power represented respectively 14% and 32% of electricity production in Europe in 200441. As with EDF, these emission factors are to be used only when an "eligible" client has contracted with a specific designated producer for power supply. These figures do not apply to grid electricity by country. We have likewise assigned an uncertainty range of 15%, with the same reservations as mentioned in 2.4.2. It should be noted that the European emissions trading directive, that requires electricity producers to publish their emissions figures, will make it much easier to obtain up-to-date information on per-kWh emission factors for all producers.
2.4.4 Intermittent and fatal renewable sources 2.4.4.1 General Information

In order to take electricity productions renewable sources into account, the method proposes zero emission factors for in production-emissions ie the emissions from the use of primary energy being nil. The emissions taken into account are those upstream and peripheral: manufacture, installation, maintenance. The intermittency induced in the network is not considered and the volumes caused is weak for the moment. These emission factors are particularly used in the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheets intended for the local authorities.
41
Eurostat, 2005, Electricity statistics, Statistics in Brief, May 2005. It can be noted that wind power represented less than 0,1% of electricity supply in Europe.
39 / 249
2.4.4.2 Wind power

A recent and exhaustive LCA42 proposes for the more recently installed aerogenerator model on sites in northern Europe an emission factor to the value of 1.3 g carbon equivalent per kWh for the wind on earth and 1.4 g for wind at sea. Since the emission factor is proportional to the assumption made about the annual load factor (i.e. the number of hour-equivalent where the wind mill turns to full power), it is proposed to keep to a sufficient safety coefficient to the value of 2 g carbon equivalent per kWh - 50%.
2.4.4.3 Photovoltaic
A recent and exhaustive LCA43 proposes an emission factor to the value of 8 to 13 g carbon equivalent per kWh for a complete photovoltaic system connected to the network. Extrapolated to the conditions of average sunshine periods in France it results in 15 g carbon per kWh. This value will be retained with an uncertainty of 30%.
2.4.5 Seasonal nature of electricity generated by EDF (producer)

Starting in 2002, EDF decided to publish the monthly average of its GHG emissions per kWh, figures which are available practically in real time on its internet website44. This makes it possible to more accurately estimate emissions due to power consumption by eligible clients who have contracted with EDF, when monthly electricity consumption figures are available. A complete set of emission factors (calculated by life-cycle analysis) is available for 2005, and reproduced below.
Month January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 NOVEMBER 2005 December 2005 g CO2 eq per kWh 49 73 69 52,8 33,2 41,3 51,7 28,3 44,9 50 55,8 71 g C eq per kWh 13,4 19,9 18,8 14,4 9,1 11,3 14,1 7,7 12,2 13,6 15,2 19,4
Table 24: Monthly emission factors for EDF in 2005
42 43
"Life cycle assessment of offshore and offshore sited wind power based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines", Vestas, 2006 "Environmental impacts of crystalline silicon photovoltaic module production", Erik A. Alsema & colleagues, 2005 44 www.edf.fr
40 / 249
These emission factors are listed in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet, and can be used for eligible clients who have explicitly contracted with EDF as electricity producer. As EDF emissions are well known, we have decided that uncertainty is less than 10% for the figures in Table 23. It is important to point out that in France EDF is both producer ensuring around 95% of electricity produced in the country and electricity supplier. Individual customers deal with EDF in this second capacity. In this case they are consuming grid electricity, sold by EDF, but combining EDF's own production with that of other domestic producers (SNET, Compagnie du Rhne, etc.) that EDF purchases. Individuals, or more generally customers who have not explicitly contracted with EDF as producer (in a contract stating that all the power provided comes from plants owned by EDF) cannot use for grid electricity the emission factors that apply only to EDF.
2.4.6 Factors broken down by usage for grid power in France

Power production in France relies on resources that are highly diverse in terms of GHG emissions per kWh of electricity generated.
Primary energy used GHG Fuel oil Coal Hydropower Nuclear power 45 Wind power g C eq per kWh 100 to 130 160 to 200 200 to 280 1 2 2 to 10
Table 25: Emission factors for the different production modes used for grid power in France These different means are not exploited in the same fashion: - Nuclear power plants operate all the time, but their output is modified slightly depending on the time of year or the time of day, - Other resources (hydropower, flame-combustion thermal) are used essentially for peak needs (peak power consumption is consumption that is concentrated in a short period of time, typically household lighting in the morning and in the evening in winter). Consequently the GHG content of a kWh varies considerably with the load curve. It is therefore tempting to try and assign the peak power production resources to the uses that trigger the need for peak power, if they can be clearly delimited, because peak
Wind power amounted to 0,03% of all electricity production in 2004. It is therefore not significant for calculating the emission factor, even marginal.
45
41 / 249
resources are much more emissions-intensive in France (the same is not true in all countries: in Switzerland for example, peak power comes from hydropower, and use of these resources causes no extra emissions). Naturally, the corollary of this approach is that electricity consumption that is stable throughout the year is taken to be derived from nuclear power or river hydropower only, with a below-average GHG content. Work by ADEME46 along these lines gives the following emission factors (including transmission losses!).
(en ggCO2/kWh) (in de CO /kWh)

Detailed indicators heating and circulation pumps household lighting teritary sector lighting industrial and street lighting household use: cooking household use: washing household use: brown appliances household use: other industrial use (other than lighting) household use: hot water household use: cooling household use: other tertiary sector use: air conditioning agriculture - transportation other (construction, research, military, etc.)
Reference (average value) For information: ranges of variation 129 93 64 85 66 63 50 41 38 to to to to to to to to to 261 151 88 134 93 88 81 77 86
Simplified indicators 180 100 Heating Lighting
180 116 80 109 82 79 62 52 55 40 40 39 37 38 35
60
Intermittent use
20
to
72
40
"Baseline" use
Table 26: Emission factors for electricity usage in France (g CO2/kWh) These emission factors by use for French grid power are used in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet intended for local authorities, in particular.
2.4.7 Standard consumption figures for the principal residential electric appliances
In order to estimate electricity consumption for a set of household appliances, it may be useful to know the average consumption measured for the most common types of appliances.
46
Source : Note de Cadrage sur le contenu CO2 du kWh par usage en France, ADEME, January 2005 (see Appendix 4).
42 / 249
The suggested values are the following47:

Appliance Refrigerator Refrigerator-freezer Freezer American-type freezer Clothes washing machine Dishwasher Clothes dryer TV VCR Canal+ receiver Dish antenna modem Hi-Fi Telephone answer machine Telephone w/ built-in answer machine Cordless telephone Vacuum cleaner Lighting Halogen lamp Iron Poorly regulated wall water heater Fish aquarium Swimming pool pump Controlled mechanical ventilation (individual unit) Total kitchen electricity consumption Oven Cooker Electric burners (cast-iron plates) Vitro-ceramic burners Induction plates Electric burners (all types) Microwave oven Toaster oven Coffee maker Kettle Deep fryer Toaster Steam cooker Average annual consumption (kWh) 365 600 615 1 640 250 285 430 160 122 96 80 35 25 45 23 18 465 292 40 400 800 1 500 311 568 224 457 198 281 337 273 60 99 31 58 11 14 15
Table 27: Standard consumption of household electric appliances These consumption figures can be correlated with different "carbon contents" according to usage (for example lighting and refrigeration) to obtain "standard emissions" per appliance and per year.
47
These values are derived from the three publications by Olivier Sidler/Enertech (1996, 1999, 2000) cited in the bibliography.
43 / 249
To compute emissions for a set of homes, an average ownership figure must be given for each appliance, and an emission factor for the "quality" of the electricity used (see 2.4.5 above). The default ownership rates in the spreadsheet correspond to national averages, and the carbon equivalents per kWh are derived from the studies cited in 2.4.5 above. Both are listed in the table below.
Appliance Refrigerator alone Refrigerator-freezer Freezer American-type freezer Clothes washing machine Dishwasher Clothes dryer TV
48 49 50
Default ownership rate in 2001 49% 56% 47% 5% 90% 39% 30% 137% 50% 20% 20% 50% 10% 80% 90% 100% 80% 0% 100%
kg C eq per kWh (by default) 0,008 0,008 0,008 0,008 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,039 0,079 0,039 0,039 0,039
VCR
Canal+ receiver Parabolic antenna modem Hi-Fi Telephone answering machine Telephone with built-in answer machine Vacuum cleaner Lighting Iron Swimming pool pump Total kitchen electricity consumption
51
Table 28: Emission factors for household electric appliances
2.4.8 Specific electricity consumption for a tertiary service

Data published by ADEME52 in 2005, using figures from CEREN, give average specific electricity consumption for 2003, all uses taken together, and broken down by specific type of use53. This data is given in the table below:
48 49 50
This percentage, exceeding 100%, reflects a multiple appliance ownership rate of 37%. Source: INSEE, for VCRs and hi-fi equipment. Calculated on the basis of 5 million subscribers for approximately 25 million households in France. A similar ownership rate is assumed for dish antennas. 51 Ownership rates for answer machines, telephones with answer machines, vacuum cleaners and irons are the author's personal estimates. 52 ADEME, 2005, Les chiffres cls du btiment, Energie Environnement, 2005 Edition, page 84. 53 Specific electricity consumption refers to electricity use other than for heat and hot water.
44 / 249
Activity Commercial buildings Office space Schools Healthcare facilities Cafs, hotels, restaurants Average for all branches
Specific electricity consumption Electricity consumption all uses kWh/m of surface area kWh/m of surface area 126 121 16 67 78 83 243 283 131 221 254 222
Table 29: Average electricity consumption in 2003 by branch of activity (all uses and broken down by specific uses) (ADEME, 2005)
2.4.9 Electricity transmission losses

Transmission54 and distribution55 of electricity from the power plant to consumers lead to power losses due to the Joule effect. For a consumer of low-voltage power (220 volts) these losses amount to 10% of final electricity consumption, on average. In other words, when a consumer draws 1 kWh from the grid, the generating system has to inject 1,1 kWh. The emission factors supplied by producers generally refer to the GHG content for power leaving the plant. If this emission factor is applied directly to consumer electricity usage figures, line losses are not covered, whereas the electricity lost through the grid has indeed been produced. To obtain a good estimate of actual emissions, an extra 10% must be added back in to emissions calculated on the basis of final consumption and ex-plant emission factors. The percentage of losses is lower for medium and high-voltage power supplied to consumers, because most line losses occur during transmission of low-voltage current. Large industrial consumers of electricity should apply a more suitable coefficient for line losses if they receive medium-voltage electricity (a percentage of 3% seems reasonable).
2.4.10 Precautions to take within the framework of action plans

Given the low emission factor of the electricity network in France, it will be tempting to consider in the action plans the transition to electricity usage currently provided by other energy sources (eg building an electric furnace for melting materials instead of a gas oven; replacing a gas-fired boiler with electricity heating, etc). In this case, it will be necessary to agree on an emission factor for the additional electricity that the
54 Classically, transmission refers to transport of electrical current over very high, high and medium-voltage networks ( >20 kV, roughly). 55 Distribution designates the "low voltage" segment of electrical current transport. Most losses occur in the distribution network.
45 / 249
entity executing the Bilan CarboneTM will consume. Taking the actual emission factors per usage - calculated on a historical basis - for the electricity networks additional consumption may seem obvious, but it is actually not that much.
In fact, except by realising savings elsewhere within the entity that does the Bilan CarboneTM or within other entities, such an action will increase the overall electricity consumption of the country. This then raises the question whether the additional resources that will be implemented emits CO2 identical to what is done currently or not, in a context of liberalisation of the energy markets.
It therefore appears that the choice of an emission factor necessitates, all in good discipline, to speculate about the global consumption evolution, and about the additional means that will be implemented if the global consumption increases. Consequently, the possible substitution of fossil energy with electricity - in the framework of an action plan that follows a Bilan CarboneTM - must be accompanied by the careful reflection on the legitimate assumptions that can be made about electricity sources required in larger quantities. Without this precaution no overall reduction in CO2 emissions may be invoked.
2.5 Steam purchases 2.5.1 General information

Steam purchased by a company has required use of various fuels by the supplier. This tool does not propose a default emission factor for steam, as the factor depends entirely on the fuel or fuels used by the producer. Steam-producing plants are often multi-fuel: coal, heavy fuel oil, natural gas and municipal solid waste (MSW) are used in varying proportions. As of 2005 the owners of district heating facilities that continue to burn coal, fuel oil and gas, in part are required to declare their emissions under the European emissions trading directive, making appropriate emission factors available for most of them. Tentatively, we give the emission factor below for steam supplied by the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU) in 2004, as an indication.
2.5.2 CPCU
One form of space heating available in Paris is supplied by steam from the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU). To produce this steam, CPCU burns different fuels: coal, natural gas, fuel oil, municipal solid waste (MSW). CPCU also operates an incinerator in the Kremlin Bictre suburb of Paris, but the company's annual report for 2004 states that this facility does not recover incineration heat for
energy use (p. 22) and therefore that the CPCU steam heating network is not supplied by energy recovered from household waste. Average emissions for all steam-producing sites are 308 g CO2 per kWh produced, or 84 g C per kWh (p. 23, CPCU 2004 annual report). For sites producing only steam the average is 306 g CO2 per kWh. Published data shows that one ton of CPCU steam contains 756 kWh, so that one ton of CPCU steam has emissions of 63,5 kg C eq.
2.5.3 Electricity transmission losses

As for electricity (see 2.4.8) transmission losses occur during transport and distribution of steam from production facilities to consumers, due to the Joule effect. These losses amount to 10% of final steam consumption, on average. In other words, when a consumer draws 1 kWh from the grid, the production system has to inject 1,1 kWh. The emission factors supplied by producers generally refer to the GHG content for steam leaving the plant. If this emission factor is applied directly to consumer steam usage figures, line losses are not covered, whereas the steam lost through the grid has indeed been produced. To obtain a good estimate of actual emissions, an extra 10% must be added back in to emissions calculated on the basis of final consumption and ex-plant emission factors. This percentage for losses is not relevant if the emission factor is given for steam delivered to the building where it is consumed. In this case no coefficient need be applied for line losses.
2.6 Space heating without corresponding meter readings 2.6.1 Tertiary-sector activities, non-electric heating
For certain activities (notably office-based activities) information on fuel consumption for space heating may not be readily available, if for instance heating is supplied by an outside vendor. In this case the Bilan Carbone tool proposes an estimation method based on the number of m heated and the type of energy used for heating. As a guide average the consumption per m is indicated in the table below - according to the type of activity and the energy used for heating.
2.6.1.1. Heating with fuel oil

The Observatoire de l'Energie56 has published information on total consumption of fuel oil and total surface area; after division we obtain the following results:
Branch of activity Commercial buildings Office space Schools Healthcare, social work Other sectors Fuel oil 2 (kWh/m ) 197 248 161 292 259
Table 30: Average heating fuel oil consumption per m2 heated, broken down by branch of activity (Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001)
2.6.1.2. Heating with natural gas

Two studies by CEREN (1990 and 2003) give indicators pertaining to use of natural gas for heating and hot water, broken down by average consumption activity as presented in the following table.
Average expenditure in kWh/m natural gas Branch of activity Subcategory Heating + hot water Heating Hot wat er 7 7 6 12 17 9
2
184 177 Altogether <1000m 198 191 >=1000m 170 163 120 108 Altogether Primary schools 174 157 Schools Secondary schools 96 86 Higher education, research facilities 140 127 14 174 134 41 Altogether Healthcare Public hospitals 193 148 45 facilities Private clinics 152 117 35 Remainder 164 126 38 152 142 10 Altogether Hyper and Commercial supermarkets (2) buildings Small shops (1) 278 260 18 Large shops (2) 274 220 54 Altogether Restaurants 304 244 60 Cafs, hotels, Drinking restaurants establishments 218 175 43 Hotels 253 203 50 2 (1) "Small shops" designates smaller than 500 m . (2) Values for large retail stores will be forthcoming, based on work currently underway by PERIFEM. Office space
56
Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001 edition, Tableaux des consommations dnergie en France, page 89.
48 / 249
Table 31: Average natural gas consumption for heating and hot water per m2, broken down by branch of activity CEREN 1990-2003
2.6.1.3. Accounting for location and climate

Average energy consumption for heating is variable, depending on location. The average energy consumption figures by branch of activity given above should be adjusted using a geographic location coefficient, to reflect the severity of the climate for specific locations. Correction coefficients and the associated geographic zones are given below.
Map 1 : Location of climatic zones
Coeffclimate
H1 1,1
H2 0,9
H3 0,6
Table 32: Climate correction coefficient If the altitude exceeds 800 meters within a given area, use a conventional coefficient of the above. Thus, housing situated more than 800 m in zone H2 will be considered as being in zone H1, and so on. The housing area located in H1 which is more than 800 meters above sea level may be assigned a coefficient H1, increased by 20%.
2.6.2 Average residential consumption

When applying the Bilan Carbone method to a local authority, it will be necessary to obtain an energy consumption estimate related to the heating of current residences within the local authority, without having access to energy meters and with only basic data on the number of homes, its types (apartment or house), and year of construction57.
2.6.2.1 Heating emission factors by primary residence

The figures provided by CEREN to ADEME can lead to the following values classified by type of energy and type of housing58:
Final energy used and age of housing
Natural gas, homes before 1975 Natural gas, homes after 1975 Natural gas, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating Natural gas, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating Natural gas, apartments < 1975, individual heating Natural gas, apartments > 1975, individual heating Fuel, homes before 1975 Fuel, homes after 1975 Fuel, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating Fuel, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating Fuel, apartments < 1975, individual heating Fuel, apartments > 1975, individual heating Coal, homes < 1975 Coal, homes > 1975 Coal, apartments < 1975, collect. cent. heating Coal, apartments > 1975, collect. cent. heating LPG, homes < 1975 LPG, homes > 1975 LPG, apartments < 1975 LPG, apartments > 1975 Urban heating, apartments < 1975 Urban heating, apartments > 1975
kWh/m2.yr - average
Area average
201 166 207 196 146 125 187 171 195 174 172 162 290 235 211 172 139 129 101 80 255 230
105 112 66 66 71
Table 33: French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of housing per m2 - heating only In other words, a house heated with fuel oil before 1975 is assumed to have an average area of 106 m, and will consume on average 290 kWh per m per year for heating.
57 This information is available on the site of INSEE, under the heading "census"(see the spreadsheet manual for details on access to information tools). 58 Throughout this chapter the term "housing" is used to designate primary residences.
50 / 249
The same source (CEREN) also gives the values for residences heated with electricity:
Electrical heating for housing Homes before 1975 Homes after 1975 Apartments before 1975 Apartments after 1975 kWh/m2.yr average 150 106 98 65 Area average 96 110 49 53
Table 34 : French energy consumption average by nature of housing per m2 electrical heating Homes heated with electricity have much lower consumption compared to gas or fuel oil (2 times lower or more), due to the conjunction of several factors, described below: - for gas and fuel oil, purchased energy is counted (the meter reading), but the efficiency of heating installations is a little more than 50% on average59, the rest of the energy resource goes up the chimney as combustion gases, or is dissipated as thermal losses from piping in the basement, and broadly speaking is "lost" otherwise than as heat given off by radiators. Consequently, the useful energy (heat from radiators) is just half of the purchased energy (metered energy), - for electricity, on the contrary, practically 100% of purchased energy (metered energy) is used in radiators, -electrical heating relates to individual installations only (not collective
heating of buildings with an electrical boiler), which are generally more economical than collective heating (see table 32 above), notably because it is not necessary to overheat certain parts of the building to ensure a temperature of comfort in the coldest or most badly isolated parts,
- the kWh price of electricity is considerably higher than the kWh price of gas, and therefore consumers pay more attention to their consumption.
2.6.2.2 Sanitary hot water emission factors by primary residence

The same source (CEREN) allows successful results for fossil energy with the following values, categorised by energy type and by lodging type:
Nature of housing and final energy type Natural gas, homes before 1975 Natural gas, homes after 1975 Natural gas, apartments < 1975
59
kWh/yr on average 1 668 1 944 1 640
Conversation with Andr Pouget, Pouget Consultants, May 2004.
51 / 249
Natural gas, apartments > 1975 Fuel, homes before 1975 Fuel, homes before 1975 Fuel, apartments < 1975 Fuel, apartments > 1975 LPG, homes < 1975 LPG, homes > 1975 LPG, apartments < 1975 LPG, apartments > 1975 Urban heating, apartments < 1975 Urban heating, apartments > 1975
1 792 2 672 3 120 1 935 1 918 2 384 2 918 1 642 1 700 2 379 2 436
Table 35 : French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of housing sanitary hot water only
In of words, an apartment using gas as energy for sanitary hot water after 1975 will consume on average 1,792 kWh per year for this water. Finally, concerning electricity is data of the same nature displayed in the picture below:
Electric HSW for housing Homes before 1975 Homes after 1975 Apartments before 1975 Apartments after 1975 kWh/yr on average 1 629 1 633 1 110 1 302
Table 36 : French average for energy consumption, by nature of housing electric sanitary hot water
2.6.2.3 Proportion of energy type in the heating of principal residences

Analysis of CEREN statistics60 yields the following data on the use of different types of energy for residential heating61:
Energy used Gas Fuel oil LPG Electricity Wood District heating All subcategories Thousands of houses equipped 4 064 4 302 740 4 118 339 12 13 616 % 30% 32% 5% 30% 2% 0% 100% Thousands of apartments equipped 5 356 1 417 81 2 952 0 1 046 10 852 % 49% 13% 1% 27% 0% 10% 100%
60 61
Source : Suivi du parc et des consommations de l'anne 2002, CEREN. Source : IFEN, J-M Jancovici, 2004, Indicateurs de dveloppement durable.
52 / 249
Table 37: Energy mix for residential heating in France This national distribution data can be used to estimate the proportion of units per type of energy when this information is not directly available.
2.6.2.4 Proportion of energy type for sanitary hot water in principal residences
The CEREN statistics mentioned above can be used to derive the following data on the use of different types of energy for residential hot water:
Energy for Thousands of sanitary hot water houses equipped Gas 3 779 Fuel oil 2 183 LPG 1 036 Electricity 6 953 Wood 179 District heating All subcategories 14 129 % Thousands of apartments equipped 5 405 683 111 4 145 764 11 108 %
28% 16% 8% 51% 1% 0% 104%
50% 6% 1% 38% 7% 102%
Table 38: Energy mix for residential hot water in France As above, this national distribution data can be used to estimate by default the proportion of units per type of energy for hot water, when no other information is available for the case studied.
53 / 249
3 - Accounting for nonenergy emissions
This chapter is devoted to emission factors pertaining to chemical reactions other than those intended to produce energy, and to leakage of various gases. Some examples are: - nitrous oxide (N2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer, - losses of refrigerant fluids used in cooling and refrigeration systems, - releases of fluorinated solvents used in the semiconductor industry, - releases of fluorinated gases during alumina electrolysis, - CO2 emissions due to decarbonation (calcinations) of compounds used as raw materials for construction materials (lime, cement, among others), - etc.
3.1 GWP of the main gases involved

Most of these "non-energy" emissions involve gases other than CO2. To convert emissions of these gases into carbon equivalent units we use the factors suggested by the IPCC62, as listed in the table below. It should also be remembered that these emission factors are subject to change in the future. The global warming potential (GWP) coefficients are derived on the basis of: - concentrations of various GHG that are already present in the atmosphere; - natural cycles of the gases involved, that determine the rate at which they are removed from the atmosphere, and hence their "life expectancy" in the air63.
62 GIEC signifie Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat. Its English abbreviation is IPCC, for International Panel on Climate Change. Source : IPCC / 2001 / Climate change 2001 3rd assessment report.. 63 Very frequently in the order of a century.
54 / 249
Gas CO2 Methane N20 NOx Dichloromethane HFC 125 HFC 134 HFC 134a HFC 143 HFC 143a HFC 152a HFC 227ea HFC 23 HFC 236fa HFC 245ca HFC 32 HFC 41 HFC 43 10mee Perfluorobutane Perfluoromethane Perfluoropropane Perfluoropentane Perfluorocyclobutane Perfluoroethane Perfluorohexane R11 R12 R134a R22 R401a R404a R407c R408a R410a R502 R507 SF6
Kg carbon equivalent per 64 kg of gas 0,273 6,27 80,7 10,9 2,46 764 273 355 81,8 1 036 38,2 791 2 673 1 718 153 177 40,9 355 1 909 1 309 1 909 2 045 2 373 2 509 2 018 1255 2891 355 464 307 1 032 451 822 539 1232 1050 6 518
Table 39: Non-energy emission factors (processes and leakage) Despite their significant warming potential, some of the gases in the table above are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, in particular the following refrigerants: R11, R12, R502, R22, R401a and R408a. This is reflected in the compilation of results under different assessment boundaries in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet. In addition, CFCs have been banned in new equipment by EC regulations since 2000, and barred from use for maintenance and upkeep of existing installations since 2001. There are, however, still units using these refrigerants in France. HCFCs have been banned in new appliances since 2004, but maintenance with virgin compounds is authorized up to 2010, and with recycled compounds until 2015. Accordingly, the
64
The carbon equivalent is worth the GWP multiplied by 12/44, and only the first 3 significant figures of the results were kept.
55 / 249
emission factors for these gases continue to appear in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet.
3.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) released during spreading of nitrogen fertilizer

As their name indicates, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, now commonly used in agriculture, contain a range of nitrogen compounds, including nitrates (NO3). When fertilizer is spread on fields, a fraction of the initial nitrogen compounds reacts with microbial flora in the soil to form nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas that is released to the atmosphere. Other gases are also formed during fertilizer spreading, but in minor proportions. The most significant of these is ammonia (NH3). The fraction of nitrogen that is converted to gas depends on climate conditions, soil type, and the type of fertilizer; the IPCC65 has estimated that at European latitudes on average 1,25% of the nitrogen spread will be volatized on average66. The weight of nitrogen applied is very easily obtained, insofar as all agronomic literature refers explicitly and only to the weight of nitrogen in fertilizers. In other words, fertilizer supplements are always given in kg of nitrogen, also called nitrogen units, and not in kg of fertilizer. The volatized fraction of nitrogen forms NH3 for 10% of total gas emissions, and N2O for 90% of the total67. NH3 is not a greenhouse gas under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, and is therefore not considered in our calculations. These 10% of volatile nitrogen in the form of NH3 precipitate atmospheric deposition in the form of N2O, on the order of 1%68, that must be taken into account. In addition to spreading and atmospheric deposition, another phenomenon is to be considered69. An estimated 30% of nitrogen spread leaches through the soil, causing N2O emissions equal to 2,5% of this quantity. The percentage of nitrogen in fertilizer that yields N2O is calculated as follows: (0,9 * 1,25%) + (0,3 * 2,5%) + (0,1 * 1%) = 1,975% of total nitrogen applied. To obtain the weight of N2O emitted from the weight of nitrogen alone, the weight of the oxygen associated with the nitrogen must be integrated. As the atomic mass of nitrogen is 14 and that of oxygen is 16 (ignoring minor isotopes in both instances), the multiplication factor for converting nitrogen weight in N2O is 2 *14 + 16 , or 44/28.
2 *14
The weight of N2O emitted can be obtained from the weight of nitrogen applied in fertilizer using the formula
65
GIEC signifie Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat. Its English abbreviation is IPCC, for International Panel on Climate Change. 66 IPCC /1996 / Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories reference manual. 67 Exchange with Sbastien Beguier, CITEPA, December 2002. 68 Source: IPPC 1997 & CITEPA methodology used for national inventories. 69 Source: IPPC 1997 & CITEPA methodology used for national inventories.
56 / 249
Weight of N2O emitted = (Weight of nitrogen applied) x 1,975% x (44/28)
Or expressed in another way

Weight of N2O emitted = 3,1% x (Weight of nitrogen applied)
To obtain N2O emissions directly from the weight of nitrogen contained in applied fertilizer the emission factor is 3,1%. The associated uncertainty factor is 70%, given the strong variation that may occur from one field to another. Local field measurements would make it possible to choose the best emission factor for the case at hand.
3.3 Leakage of refrigerant fluids

Most modern refrigerant fluids are halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, i.e. they are obtained by substituting halogens (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine) for all or part of the hydrogen in a hydrocarbon molecule. These fluids (HFCs, CFCs, HCFCs) are potent GHG gases, and as a result they can represent a significant fraction of total GHG emissions for a given site, even if they are emitted in very small quantities.
3.3.1 Commercial cooling equipment

Two approaches are used for commercial cooling equipment: by equipment type, and by surface area of the commercial establishment. Cooling systems in user processes and equipment may be direct or indirect. In direct cooling systems the refrigerant fluid cools equipment directly. In indirect systems, the refrigerant fluid cools an intermediate fluid, called the secondary refrigerant, that transfers the cooling effect to equipment via an secondary refrigeration circuit. These systems use less refrigerant, and consequently have less leakage. They are not yet sufficiently disseminated (only 10% of stores opened in 2001 were equipped with indirect cooling systems). Positive cooling refers to positive temperature applications, and negative cooling to negative temperature applications. Stand-alone equipment refers to small refrigeration appliances generally found in neighbourhood shops. The table below70 gives the refrigerant charge (in kg/kWh of cooling capacity), annual leakage rate and end-of-life emissions for each type of installation.
70
Source : ADEME ARMINES /August 1999 / Inventaire des missions de HFC utiliss comme fluides frigorignes.
57 / 249
System type, temperature range and age of installation
Stand-alone equipment (compressor incorporated) Positive cooling, direct refrigeration (> 3 years) Positive cooling, direct refrigeration (< 3 years) Positive cooling, indirect refrigeration (> 3 years) Positive cooling, indirect refrigeration (< 3 years) Negative cooling (> 3 years) Negative cooling (< 3 years)
Charge (kg/kW cooling capacity) 0.3 2 2 0.8 0.8 3.5 3.5
% of leakage annually
End-of-life emissions
0.5% 30% 15% 30% 15% 30% 15%
30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Table 40: Commercial cooling by type of equipment (ADEME-ARMINES, 1999) The age of the installation is calculated from the time of installation if the system has not been renovated, or from the date of the most recent renovation. The table below71 lists characteristics to be recorded in relation to the commercial surface area.
Type and dimensions Charge 2 (kg/m commercial surface area) 2 Neighbourhood shop (120 400 m ) 0.65 2 Supermarket, direct refrigeration (400 2 500 m ) 0.29 2 Hypermarket, direct refrigeration (2 500 15 000 m ) 0.27 All establishments, indirect refrigeration (secondary 0.12 circuit) % of leakage annually End-of-life emissions
10% 15% 25% 10%
50%
Table 41: Commercial cooling surface area (ADEME ARMINES, 2001)
3.3.2 Industrial Cooling 3.3.2.1 Food processing industry

The table below72 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions.
kg of refrigerant per % of leakage End-of-life annually emissions kW of cooling capacity 5.5 15% 50% 8.8 15% 50% 1 15% 50%
System Direct system, average temperature (refrigeration) Direct system, low temperature (freezing) Indirect system, average temperature (refrigeration)
71
72
Source : ADEME ARMINES / 2001 / Inventaire et prvisions des fluides frigorignes et de leurs missions / Mthodes d'inventaires / pages 16-19-22-23. Source : ADEME ARMINES / 2001 / Inventaire et prvisions des fluides frigorignes et de leurs missions / Mthodes d'inventaires / pages 35.
58 / 249
Indirect system, low temperature (freezing)
1.5
15%
50%
Table 42: Industrial cooling for the food processing industry (ADEME-ARMINES, 2003) Milk tanks are described separately73 :
Milk tanks kg refrigerant per m of storage capacity 2.09
3
% of leakage annually 5%
End-of-life emissions 50%
Table 43: Milk tanks The uncertainty range for emission factors pertaining to the food processing industry is set at 50%, because these calculations have been refined since publication of earlier versions of Bilan Carbone.
3.3.2.2 Other industries

Water cooler units and chilled water systems (positive temperatures) are classical systems, identical to those used in commercial cooling (air conditioning and climate control). The table below74 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions for these systems.
Positive temperature (water cooler/chilled water systems) Type of unit Renovated centrifugal compressor, all condensation modes New centrifugal compressor or volumetric compressor, water condenser New centrifugal compressor or volumetric compressor, air condenser kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling capacity 0.3 0.2 % of leakage annually End-of-life emissions
15% 10%
20% 20% (40% for small or mediumsized volumetric compressor) 20% (40% for small or mediumsized volumetric compressor)
0.25
10%
Table 44: Industrial cooling positive temperature systems (ADEME-ARMINES, 2001) The chilled water and air-conditioning groups can be consolidated. The consolidation averages the above values, yielding the following results: -0.25 kg/kW cooling capacity, 15% annual leakage, 30% at end-of-life.
73 74
Source : ADEME ARMINES / 2003 / page 35. Source : ADEME ARMINES / 2001 / page 43.
59 / 249
The table below75 lists refrigerant charge in relation to cooling capacity, according to the type of cooling system, along with leakage and end-of-life emissions for negative temperature systems.
Negative temperature Average Low kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling capacity 1 1.6 % of leakage anually 15% 15% End-of-life emissions 50% 50%
Table 45: Industrial cooling negative temperature systems (ADEME-ARMINES, 2003) For the food processing industry the uncertainty retained is 50%.
3.3.2.3 Average for all industries

If detailed information is not available then the figures given in the table below76 an average of food industries can be used.
System kg of refrigerant % of leakage per kW of annually cooling capacity 2.6 15% End-of-life emissions 50%
"Average" for cooling units
Table 46: Average characteristics to be used when information on cooling systems is not available In this case the uncertainty is set at 80%.
3.3.3 Cooling in the service sector (air conditioning)

For large air-conditioning units using chilled water, the figures are the same as for the production of the chilled water (other industries). The same simplifications apply. A line is included for direct air-based cooling systems without a refrigeration circuit77.
kg of refrigerant per kW of cooling capacity 0.25 0.3 % of leakage annually 15% 3.5% End-of-life emissions
Chilled water / air conditioning Air-based cooling
30% 90%
Table 47: Service sector cooling (air conditioning) The uncertainty chosen is 50%.
75 76
Source: ADEMEARMINES / 2003 / page 37-38. Source: ADEMEARMINES / 2002 / page 39. 77 Source: ADEMEARMINES / August 1999.
60 / 249
With the information corresponding to the cooling system studied and the useful life of the installations (information that can be found), the proposed "Clim_froid utility complementing the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheet allows you to reconstruct the approximate emissions of refrigerants, during equipment use and for end-of-life treatment78.
3.4 Other cases

Reporting emissions not due to combustion will in most cases require a specific inquiry. Other than the cases outlined above, this tool does not include any other standard module for calculating or estimating non-combustion emissions from readily available corporate or activity data.
78
For more details, refer to Appendix 2 of the Instruction Manual of the Bilan_carbone.xls spreadsheet (June 2006 version).
61 / 249
4 - Accounting for transport

Transport is a source of greenhouse gases, in the following ways: - carbon dioxide emitted during combustion of fuels (petroleum, gas, LPG, etc.) - refrigerant losses from air-conditioning systems that cause halocarbon emissions (most often HFCs) - various localized pollutants, that may be themselves greenhouse gases (nitrogen oxides), or precursor compounds that form ozone, a greenhouse gas in its own right (ground-level or tropospheric ozone accounts for roughly 15% of anthropogenic disturbance of the climate system). Excepting leakage of refrigerants from air-conditioning systems, the balance of emissions is a direct consequence of motor fuel use. Transport emissions are thus a special case of fossil energy use. The GHG emissions from transport vehicles vary widely, depending on the case. Predicting emissions that are generated requires information about characteristics that can be measured (engine power, fuel use, or load), and others that are much more difficult to specify quantitatively (driving mode for road vehicles). The following information is intended to suggest orders of magnitude. The gap between these figures and actual situations will lessen as the law of numbers takes effect, that is to say that the suggested emission factors will be increasingly reliable as they are applied to a large number of sources and/or a large number of trips. Refinery emissions associated with fuel production are included in all cases. Whenever possible, vehicle amortization has been taken into account. Note: The emission factors for fossil fuels given in Chapter 2 are largely obtained from a recent ministerial circular, drafted under the transposition framework of the directive called emissions permitted. This circular proposes emission factors for fuels (solid, liquid or gas) which differ with a few % from those enforced in Bilan CarboneTM Version 3. For harmonisation purposes the values in this circular are used in this guide to avoid any hesitation about the value of use (the difference is less than the uncertainty of the emission factors). On the contrary, these fuels are not those that were used to calculate the transportation emission factors described below. It was developed with the fuel emission factors in force in Version 3 and was not modified in this version, due to a lack of time. This probably resulted in a difference of a few % in order of magnitude, with the transport factors obtained while taking the values below into account, which is less than the uncertainty of the transport factors. This worry does not come close to the orders of magnitude, and harmonisation will be effected for the next version.
4.1 Road transportation of persons

Note: The topics are not discussed here in the order of the different instruction manuals for the use of the Bilan CarboneTM spreadsheets. In this chapter emission factors are grouped by means of transportation, while the manuals are destinations serving as a background.
4.1.1 Personal vehicles 4.1.1.1 Amortization of private cars

All cars in use have of course been manufactured, a process that emits greenhouse gases, whether for production of materials used, or for their transformation and assembly. The Observatoire de l'Energie reports energy consumption for "construction of land vehicles" at sites located in France for 1999, as follows.
Primary energy consumption in the sector ton oil equivalent (toe) Coal Gas Petroleum 79 products 119 000 Electricity in 80 France 1 390 000
38 000
462 000
Table 48: Energy consumption for the construction of land vehicles in France (1999) Many vehicles in use in France, however, are made elsewhere in Europe. It would be incorrect to assume that all vehicles in use in France have been made using electricity with low carbon emissions. Inversely, the energy efficiency of European (and even Japanese) vehicle manufacturers is likely to be quite comparable, and the respective shares of primary energy sources are also probably fairly similar from one European country to another. To calculate GHG emissions per vehicle, we have used French data for the relative shares of primary energy per vehicle, and European coefficients for electricity. Thus the resulting "GHG content per car" will be applicable for all of Europe, with the proviso that this figures represents only energy consumed by manufacturers at the end of the construction chain, and not energy used by parts suppliers who are not listed under "construction of land vehicles" in the French nomenclature (NAF). The results are as follows:
Primary energy
79 80
Coal
Gas
Petroleum
Electricity in
TOTAL
It primarily acts as heavy fuel oil. The equivalence here is 0,222 toe per MWh.
63 / 249
products ton oil equivalent (toe) Tons C eq per toe Tons C eq 38 000 1,209 45 942 462 000 0,739 341 418 119 000 1,013 120 547
Europe 1 390 000 0,481 668 261
81
1 176 168
Table 49: Emission factors for the construction of land vehicles in France In 2001 3,4 million personal vehicles were manufactured in France (i.e. at sites located in France, which are the only sites covered in the consumption statistics compiled by the Observatoire de l'Energie). As energy consumption for this sector varied by less than 5% annually between 1995 and 1999, we can reasonably combine the 2001 data on vehicle production with 1999 data on energy consumption. The French nomenclature for this sector of activity includes production other than automobiles (trucks, trains, etc.) but as personal cars are preponderant in the sector, we assume that an acceptable order of magnitude is obtained by equating sector activity with automobile manufacture. On the basis of these assumptions, additional emissions due to automobile manufacture stricto sensu are on the order of 350 kg carbon equivalent per vehicle. To complete our estimation of the carbon content of a manufactured vehicle, however, the following items must be taken into consideration: - emissions linked to energy use in upstream industrial activity (parts and equipment suppliers) - emissions linked to production of materials used for vehicle manufacture. To account for the emissions of equipment suppliers, who furnish more than half of the value added in the manufacturing process, we assign a flat-rate multiple of 2 to the emissions estimated above for the final phase of vehicle manufacture. The total thus doubles from 350 to 700 kg carbon equivalent per car. It remains to be explored whether a company such as Valeo is classed under "mechanical construction" in the nomenclature (this is likely, but not certain) or in a category related to vehicle manufacture. This classification determines the rubric in which the company's energy consumption is reported. On the basis of these assumptions, emissions "excluding materials" amount to roughly 0,7 tons carbon equivalent per vehicle. We have obtained the following information regarding the materials used: - according to the Institute Franais du Ptrole (IFP)82, the average European car contains (by weight) 60% to 66% steel, 10 to 15% plastic, 7% aluminium, 2% other metals, 4% glass, 4% rubber, 7% fluids, and 1% foam.
81 82
The equivalence here is 0,222 toe per MWh and 106 g C eq per kWh of electric power (source IEA). Exchanges with Stphane HIS, IFP, October 2003.
64 / 249
- according to the Association of Plastic Manufacturers (APME)83, the average European car contains 100 kg of plastic, and this material represents 10% of the vehicle's weight (from which we deduce that the average weight of a car is one ton). - according to the Institut de Recherche de la Sidrurgie (IRSID) 84, the average car is 50% steel, which we assume to be 66% reprocessed steel (this proportion should be verified). Pooling all this information gives the following for a one-ton vehicle:
Plastic Kg per vehicle kg C eq per kg of weight kg C eq per vehicle 100 0,650 65 Aluminium 70 2,800 196 Glass Steel 40 500 0,400 0,500 16 250
85
Rubber 50 0,600 30
Fluids
86 TOTAL Other 70 170 1000 0,500 1,000 35 170 762
Table 50: Emission factors for manufacture of materials used to build a oneton vehicle From these various estimates we conclude that a car, weighing on average one ton, generates manufacturing emissions on the order of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent, or 1,5 times the weight of the vehicle. This coefficient of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight will be our reference value, until updated information becomes available. Considering average vehicle life for cars, which is on the order of 150 000 to 200 000 km, manufacturing emissions come to 104 g carbon equivalent per km travelled, depending on the weight of the vehicle and distance travelled before the vehicle is scrapped. Lastly, the uncertainty range for this figure is probably less than 40%: a figure 40% lower would put emissions at less than one ton carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight, which seems highly unlikely, given the approximate composition and emission factors for the basic materials used; a figure 40% higher would push emissions up to 2,1 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight, which would mean that materials other than steel (amounting to 500 to 600 kg per vehicle) would have an average carbon content of 2,3 tons carbon equivalent per vehicle ton, which seems quite high. We also note that this emissions figure does not include various ancillary contributions (emissions related to vehicle dealers' sales networks; upkeep and repairs, insurance, etc.) that should also be integrated. Work done by the Institut du
83 84
APME: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe. Information found on the organization's website, www.plasticseurope.org IRSID: Institut de Recherche de la Sidrurgie 85 The steel used by the automotive sector is 60% of recycled steel, which leads to a value of 500 kg Eq.C per ton of steel for its GHG content (see 5.1). 86 Including electronics, and its manufacturing is very intensive in greenhouse gases; the emission factor stated is a personal estimate from the author.
65 / 249
Vgtal on agricultural machinery tends to show that initial manufacture and upkeep contribute like amounts to emissions, per hour of use (and therefore in relation to distance travelled, more or less).
4.1.1.2 Calculating reference consumption for personal vehicles

Reference consumption figures can be helpful when data on fuel purchases cannot be directly obtained for the vehicles used87. We have used data from the Observatoire de lEnergie to fine-tune these calculations. Above all, these data indicate deviation from mean values for a certain number of criteria, which enables us to establish realistic error bands for different approaches. First of all, there exist databases that list rated consumption for current-model vehicles, according to standard driving cycles: - www.ademe.fr/auto-diag/transports/car_lab/carlabelling/ListeMarque.asp - www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ But these sites do not list fuel consumption under real-use conditions (including traffic congestion, acceleration generally more rapid than in the reference itinerary, coldengine starts, use of air-conditioning, etc.)...The difference between conventional driving cycles and actual consumption varies with fiscal horsepower rating of the vehicle (see 4.1.1.2.3), so no generally valid rule can be given that would apply to all vehicles (the excess consumption observed in relation to conventional driving cycles varies by vehicle category). Furthermore, these values do not take vehicle manufacturing emissions into account, and these emissions are not completely marginal, in relation to distance travelled (on the order of 15%). In addition, consumption figures for vehicles no longer on the market are not listed in this database.
4.1.1.2.1 Emissions approximated by fuel type and residential zone

Fuel consumption data furnished by the Observatoire de lEnergie is broken down by the vehicle owner's place of residence88. The following steps are applied to obtain per-km values:
87 Keep in mind that when fuel consumption figures are available, emissions related to manufacture and upkeep must be reported elsewhere! 88 Observatoire de lEnergie /2001 Edition / Tableaux des consommations dnergie en France.
66 / 249
- convert consumption to emissions, using "full" emission factors for fuels, calculated in 2.2.3, - add average emissions for vehicle manufacture, distributed over the total distance in km travelled by the vehicle during its useful life. For this second item we assume that the average weight of a gasoline-fuelled vehicle is 1 093 kg (corresponding to the weight of gasoline vehicles sold in 2001) and 1 322 kg for diesel vehicles. These figures are derived on the basis of the average weight of vehicles by fiscal horsepower class for new cars sold in 200189, and on data regarding vehicles in use as of 31 December 200190. Even considering that vehicles have become a little heavier over the years, a 10% difference in average vehicle weight changes overall emissions (manufacture plus fuel use) by 1 gram carbon equivalent per km, or less than 2% of the total figure. We have also assumed here an average vehicle life of 150 000 km for gasoline vehicles, and 200 000 km for diesel vehicles. These are estimated averages, given that vehicle life is highly variable, depending on fiscal horsepower. With these assumptions we obtain the following values:
Average consumption for gasoline vehicles (litres per 100 km) 7,8 8 8,3 9,1 8,1 Manufacturing emissions (g C/km) 10,9 10,9 10,9 10,9 10,9 Deviation from average -3% -1% 2% 10% 0%
Residence zone Towns < 2 000 pop. Pop. of 2 000 - 49 999 Pop. > 50 000 (other than Paris metro area) Paris metro area All subcategories
Total g C/km 68,6 70,0 72,3 78,2 70,8
Table 51: Emissions per km travelled for gasoline vehicles, by zone of residence
Average consumption for diesel vehicles (litres per 100 km) 6,6 6,8 6,9 6,8 6,8
Residence zone
Manufacturing emissions (g C/km) 9,9 9,9 9,9 9,9 9,9
Total (g C/km) 63,6 65,3 66,1 65,3 65,3
Deviation from average -2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Towns < 2 000 pop. Pop. of 2 000 - 49 999 Pop. > 50 000 (other than Paris metro area) Paris metro area All subcategories
89 90
Source: ADEME. Source: French Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing, Economics and Statistics Department.
67 / 249
Table 52: Emissions per km travelled for diesel vehicles, by zone of residence The residential zone does not appear to be a discriminating factor for diesel vehicles, but it is significant for gasoline-vehicle emissions, with a distinction between the Paris metro area and the rest of France. This may simply reflect a vehicle pool that includes a greater number of high-powered cars, which are primarily gasoline vehicles (the pool of gasoline-powered vehicles in France includes close to 750 000 personal vehicles rated at over 11 fiscal horsepower, as opposed to "only" 200 000 diesel vehicles in this class). We can reasonably assume therefore that for standard vehicles (under 10 fiscal horsepower) the geographical area of use has little effect on average emissions per km travelled. These are annual averages, which may not be representative of hometo-work commuting. Commuting represents only 20% of the total distance travelled in France, but occurs mainly at rush hours and in cities, and therefore under conditions approaching those of urban cycle driving. The above figures suggest that the fraction of annual travel under urban cycle driving conditions is about the same, regardless of the size of the town where the vehicle owner lives.
4.1.1.2.2 Emissions approximated by fuel type and length of time in use

The Observatoire de lEnergie also provides emission factors broken down by length of time in use.
Length of time vehicle has been in use 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years Over 15 years All subcategories Average consumption for gasoline vehicles (litres per 100 km) 7,8 8,2 8,4 9,4 8,1 Deviation from average -4% 1% 4% 16% 0% Average Deviation consumption for from diesel vehicles (litres average per 100 km) 6,8 0% 6,8 0% 6,4 -6% 6,9 1% 6,8 0%
Table 53: Average vehicle consumption by length of time in use Here again, average values broken down by length of time in use do not reveal any significant deviation from the mean, except for gasoline vehicles over 15 years old, which are in any event marginal in the total vehicle fleet. Vehicle weight, however, has increased over the years, and hence manufacturing emissions as well, but this probably does not involve more than a few percentage points of emissions for vehicle manufacture. The remainder of the upward shift is due
to an increase in the proportion of vehicles in the highest fiscal horsepower classes. This leads us to look at a breakdown of consumption according to these readily available criteria, fiscal horsepower.
4.1.1.2.3 Emissions approximated by fuel type and fiscal horsepower rating

Consumption figures by fiscal horsepower rating are given in two separate sources. For vehicles in use, the previously cited publication from the Observatoire de lEnergie lists aggregated data for three categories (5 fiscal hp and less, 6 to 10 fiscal hp, 11 fiscal hp and over). This enables us to distinguish by actual engine power, which is by definition a determining factor for energy consumption91. The OE data can be presented as follows:
Power rating (fiscal hp) 5 fiscal hp and under 6 -10 fiscal hp 11 fiscal hp and over All subcategories Average consumption for gasoline vehicles (litres per 100 km) 7,2 8,5 10,9 8,1 Deviation from average Average consumption for diesel vehicles (litres per 100 km) -11% 6,3 5% 35% 0% 7 11,1 6,8 Deviation from average -7% 3% 63% 0%
Table 54: Average consumption of gasoline and diesel vehicles by fiscal horsepower rating The above table shows that, while fiscal horsepower is truly a significant factor for average consumption (and hence for emissions), the deviation between the overall average and the average per class does not exceed 15% for standard vehicles (i.e. 5 to 10 fiscal hp). Consequently, by taking average emissions for all vehicle classes and driving conditions, i.e. 71 grams carbon equivalent per km for gasoline vehicles and 65 grams carbon equivalent per km for diesel vehicles (tables 49 and 50), we can arrive at an approximation that is valid within 10% or 15% (i.e. give or take one litre of average fuel consumption) for a large vehicle fleet under a broad range of driving conditions. In the event that the respective proportions of diesel and gasoline-fuelled vehicles are not known, we use an average value of 65 grams carbon equivalent per km. A more detailed breakdown can be obtained, using data supplied by ADEME: - average weight (empty) of vehicles sold in 2001 by fiscal horsepower and by fuel type,
The power rating is based on the actual power and CO2 emissions that correspond to a proportional energy consumption factor.
91
69 / 249
- average fuel consumption under conventional driving cycles for all vehicles in the same fiscal horsepower class and using the same type of fuel. This data is more detailed, but refer to rated consumption, not actual consumption (they are based on conventional driving cycles). They pertain to a group of vehicles that is large (over 2 million vehicles) but nonetheless only a part of the whole vehicles sold in 2001 representing a little under 8% of the vehicle fleet. Yet above we observed that actual fuel consumption by fiscal class and by fuel type had varied little over the years (4.1.1.2.2).Furthermore, we adopt the hypothesis that the mass by fiscal class and by fuel type has not varied by more than 10% over the last 10 or 15 years, that is to say since the oldest vehicles still in use first came into circulation (excepting a marginal fraction of the vehicle fleet made up of vehicles over 15 years old). Accordingly, the empty vehicle weight by fiscal class and by fuel type, calculated by ADEME for vehicles sold in 2001, are considered to be acceptable values for the entire fleet of vehicles in use (these values pertain only to emissions linked to manufacture, as direct fuel consumption is reported elsewhere). The statistics published by the Observatoire de l'Energie do not give figures for every fiscal class, but only for three groups of classes (5 fiscal hp and less, 6 to 10 hp, and 11 hp and over). These data are used to carry out the following steps: - calculate average consumption under conventional driving cycles, for new cars sold in 2001 in each fiscal class (using ADEME's figures), - derive an average for each group of fiscal classes and fuel type, for the OE groups, - compare this average to actual consumption of the existing vehicle fleet, to see how much should be added to the averages calculated under conventional driving cycles, and for new vehicles only, in order to obtain actual consumption for the vehicles in the OE categories. The reference values for actual consumption refer to mixed-cycle driving, which is assumed to be closer to reality92. As an example, conventional-cycle consumption figures for gasoline vehicles from 3 to 5 fiscal hp give the following averages:
Power rating (fiscal hp) Total fleet vehicles in circulation since 01-01-2002 36 672 Empty weight (kg) 720 New vehicles sold in 2001 Average Average Average consumption in consumption in consumption in non-urban cycle mixed driving cycle urban cycle (litres (litres per 100 km) (litres per 100 km) per 100 km) 4,3 4,9 6,1
3
92
For the purposes of an annual average, it is rare to find cars that are used only for city driving (or only for non-urban driving) as 4.1.1.2.1 might seem to suggest.
70 / 249
4 5 Total or average
4 563 806 3 342 309 7 942 787
881 1 011 935
4,9 5,4 5,1
5,8 6,6 6,1
7,4 8,7 7,9
Table 55: Conventional-cycle consumption figures for gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal horse power For this category, average consumption recorded by OE for vehicles in use is 7,2 litres per 100 km travelled. In other words, to adjust from average fuel consumption (in mixed-cycle driving) for new vehicles calculated using manufacturers' data (UTAC93), i.e. 6,1 litres/100 km, it is necessary to add 17% to reach this actual consumption figure as measured (7,2 litres/100 km). It remains to be determined whether the proportions of distances per driving cycle (urban, trunk highway, motorway) are the same in "real life" situations and under the conventional driving cycles. For the time being we will assume this is so, in order to be able to correlate the OE figures with those for fuel consumption of new vehicles. Our next hypothesis is that this correction of 17% is applicable to all individual vehicle consumption in this category (5 fiscal hp and under), in order to extrapolate actual consumption for all vehicles in the fleet, from a calculation made for new vehicles alone, on the basis of conventional driving cycles. In other terms, once average consumption for new vehicles is calculated (for a given fiscal class and fuel type), it "suffices" to augment this value by 17% to obtain a good approximation of average consumption for a vehicle in the existing fleet (for the same driving cycle, naturally). The margin of error of this operation is estimated to be 10% for emissions per vehicle.km. The tables derived with this method are given in appendix 8; they are used to determine emission factors used in the spreadsheet for vehicles for which fuel type, fiscal class and driving cycle are known.
4.1.1.3 Commuting travel 4.1.1.3.1 Emission factors for people commuting by car
In cases where only the number of cars used by commuting employees is known, we suggest the following emission factors to estimate emissions. Studies done by INRETS94 show that the average distance travelled to work95 for the active population is:
93 94
UTAC: Union Technique de lAutomobile, du Motocyle et du Cycle. INRETS: Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Scurit (France). 95 J.-P. Orfeuil, La Jaune et La Rouge, April 1998.
71 / 249
- 8,5 km if the employee lives in a city centre - 12 km if the employee lives in the inner suburbs of Paris, or in the outlying areas of other cities, - roughly 15 km if the employee lives in the outer suburbs of Paris.
An INSEE96 study furnishes commuting distances for the active population, with change of township, district, etc. The average commuting distances for commuters who do not leave their township, and those who leave the country, have been estimated by the author.
Commuting distances travelled (source INSEE Premire N 767, April 2001) 1999 Category Active population Average commute in km Without leaving township 9 012 614 7,00 With change of township 14 042 588 15,10 With change of dpartement 2 550 650 26,70 With change of region 719 847 56,90 With change of country 280 896 40,00 14,9 Total 26 606 595
Table 56: Average commuting distance travelled by type of itinerary On this basis we assume that an active worker living in a rural area and employed in an office-based or industrial activity travels an average of 25 km to work. An employee commuting by car, travel this distance on average twice a day (four times if the employee goes home for lunch); on 220 working days per year. We also assume that the driving cycles are as follows, reflecting both the types of itinerary and the fact that this travel occurs mainly during rush hours: - for commuting travel in outlying rural areas, average emissions per km are those of the non-urban driving cycle for the entire vehicle fleet, - for outer suburbs in the Paris metro area, mixed cycle emissions are used, - for city suburbs, urban cycle emissions are used, - for urban areas, urban cycle emissions are used, augmented by 10% for rushhour driving. Lastly, vehicle manufacturing emissions and upstream fuel refining emissions must be added in. Using the values given in 4.1.1.1, the figure of 11 g carbon equivalent per km is computed for vehicle manufacturing emissions.
96
INSEE: Institut National de Statistiques et des Etudes Economiques.
72 / 249
For upstream fuel emissions, as roughly half of personal car travel (in km) is driven in diesel vehicles and half in gasoline-fuelled vehicles, we add 15% compared to combustion emissions alone. The average value of supplementary emissions for diesel is 12%, and 18% for gasoline vehicles (see 2.2.3). There is one remaining assumption: that "all of France" emissions per km for commuting travel are the same as for the outer suburbs in the Paris metro area. Given that 80% of today's population lives in urban areas, this hypothesis is probably not far off. With these assumptions we can construct the following table:
Commuting travel, by driver's place of residence Days per year Km per day kg C eq kg C eq per Km per g C eq per Supplement Vehicle year km for manufacture per year year, upstream g C eq/km (engine (engine (upstream emissions) emissions) fuel fuel emissions emissions) 8 800 39,7 15% 11 350 53 6 600 5 280 3 740 6 600 48,1 62,8 69,1 48,1 15% 15% 15% 15% 11 11 11 11 317 331 258 317 48 51 39 48 kg C eq per year, amort. kg C eq per car and per year 500 438 440 339 438
Outlying rural areas Outer suburbs, Paris metro area City suburbs City centre All of France
220 220 220 220 220
20 15 12 8,5 15
97 73 58 41 73
Table 57: Emission factors per car for commuting travel by type of itinerary
4.1.1.3.2 Emission factors for people commuting by car, when distance travelled is known
If the distance travelled per employee and per year to commute to work, and the place of residence of each commuting employee, are known, the total distance travelled by commuting employees can be added up, and broken down by type of itinerary. It can reasonably be assumed that - an employee who lives in a rural area will drive a non-urban itinerary to get to work, - an employee who lives in the outer suburbs of Paris, or in the suburbs of smaller cities, will drive a mixed itinerary to get to work, - an employee who lives in the inner Paris suburbs will drive an urban itinerary to get to work, - an employee who lives in Paris will drive an urban itinerary + congestion (an additional 10% on top of "urban" emissions) to get to work. Using the tables in appendix 8, we have average consumption figures for each type of itinerary, for all vehicles taken together.
73 / 249
Type of itinerary Emissions per km travelled, in g carbon equivalent
Non-urban 58
Mixed 69
Urban 87
Urban, rush97 hour point 96
Table 58: Emission factors for commuting travel by driving cycle, per km travelled Accordingly, taking distances and emission factors per type of itinerary, approximate emissions for commuting travel can be calculated. The degree of uncertainty is probably highest for estimates regarding Paris driving, where congestion and engine size have considerable impact on consumption, and hence on emissions. The margin of error is estimated to be 20%, when applied to a vehicle fleet of at least a few dozen vehicles. If the number of vehicles is much smaller, emissions must be calculated for each vehicle, using the factors listed in appendix 8. Here we encounter once again the general rule that the estimates for uncertainty ranges depend on the context in which the figures are used: the larger the application set, the more accurate default values will be.
4.1.1.4 Work-related travel by car

This travel is converted to GHG emissions using the same emission factors given in 4.1.1.3 above. If this travel involves considerable distances, using many different types of vehicles, average emission factors for all types of vehicles can be used, as for commuting trips.
4.1.1.5 Travel by car for the daily mobility of a territorys residents

It will be necessary to have benchmarks for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM on the number of vehicle.km per person per year on average, and in a given zone. This default data is also proposed for other transportation modes in case no specific information about the territory will be available. The INSEE98 investigation into transportation proposes the following national averages:
ZPIU99 rural ZPIU ; 50 000 to 300 000 inhab ZPIU ; more than 300 000 inhab ZPIU in Paris
Ensemble
97
An extra 10% was added to account for a cold start, congestion, etc. This may very well be much more than that: a car that consumes 25 litres per 100km (for example a large minivan, a large 4x4, a luxury car, etc, travelling in heavy traffic) emits almost twice as much: 180 grams carbon equivalent per kilometre! 98 INSEE Transport Surveys / 1993-1994 99 ZPIU means industrial or urban settlement zones, and allows the qualifying of urban fabric and town size, notably by taking the daily migration level into account. In this document, this notion will be merged with the town size.
74 / 249
zones; less than 50 000 inhab Number of daily trips per person Average trip distance (in km) Total Distribution modal in % Walking Collective Transport Cars Two wheelers Other 2,73 9,70 26,47
City Centre100 3,06 6,96 21,27
Suburbs and Outskirts 2,87 9,23 26,50
City Centre 2,93 7,06 20,67
Suburbs 2,84 7,73 21,97
Outskirts 2,57 10,14
Suburbs and All Paris Outskirts together 2,74 6,16 2,71 9,19 24,93 2,83 8,61 24,37
26,08 16,89
12,37 2,80 79,94 4,64 0,24
20,59 4,86 70,90 3,56 0,10
12,73 4,29 77,31 5,34 0,33
23,41 11,83 61,21 3,54 0,00
14,29 7,26 73,14 5,24 0,07
12,71 30,64 4,13 35,11 77,33 32,09 5,67 0,16 2,01 0,14
19,41 13,90 62,94 3,57 0,17
16,57 7,74 71,03 4,47 0,19
Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution modal for daily trips
From this table, it is possible to calculate the average mileage per person per day travelling in the car during 1994: a French person travelling 26.27 (km per day) x 79.94% (by car) x 365 (days per year) = 7,723 km travelled by car per person per year. Due to the absence of more recent data, this distance was kept, knowing that the increase noticed during the past years probably concerns the number of vehicles being in circulation and its mass and power being more than the annual average mileage per person. Transportation Accounts data reveals increases in passengerkm (+18%) between 1994 and 2004, but the fleet vehicle effect explains the basics: the latter increased by more than 20% over the same period101. To deduct mileage from vehicles, this distance must be divided by the average occupancy of a car, which is an average of 1.25 persons in the context of travelling to a city102. An uncertainty of 10% will be assigned to the values obtained.
4.1.1.6 Long-distance travel by car for mobility of residents in a territory

As part of the "territory" Bilan CarboneTM, it will also be necessary to assess the
100 A central city that is a multi-communal urban unit (or multi-communal town) is defined as follows. If a municipality shelters more than 50% of the urban units population, it is a central city only. Otherwise, all the municipalities with a population exceeding 50% of a more densely inhabited town, also the latter, are central cities. The towns that are not central cities constitute the suburbs of the multi-communal town. 101 Energy consumption spreadsheets - Energy Observatory, 2004 / CCFA, 2005. 102 Source: SES - Service Economie et Statistique du Ministre Equipement, Transports
75 / 249
residents long-distance travel by car (for leisure, family, possibly shopping or professional reasons). In order to do this, a transportation survey by INSEE was equally exploited and the following results were obtained from it:
Passengers travelling in millions*km according to principal mode Bicycle Moped Motorcycle PV household driver PV household passenger PV outside household Bus, coach Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) Trains (including RET) TGV Plane Other Total Local travel 1993 78 45 48 4645 1422 1110 451 231 240 0 0 28 8299 446 Other short travel 1993 2 0 1 499 77 105 35 9 9 0 0 8 5415 Long distance 1993 0 0 14 1483 964 463 230 0 366 281 1472 144
Table 60: Total travel displacements, by method in 1993 On the basis of a population of 57 million in 1993 (56.6 in the 1990 census), the following mileages travelled per person per year can be deducted:
Travel mode Bicycle Moped Motorcycle PV household driver PV household passenger PV outside household Bus, coach Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) Trains (including RET) TGV Plane Other Km per inhabitant, per year 0 0 13 1 362 885 425 211 0 336 258 1 352 132
Table 61: Mileages travelled per person per year in France in 1993 The mileage carried out in a PV and conducted per person per year will, for the Bilan CarboneTM, assimilate itself in the number of vehicle.km generated per car, per person and per year in respect of this mobility. The % increase in this mileage since 1993 must be evaluated. It appears that the number of passenger.km increased with 18% between 1994 and 2004103, but the fleet vehicles in circulation increased with 20%. In the first approximation, for 2005, the distance travelled per vehicle per year on average for 1993 will be preserved.
The total displacements of vehicles in a territory can then be obtained by multiplying the mileage per car with the territorys population.
103
Commission for Transport Accounts of the Nation (from DAEI / SESp - UTP - RATP - SNCF - DAC)
76 / 249
4.1.2 Buses and cars 4.1.2.1 Amortization of buses and coaches

The "amortization" procedure aims to report emissions linked to vehicle manufacture. It is analogous to that used for personal cars, based on empty vehicle weight. Passenger transport vehicles covered are the following: - vans and minibuses, - city buses, - intercity coaches, As for personal cars, empty weight is converted into emissions due to vehicle manufacture. As the added value per unit of weight for buses is similar to that of automobiles (a bus with an empty weight of a little over 10 tons costs approximately 150 000 Euros, or 15 000 Euros per ton, as for a personal car), the factor for converting vehicle weight into manufacturing emissions could theoretically be equal to 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of bus weight. Data available on websites (bus manufacturers, or public transit services104) serves as the basis for average empty weight for vehicles, maximum authorized weight with load, and vehicle life.
Type of vehicle Average max. authorized weight with load 5,6 19,0 23,0 Average empty weight (tons) 3,5 11,00 15,00 Useful life in km Manufacturing emissions g C eq/km 17,5 16,5 15,0
Minibus (20 passengers) City bus Intercity coach (3 axles)
300 000 1 000 000 1 500 000
Table 62: Emission factors for the manufacture of minibuses, city buses and intercity coaches The last column of the above table is of course a calculated value.
4.1.2.2 Emissions per vehicle.km

The publication Evaluations des efficacits nergtiques et environnementales des transports (ADEME, 2002) supplies a value for emissions per passenger.km due to fuel combustion alone (not considering upstream emissions) for buses and coaches, and gives an average passenger load for these vehicles.
Type of vehicle g C eq per Average number of
Manufacturers' websites: www.heuliezbus.com, www.volvo.com, www.scania.com, www.renault.fr ; public transport websites: www.vmcv.ch, www.busparisiens.free.fr
104
77 / 249
Intercity coach City bus Paris metro area City bus (other than Paris)
passenger.km passengers per vehicle 9,4 29,5 18,2 21,4 23,3 10
Table 63: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses (ADEME, 2002) Using this information, emissions per vehicle.km including upstream emissions can be derived: - for buses and coaches, emissions per vehicle.km are equal to emissions per passenger.km multiplied by the average number of passengers per vehicle, - for minibuses, we have assumed fuel consumption of 15 litres for 100 km (diesel), and converted this to emissions using the diesel emission factor calculated in 2.2.3, - to obtain total emissions per vehicle.km, manufacturing emissions (independent of number of passengers) and upstream fuel emissions (proportional to bus operating emissions) are added together.
Category
Minibus City bus (Paris metro area) City bus (other than Paris) Intercity coach
g C eq per Uncertainty g C eq g C Uncertaint vehicle.km, fuel range for eq per y range for only, with combustion vehicle.km, manufactu upstream manufactur re emissions e 122,1 10% 17,5 50% 435,7 10% 16,5 50% 260,4 309,8 10% 10% 16,5 15,0 50% 50%
kg C eq per vehicle.km
Total uncertainty
0,140 0,452 0,277 0,325
15% 11% 12% 12%
Table 64: Emission factors per vehicle.km for different types of buses In the absence of data on variation in emissions with the number of passengers, we use this average value for all cases.
4.1.2.3 Emissions per passenger.km 4.1.2.3.1 General case

Using the above values and passenger load figures, we can also compute total emissions per passenger.km, as follows: - fuel combustion emissions are found in the ADEME publication cited above, - upstream emissions are proportional to combustion emissions, - manufacturing emissions per vehicle.km are divided by the average passenger load, to obtain a value for emissions per passenger.km.
For minibuses, we have assumed that the average passenger load is the same as for buses in the Paris metro area, i.e. 20%, or 4 passengers for a 20-passenger vehicle. The calculated results are as follows (uncertainty ranges are the same as for emissions per vehicle.km).
Category Minibus City bus (Paris metro area) City bus (other than Paris) Intercity coach g C eq per passenger.km fuel only, with upstream emissions 4,4 0,8 1,7 0,5 g C eq per passenger.km, manufacture 30,5 20,4 26,0 10,5 g C eq per passenger.km (total) 34,9 21,1 27,7 11,0
Table 65: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses
4.1.2.3.2 Overall factor for commuting travel

For commuting travel by bus, average emissions per trip are obtained by multiplying the average home-work distance by average consumption per passenger.km for buses. Average emissions per passenger.km by bus are 85 g of CO2 for fuel combustion105, thus 93,5 g CO2 when upstream emissions for the fuel are included, or 25,5 g carbon equivalent per km. We have adopted a reference distance of a 12 km round-trip106, and to avoid making a distinction between Paris and other cities we use a median value of 25,5 g C eq per passenger.km (in fact commuting travel is most likely to occur during rush hours, and therefore with a higher than average number of passengers, but in the absence of specific figures for passenger load during rush hours we retain this estimate). Each bus commuter is thus assigned 12 (km) x 220 (days) x 25,5 (g C eq/km), or 67 kg C eq per year. The uncertainty range for the above values is estimated at 30%. It can be observed that it takes four people in a carpool to attain emissions equivalent to bus emissions (at roughly 100 g carbon equivalent per km for cars, and 25 for a bus). This figure does not apply to tramways, that generally run on electricity (see 4.1.4 below).
4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for the daily mobility of a territorys residents
105 106
Source: ADEME. Source: INRETS.
79 / 249
To obtain reference values for bus mileages per person per year on average and the values needed for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM, the table outlined in paragraph 4.1.1.5 above will be re-used and the line of interest extracted, eg:
ZPIU107 rural ZPIU in Paris Ensemble zones; ZPIU ; 50 000 to 300 000 inhab ZPIU ; more than 300 000 inhab less than Suburbs 50 000 City Suburbs and City and inhab Centre108 Outskirts Centre Suburbs Outskirts Paris Outskirts Number of daily trips per person Average trip distance (in km) Total Distribution modal in % Collective Transport 2,73 9,70 26,47 3,06 6,96 21,27 2,87 9,23 26,50 2,93 7,06 20,67 2,84 7,73 21,97 2,57 10,14 2,74 6,16 2,71 9,19 24,93 2,83 8,61 24,37
26,08 16,89
2,80
4,86
4,29
11,83
7,26
4,13 35,11
13,90
7,74
Table 66 : Average distance travelled annually by the French in 1993, and part of public transport It is possible to deduct the following from the table above :
km per person, per year on average CT suburbs ZPIU 50 300.000 inhab 415 outskirts ZPIU > 300.000 inhab 393
rural 270
centre ZPIU 50 - 300.000 inhab 377
centre ZPIU > 300.000 inhab 892
Suburbs ZPIU > 300.000 hab 582
Paris intramural 2 165
Paris suburbs 1 265
National average 689
Table 67 : Average distance travelled annually in public transport by the French in 1993 This information does not allow in itself to set out kilometres by bus. In effect, the decision remains to set a rule between rail- and road methods in order to pass this global data on to those only concerned with public transport drivers. For this, one should rely on another result from the transport investigation, which gives weekly mileage totals by method, as reproduced below:
Passengers travelling in millions*km according to principal mode Bicycle Moped Motorcycle
107
Local travel 1993 78 45 48
Other short travel 1993 2 0 1
Long distance 1993 80 45 49
ZPIU means industrial or urban settlement zones, and allows the qualifying of urban fabric and town size, notably by taking the daily migration level into account. In this document, this notion will be merged with the town size. 108 A central city that is a multi-communal urban unit (or multi-communal town) is defined as follows. If a municipality shelters more than 50% of the urban units population, it is a central city only. Otherwise, all the municipalities with a population exceeding 50% of a more densely inhabited town, also the latter, are central cities. The towns that are not central cities constitute the suburbs of the multi-communal town.
80 / 249
PV household driver PV household passenger PV outside household Bus, coach Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) Trains (including RET) Other Total
4645 1422 1110 451 231 240 28 8299 446
499 77 105 35 9 9 8 8745
5144 1499 1215 486 240 249 36
Table 68: Total weekly mileages by mode, 1993 On the basis of a population of 56.6 million people, it gives the following results for kilometre per person per year by mode:
Method Bicycle Moped Motorcycle PV household driver PV household passenger PV outside household Bus, coach Local rail transport (metro, tram, val) Trains (including ter) TGV Plane Other Total Km per inhabitant per year during 1993, on the basis of daily travelling 73 41 45 4 725 1 377 1 116 446 220 229 0 0 33 8 032
Table 69 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, 1993 Due to not having access to more recent figures, the above will be kept, which notably indicate that on national average rail transport (local + RET) and a bus are almost equal in modal parts within the CT for short trips. Furthermore, these values indicate that the RET and local rail transportation are equal, which means that in first approximation it will be considered that by default the rail and road are equal in public transport irrespective of the zone, except for Paris. For Paris, on the other hand, the modal parts of rail (subway/RER) and bus transport are 66% and 33% respectively (RATP source); percentages that will be retained for this city. As a result, the default values to be used in the Territory spreadsheet are:
centre ZPIU 50 300.000 inhab 377 50% suburbs ZPIU 50 300.000 inhab 415 50% centre ZPIU > 300.000 inhab 892 50% Suburbs ZPIU > 300.000 hab 582 50% outskirts ZPIU > 300.000 inhab 393 50%
km per person, per year on average CT Bus modal part
rural 270 50%
Paris intramural 2 165 33%
Paris suburbs 1 265 33%
National average 689 50%
Table 70 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, for public transport
81 / 249
4.1.2.4 Travel by bus for long distance mobility of a territorys residents

It is also necessary for the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM to propose reference values for bus mileage per person per year on average, on the basis of long distance mobility. Another value from the aforementioned transport survey used is that of the long-distance mobility.
Passengers travelling in millions*km per week, long Method distance Motorcycle 14 PV household driver 1483 PV household passenger 964 PV outside household 463 Bus, coach 230 Trains (including RET) 366 TGV 281 Plane 1472 Other 144 Total 5415
KM per person per year 13 1 362 885 425 211 336 258 1 352 132 4 974
Table 71: Kilometres travelled per person per year over long distance, by mode It would then integrate a % increase in the mileage that everyone travels by bus and coach since 1993, knowing that the total number of passengers.km increased with 3% between 1994 and 2004109. For the lack of data on the number of trips, the value retained for this version of the Emission Factors Manual is 211 km by bus and car per person per year on national average. Finally, when choosing an emission factor for long distances, it is assumed that the only type of vehicle used is a coach.
4.1.3 Two-wheeled vehicles 4.1.3.1 Amortization and upstream emissions for two-wheeled vehicles
In the same way as for personal cars, "amortization" is a way of accounting for the emissions related to the manufacture of mopeds and motorcycles. In the absence of specific information pertaining to two-wheeled vehicles, we use the value of 1,5 tons C eq per vehicle ton, as calculated for personal cars (see 4.1.1.1). It can also be remarked that the supplement for vehicle manufacture for small cars is slightly under 30% (in relation to emissions during a mixed driving cycle), as seen in tables 179 and 182 (appendix 8), partially reproduced below.
109
82 / 249
Fiscal horsepower Manufacturi Consumption emissions (g C rating ng eq/km) by type of itinerary emissions g C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban 3 4 5 10,8 11,0 10,8 37,2 42,8 46,7 42,7 50,5 57,0 52,5 64,4 75,0
Supplement for vehicle manufacture (% of emissions during use) NonMixed Urban urban 29% 25% 21% 26% 22% 17% 23% 19% 14%
Extract from the table situated in Appendix 8, concerning the emission factors for gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal hp
Fiscal horsepower Manufacturi Consumption emissions (g C rating ng eq/km) by type of itinerary emissions g C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban 3 4 5 9,2 11,5 11,2 29,5 37,9 43,7 32,4 45,3 53,0 37,1 58,4 69,3 Supplement for vehicle manufacture (% of emissions during use) NonMixed Urban urban 31% 28% 25% 30% 25% 20% 26% 21% 16%
Extract from the table situated in Appendix 8, concerning the emission factors for diesel vehicles, 3-5 fiscal hp It can be seen that the smaller the car, the greater the proportion of manufacturing emissions. Extrapolating from this observation, it is reasonable to suppose that the proportion of manufacturing emissions for two-wheeled vehicles is greater than for the smallest cars (in fiscal hp), for which the emissions are on the order of 30% of combustion emissions. Upstream emissions for extraction, transport and refining of the fuel used (gasoline) are equal to 17% of combustion emissions. (see 2.2.3.2, Upstream emissions for liquid fuels).
4.1.3.2 Combustion emissions per vehicle.km

Emission factors for two-wheeled vehicles (mopeds and motorcycles) can be found in the ADEME study on Energy and environmental efficiency in the transport sector in 2000 (ADEME, 2002) which distinguishes between urban and intercity travel, and specifies occupancy rates. The emission factors in this study refer only to fuel combustion (see table below).
Kg C eq / passenger.km Urban Intercity 0.018 0.028 0.029 Kg C eq / vehicle.km Urban Intercity 0.018 0.029 0.031
Mopeds 3 Motorcycles < 125 cm
83 / 249
Motorcycles 125 cm Average occupancy rate

3
0.033
0.031
0.033 1.02
0.033 1.07
Table 72: Combustion emission factors for two-wheeled vehicles (ADEME, 2002) The Bilan Carbone spreadsheet includes only the emission factors for city travel, and for vehicle.km. The emission factors for urban and for intercity travel are not significantly different, and the low occupancy rate indicates that two-wheelers are most often used by just one person. The uncertainty range for two-wheeler emission factors is 20%.
4.1.4 Mass transit: suburban rail, metro and tramway 4.1.4.1 Emission factor
Knowing that one passenger.km travelled by train corresponds to 2,6 g carbon equivalent in France (all rail systems taken together, see 4.4) and that the Paris suburban commuter rail system (RER), urban rail (mtropolitain or subway systems) and tramway systems all run on electricity, carbon emissions are on the order of: 30 (km) * 220 (days) * 2,6 (g C eq/km) = 17 kg C eq per year. A study currently underway with RATP, the Paris transit authority, will furnish more accurate values for sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.4. These figures are applicable only to France. For other European countries approximate distances must be calculated, and rail transport emission factors used (see 4.4).
4.1.4.2 Kilometres travelled for daily mobility

The distance travelled per person per year with rail transport will be deducted from the information set out in section 4.1.2.4: when the total distance travelled per person per year with public transport and the modal emissions of a bus is available, the balance is devoted to rail modes. If a Household Travel Survey was conducted in the municipalitys territory then data from these studies will be used. It reflects more the specifics of the territory that provided the baseline data (from national work).
4.2 Goods transport by road

As for passenger transport, the best method is to start with actual vehicle fuel consumption, if this information can be obtained, and then add in emissions linked to
manufacture of the truck or utility vehicle. If it is not possible to follow this procedure, various approximate emission factors, suggested below, give acceptable orders of magnitude for estimating emissions by type of truck used and distance travelled, or by ton.km of shipments.
4.2.1 Amortization of trucks and utility vehicles

This "amortization" procedure aims to report emissions linked to vehicle manufacture. It is analogous to that used for personal cars, based on empty vehicle weight. Goods transport vehicles are broken down into two families: - single-body vehicles, comprising trucks and light utility vehicles, - articulated vehicles, made up of a road tractor and a trailer. Consumption figures for these vehicles by GWV class110 are available from the Observatoire de l'Energie (OE) that publishes yearly statistics released by the French Transport Ministry (see 4.2.2). To achieve an exhaustive accounting of transport emissions, reported figures should include emissions linked to manufacture and, theoretically, to vehicle upkeep (and even construction of roads). To derive figures on manufacturing emissions we must know the empty, or tare weight of the vehicles in question. To have figures that can be added together, the figures for average tare weight must correspond to the GVW weight classes for fuel consumption. Lastly, figures for total distance travelled are necessary, covering the total useful life for each mode of transport, in order to assign a share of manufacturing emissions to each km travelled. GVW weight classes for fuel consumption statistics are as follows:
GVW class < 1,5 tons 1,5 - 2,5 tons 2,51 - 3,5 tons 3,5 tons 3,51t - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated vehicles (GVW tractor + trailer) 44 t (in general) Light utility vehicles
110
Table 73: GVW classes for light utility vehicles and trucks
GWV: Gross Vehicle Weight.
Trucks
85 / 249
Various reasons determine how these categories are defined, including, among others: - 3,5 t GVW is the upper limit for light utility vehicles that can be driven with a class B (tourism) driving license, - 19 t GVW is the upper limit for two-axle motor vehicles, - 26 t GVW is the upper limit for three-axle motor vehicles, - 32 t GVW is the upper limit for motor vehicles with four or more axles. These articulated vehicles (commonly called tractor-trailers) are almost always composed of a tractor weighing about 7 tons, pulling a trailer with an empty weight of about 8 tons. The total freight capacity of these articulated vehicles is 25 tons, giving a total weight of about 40 tons when fully loaded. Statistics from the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing indicate the number of vehicles in operation as of 1 January 2002, by GVW weight class (see appendix 7). For example, at that date there were 1 554 trucks on the road, under 10 years of age and with a GVW of exactly six tons. Using these figures the average GVW can be calculated for the categories in table 64. It can also be observed that in each category numbers are clustered around a few vehicle weights. Graphs showing this distribution, and the deviation between the GVW for the clusters and the average weight in the category, are given in appendix 7. The important conclusion to be drawn here is that for each GVW category, the maximum deviation is 20% between the average GVW and that of the most common vehicles in the weight class (the clusters of vehicles, corresponding to the peak on the graph). This observation is significant for two reasons: - firstly, manufacturing emissions depend on the empty vehicle weight, fairly well correlated to GVW, - secondly, we will see below that average fuel consumption is also very closely correlated to GVW for vehicles. In other words, in basing calculations on average GVW, the deviation between this average and values applicable to the most widely used vehicles in the weight class will never exceed 20%. To obtain empty vehicle weight from GVW, we must know the maximum useful load transported by the vehicle, in order to subtract it from the GVW figure. Useful loads have been determined as follows: - for certain kinds of trucks the loads are well known to shippers and truckers. This is the case for articulated tractor-trailers (40 tons GVW, 25 tons maximum
useful load), for 19-ton GVW trucks (13 tons maximum useful load), and for 7,5ton GVW utility vehicles (4 tons maximum useful load). - for vehicles with GVW equal to or less than 3,5 tons, the average GVW and average maximum useful load are listed by the Transport Ministry111, - for other weight classes we have extrapolated the ratio between GVW and maximum useful load.
GVW class < 1,5 tons 1,5 - 2,5 tons 2,51 - 3,5 tons 3,5 tons 3,51 - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractortrailers) Average GVW in the class (tons) 1,30 1,80 2,90 3,50 4,74 5,67 8,80 16,32 19,37 26,87 40,00 Average empty weight (tons) 0,90 1,10 1,70 2,10 2,37 2,84 4,11 6,53 7,75 10,21 15,00 Average maximum useful load (tons) 0,40 0,70 1,20 1,40 2,37 2,84 4,69 9,79 11,62 16,66 25,00
Table 74: GVW characteristics To derive information on how much vehicle manufacture contributes to emissions per km, we need to know the life span, or useful life, of the vehicles, expressed in km travelled. This information has been obtained in part from the Comit National Routier website; the remainder has been extrapolated.
GVW class < 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel 3,5 tons 3,51 - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractor-trailers) Useful life in km 150 000 200 000 150 000 200 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 300 000 300 000 380 000 480 000 550 000 650 000 750 000
112
Table 75: Average vehicle life in km by GVW class
Source : L'Utilisation des vhicules utilitaires lgers en 2000, French Transport Ministry, Economics and Statistics Department. Source: Comit National Routier (France) for categories 6,1- 10,9 t, 11- 9 t and tractor-trailers; extrapolation for intermediate categories; author's estimate for vehicles under 6 tons GVW.
112
111
87 / 249
It should be noted that this second-order correlation, between useful life and GVW, is very good for the values retained when statistics are not available (see graph below).
800 000 700 000 600 000 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 000 0 0,0 10,0 20,0 PTAC 30,0 40,0 50,0 y = -242,02x
2 2
+ 24135x + 171683
R = 0,9959
Figure 1: Correlation between life span and GVW for trucks and light utility vehicles As for personal cars, empty weight is converted into emissions due to vehicle manufacture. As the added value per ton of weight for trucks is half that of automobiles (a tractor-trailer with an empty weight of 15 tons costs approximately 100 000 euros, or 6 000 euros per ton, whereas a personal car costs between 12 000 and 15 000 euros per ton), the factor for converting vehicle weight into manufacturing emissions could theoretically be lower than 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of truck weight. This said, aluminium ( 3 tons C eq/ton) is often used to make trailers, and for the tractor unit (engine, cabin, etc.) there is no particular reason to think that manufacturing emissions per unit weight should be significantly lower than for cars. Until more information is available we will maintain this factor of 1,5 tons of carbon equivalent per ton of truck weight. Likewise, dividing manufacturing emissions by km travelled will give the share contributed by items other than fuel, to emissions per km travelled (excluding emissions due to upkeep and maintenance).
GVW class Average GVW 1,30 1,30 1,80 1,80 2,90 2,90 Average Useful life in Manufacturin empty km g emissions g weight (tons) C eq/km 0,90 150 000 9,0 0,90 200 000 6,8 1,10 150 000 11,0 1,10 200 000 8,3 1,70 200 000 12,8 1,70 250 000 10,2
< 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel
88 / 249
3,5 tons 3,51 - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractor-trailers)
3,50 4,74 5,67 8,80 16,32 19,37 26,87 40,00
2,10 2,37 2,84 4,11 6,53 7,75 10,21 15,00
300 000 300 000 300 000 380 000 480 000 550 000 650 000 750 000
10,5 11,9 14,2 16,2 20,4 21,1 23,6 30,0
Table 76: Emission factors for vehicle manufacture by GVW class The margins of uncertainty for these data are as follows: - 10% for empty vehicle weight (error due to a statistical bias in the sample studied) - 50% for truck manufacturing emissions per unit weight (giving a range of 0,7 tons to 2,25 tons C per ton of truck weight), - 10% for average distances travelled for vehicles before they are scrapped (these figures are based on observations). The share for vehicle manufacture is therefore assigned an uncertainty figure of 70%, except for the lightest utility vehicles (GVW < 2,5 tons) for which we keep the automobile uncertainty range, i.e. 40%. In all cases these figures are clearly orders of magnitude. It would be useful to obtain more accurate information via the appropriate studies (in short, it would be a good idea to draw up the carbon balance for a utility vehicle manufacturer).
4.2.2 Average fuel consumption per vehicle.km by GVW weight class

Published data on fuel consumption for goods transport generally distinguish between in-house use (when goods are transported for the company that owns the truck) and contract transport (this is the case for all shippers that work for other companies). This distinction is not made, however, in data available for small utility vehicles (under 3,5 tons GVW). In this tool we focus only on contract transport when the customer is specified, because if a company possesses its own fleet of vehicles, it is evident that the corresponding fuel consumption can be calculated, even if the company records only its motor fuel bills. As this tool is intended to establish emission factors for entities that cannot determine their fuel consumption, it seems reasonable to assume that this will involve almost exclusively contract shipping. Published data refers to average consumption per GVW weight class (this is an average for all types of trips, taking into account the fact that about 20% of trips are made by empty vehicles).
GVW class < 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 - 2,5 tons gasoline 1,5 - 2,5 tons diesel 2,51 - 3,5 tons gasoline 2,51 - 3,5 tons diesel 3,5 tons 3,51 - 5 tons 5,1 - 6 tons 6,1 - 10,9 tons 11 - 19 tons 19,1 - 21 tons 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractor-trailers)
litres/100 113 km 8,4 7,2 9,5 8,4 16,7 10,8 12,4 18,5 14,5 21,9 29,6 34,2 42,8 37,1
g C eq per km 62,1 58,6 70,2 68,4 123,4 87,9 100,9 150,6 118,0 178,3 240,9 278,4 348,4 302,0
Table 77: Emission factors for vehicle fuel consumption per km and by GVW class As these fuel consumption figures are based on observation of a sampling of vehicles (this is how the Transport Ministry establishes its figures), the source of uncertainty is the representativeness of the sample in relation to vehicles actually on the road. This bias is probably low, and we estimate uncertainty at 5%. On the basis of fuel consumption, we can of course derive emissions linked to vehicle use, using the emission factor for fuel calculated in 2.2.3 (including upstream emissions). Integrating manufacturing emissions, with their own uncertainty range, we arrive at emissions per vehicle.km that include both fuel consumption and manufacture. Then average emissions per vehicle.km can be derived; they are summarized in the table below.
GVW class litres/100 114 km 8,4 7,2 9,5 8,4 16,7 10,8 12,4 18,5 14,5 21,9 29,6 g C eq per km Uncertainty for Manufactur Uncertainty g per Total fuel ing for vehicle.km uncertaint consumption emissions manufactur y g C eq/km e 5% 9,0 40% 71,1 9% 5% 6,8 40% 65,4 9% 5% 11,0 50% 81,2 11% 5% 8,3 50% 76,6 10% 5% 12,8 70% 136,2 11% 5% 10,2 70% 98,1 12% 5% 10,5 70% 111,4 11% 5% 11,9 70% 162,4 10% 5% 14,2 70% 132,2 12% 5% 16,2 70% 194,5 10% 5% 20,4 70% 261,3 10%
< 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 3,5 t 3,51 to 5 t 5,1 to 6 t 6,1 to 10,9 t 11 to 19 t
62,1 58,6 70,2 68,4 123,4 87,9 100,9 150,6 118,0 178,3 240,9
113 These figures are an average for all owners together up to 5 tons GVW and for contract transport only (i.e. only road haulage shipping companies) for vehicles above 5 tons GVW ( figures pertain to companies that own their own fleets). Source: Energy consumption tables in France, Direction Gnrale de lEnergie et des Matires Premires, Observatoire de lEnergie, 2001 Edition. 114 See the same remark as above (and the same source).
90 / 249
19,1 to 21 t 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractortrailers)
34,2 42,8 37,1
278,4 348,4 302,0
5% 5% 5%
21,1 23,6 30,0
70% 70% 70%
299,5 372,0 332,0
10% 9% 11%
Table 78: Average emission factors per vehicle.km and by GVW class Let us point out right away that most of the overall uncertainty is due to manufacturing emissions. If we apply a linear regression to the above factors we obtain the curve below, which shows the relatively good correlation between GVW and emissions per vehicle.km, all factors lumped together.
0,400 0,350 0,300 0,250 0,200 0,150 0,100 0,050 0,000 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 PTAC 20,0 25,0 30,0 y = 0,0102x + 0,0978 R 2 = 0,9769
Figure 2: Correlation between GVW and emissions per vehicle.km There is one exception: consumption for 3,51-6 ton vehicles seems wrong115, in that it is out of line with the regression. In fact, if regression is carried out without this value, the new curve shows excellent correlation (see below). We use this curve to estimate average emissions per vehicle.km when the GVW of a given vehicle is known.
115 These classes represent very few vehicles, and straddle two complementary surveys carried out by the Transport Ministry: the one covered light utility vehicles with a useful load of <3 tons (VUL), and the other vehicles with a useful load of >3 tons (TRM). The vehicles in question appear in the categories "3,6t and over" and "6,0t and under" respectively, neither of which is strictly speaking the same as "3,6 to 5t" and "5t to 6t".
91 / 249
0,400 0,350 0,300 0,250 0,200 0,150 0,100 0,050 0,000 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 PTAC 20,0 25,0 30,0 y = 0,0095x + 0,1138 R 2 = 0,9963
Figure 3: Correlation between GVW and average emissions per vehicle.km for personal cars This linear relationship between weight and fuel consumption is found in other studies on trucks116, and considering that displacement energy (kinetic energy) is proportional to mass, this is not so surprising after all. The formula given in the graph is included in the spreadsheet. We recommend that it be used when the exact GVW figure is known for a vehicle used to transport goods or raw materials, but vehicle fuel consumption is not. The estimated margin of error is 10%, knowing that fuel consumption by type of truck is very similar from one shipper to the next, as fuel is a major expense and profit margins are slim (if a shipper uses 10% more fuel than competitors, and fuel represents 20% of costs, the shipper will "eat up" the operator's profit margin, which is 2%).
4.2.3 Emission factors per vehicle.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips 4.2.3.1 Reasoning
The preceding section proposes emission factors that correspond to an average for each GVW weight class, integrating all types of itineraries, load factors and percentage of empty trips. In practice, a road haulage vehicle makes some trips loaded, with variable load factors, and some trips empty.
Source : Choix logistiques des entreprises et consommation d'nergie / Christophe Rizet, and Basile Keta / INRETS / November 2000 / page 33.
116
92 / 249
In this section we make the commonly accepted assumption that vehicle consumption (and therefore the GHG emissions which are proportional to this consumption) is a linear function of the load transported117. Thus, in order to evaluate GHG emissions related to vehicle fuel combustion (Ev), data must be obtained for five parameters: - emissions per km for the vehicle when empty Evv - emissions per km when fully loaded Evpc - tonnage corresponding to full load (maximum useful load CU) - percentage of empty trips Tdv (i.e. the fraction of its trip travelled by the vehicle when empty) - average tonnage transported (load factor) Tr m for the part of the trip travelled when loaded. The first three elements are vehicle characteristics, and the last two pertain to how the vehicle is used. If follows that there are only two variables for a given vehicle. Emissions per vehicle.km (Ev) are expressed in the following formula:
Total emissions = emissions for trips when empty + emissions for trips when loaded
Or
Ev = (emissions for trips when empty + emissions for trips when loaded)/distance
Or
Ev = (emissions for trips when empty)/distance + (emissions for trips when loaded)/distance
Or
Ev = (emissions per km when empty)*(distance when empty)/(total distance) + (emissions per km when loaded)*(distance when loaded)/(total distance)
Or
Ev = Evv * (distance when empty/total distance) + (emissions per km when loaded)*(distance when loaded/total distance)
Or
Ev = Evv * Tdv + (emissions per km when loaded) * (1 - Tdv)
Assuming that consumption rises linearly with load factor Tr m, we obtain

Emissions per km when loaded = emissions per km when empty + load differential
117
This is how consumption is modelled in the COPERT III programme methodology.
93 / 249
Or
Emissions per km when loaded = Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * Tr m
In this way we arrive at the formula

Ev = Evv * Tdv + [Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * (Tr m ] * (1 - Tdv)
This can also be written

Ev = Evv + [(Evpc - Evv)] * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m
The transport variables Tdv and Tr m are thus individualized for specific vehicles in the formula, when the parameters Evv and Evpc are known. It remains to find or calculate consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles. In fact we will proceed in inverse fashion. The figures given in 4.2.2 are based on vehicles in actual use, that is vehicles that make some of their trips empty and the rest with variable loads. Data on consumption when empty and when fully loaded is thus not directly available from this information. From average consumption figures, and emissions for empty vehicles and fully loaded vehicles, we must construct a system with as many equations as there are unknowns. Then the equations can be solved.
4.2.3.2 Determining consumption for empty and fully loaded vehicles

We have used the COPERT III118 methodology to compare consumption of empty and fully loaded vehicles, stipulating - no variation in consumption for light utility vehicles, whatever the load, - consumption 44% greater for fully loaded trucks (GVW >3,5t) compared to empty. We can thus write:
Evpc = a * Evv (where a is the coefficient = 1 for light utility vehicles and 1,44 for vehicles > 3,5 t GVW).
The formula given above for calculating Ev

Shows how to calculate Evv if the other values are known:

118
November 2000 - See all the information on the Internet : http:// vergina.eng.auth.gr/mech/lat/copert/copert.htm
94 / 249
Evv = Ev [1 + (a - 1) * (1 - Tdv) * Trm]
On the right-hand side of this equation - a is known - there remain Tdv and Tr m, which are published annually, with the following values:
GVW < 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 3,5 t 3,51t to 5 t 5,1 to 6 t 6,1 to 10,9 t 11 to 19 t 19,1 to 21 t 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractortrailers) % empty trips 119 (Tdv) 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 20,0% 19,0% 17,8% 15,0% 29,9% 21,1% Maximum useful load 0,40 0,40 0,70 0,70 1,20 1,20 1,40 2,37 2,84 4,69 9,79 11,62 16,66 25,00 Average tonnage per Average load factor121 120 vehicle (Tm) 0,12 30% 0,12 30% 0,21 30% 0,21 30% 0,36 30% 0,36 30% 0,42 30% 0,71 30% 0,85 30% 1,65 35% 4,24 43% 4,93 42% 8,27 50% 57% 14,31
Table 79: Characteristics of goods transport by GVW class The average load factor, Tr m in the last column above, is calculated by dividing average load transported (Tm) by maximum useful load (CU).
Tr m = Tm CU
For vehicles under 3,5 tons GVW, the average load factor has been set at 30% of maximum useful load, in the absence of any published data. Since we have no formula for adjusting consumption to the load transported, this makes no difference for emissions per vehicle.km (but will have an effect on average emissions per ton.km). In summary, here are the characteristic data for these vehicles.
GVW < 1,5 t gasoline < 1,5 t diesel 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 1,5 to 2,5 t diesel Emissions kg C eq/vehicle km Travel w/o load (Evv) Fully loaded (Evpc) 0,062 0,062 0,059 0,059 0,070 0,070 0,068 0,068 0,123 0,123 Maximum useful load (CU) 0,40 0,40 0,70 0,70 1,20
119 120
Source : Utilisation des vhicules de TRM, anne 2001 (transport pour compte d'autrui), French Transport Ministry, DAEI-SES. Based on the SITRAM-TRM database of 2000 (combining wholly owned accounts and others). 121 This corresponds to average vehicle tonnage (Tm) divided by maximum payload (CU).
95 / 249
2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 3,5 t 3,51 to 5 t 5,1 to 6 t 6,1 to 10,9 t 11 to 19 t 19,1 to 21 t 21,1 - 32,6 tons Articulated (tractor-trailers)
0,088 0,101 0,136 0,107 0,158 0,208 0,240 0,302 0,252
0,088 0,101 0,196 0,154 0,228 0,300 0,346 0,435 0,363
1,20 1,40 2,37 2,84 4,69 9,79 11,62 16,66 25,00
Table 80: Emission factors for goods transport, empty and fully loaded vehicles With this data the emission factor applicable to a given trip can be found when the following are known: - % empty trips - average load factor (Tr m) If the reporting company knows these two figures, they can be inserted in the formula given above.
For companies that do not have these figures, the values given in table 68 should be used.
4.2.3.3 Reintegrating manufacturing emissions

The above line of reasoning considers only emissions linked to fuel use. "Complete" emissions per vehicle.km are obtained using the following formula.
Ev = Efab + Evv + (Evpc - Evv) * (1 - Tdv) * Tr m
Efab designates manufacturing emissions per km, according to the calculations given in 4.2.2. The spreadsheet uses the complete formula, with the result that the applicable emission factor is automatically adjusted in keeping with available information, i.e. percentage of distance travelled when empty and load factors.
4.2.4 Emission factors per ton.km taking into account vehicle load and empty trips
The emission factors outlined in this section pertain to transport of merchandise by outside service companies, whether shipments contracted with shipping companies, or deliveries by suppliers. In the transport company this is called contract shipping: the truck is used to carry goods of another company, and not merchandise of the company that owns the truck.
In these circumstances the information readily available to the reporting entity is the weight of goods shipped, and distances, based on point of departure and point of arrival. ADEME commissioned a specific study to develop a simple solution using this information to determine emissions, in the form of a freight-route-t.km utility122 furnished as a complement to the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet. This utility calculates the breakdown of ton.km by vehicle type for all merchandise transported.
4.2.4.1 Typology of goods transport

The information that companies will find most easily is total ton.km for its shipments, by destination. This figure is obtained simply by multiplying the weight of shipments by the distance travelled. Tonnage shipped per destination is generally already known or easy to ascertain, as is the distance involved for each destination (if the distance is not known it can be found easily using the tools cited for each mode of transport, notably the Infotrafic website mentioned in 4.2.6 below). One initial element is a good place to start; the shipping and trucking industries are fairly standardized, and it is possible to establish relationships linking variables (these links are applicable for all of Europe): - the type(s) of vehicles used and the unit weight of a shipment - average load coefficients, vehicle type and the goods shipper. Different transport solutions are available, and the solution chosen depends primarily on the unit weight of the shipment.
4.2.4.2 Determining emissions per ton.km in Bilan Carbone

In section 4.2.3 emission factors per vehicle.km are established. This information can be used to derive emission factors per ton.km. To do se we use the following equation, valid if the truck transports only the reporting company's merchandise:
vehicle.km = (ton.km) (average shipment weight)
For example, 1 000 ton.km transported by a truck with an average load weight of 4 tons per trip, means the truck has travelled 250 km. More generally, if the truck is loaded with merchandise from different senders, the following equation is used:
vehicle.km = [(ton.km) (average shipment weight)] * (percentage of total load occupied by the company's merchandise)
122
All information on using this utility can be found in the Utility Manual of the Bilan_Carbone.xls spreadsheet.
97 / 249
Average shipment weight can be expressed as follows:

Average load = maximum load of fully loaded truck * average load factor
The spreadsheet incorporates vehicle.kilometres as follows:
formula
for
converting
ton.kilometres
to
(i) kg C eq per ton.km = kg C eq per vehicle.km (maximum useful load weight * average load factor for the entire itinerary)
But
Average load factor for the entire itinerary = (transported load * distance travelled with load) (maximum load * total distance)
i.e.
Average load factor for the entire itinerary = transported load * (distance travelled with load total distance) maximum load
Or, using the symbols from 4.2.3 above:

(ii) Average load factor for the entire itinerary = Tr m * (1 - Tdv)
Combining the equations (i) and (ii) above we obtain

kg C eq per ton.km = Ev (CU * Tr m * (1 - Tdv))
Finally we obtain the equation

Et = [Ev (1 - Tdv)] (CU * Tr m Et = [Ev (1 - Tdv)] Tm
where Et represents emissions per ton.km, that can also be expressed in terms of emissions per vehicle.km, the percentage of itinerary travelled when empty, and the average load transported when loaded. In order to implement the above approach it is necessary to know the average load factors for the trucks used. Either the reporting company has access to this information, or national average rates as indicated in 4.2.3.2 can be used by default. For national averages, emission factors per ton.km are the following:
GVW class g C eq per ton.km < 1,5 t gasoline 740,4 < 1,5 t diesel 680,8 1,5 to 2,5 t gasoline 483,4
98 / 249
1,5 to 2,5 t diesel 2,51 to 3,5 t gasoline 2,51 to 3,5 t diesel 3,5 t 3,51 to 5 t 5 to 6 t 6,1 to 10,9 t 11 to 19 t 19,1 to 21 t Over 21 tons Articulated (tractortrailers)
456,1 472,8 340,7 331,7 285,4 194,2 145,1 74,9 71,4 64,1 29,4
Table 81: National average emission factors for goods transport by GVW class
4.2.5 Uncertainties in the methods described in 4.2.3 and 4.2.4

A number of national averages are considered in order to achieve the desired results: - fuel consumption and emissions by type of vehicle, - distribution of vehicle types or ton.km across the vehicle fleet, - etc. It is also important to remember that - some national figures (for light utility vehicles) make no distinction between incompany transport and contract or commercial transport; in-company transport is on average less efficient. - Outside of full load shipments, it is not possible to determine exactly the composition of each vehicle load, which includes merchandise from companies other than the reporting company. - the data to be supplied by the reporting company are usually readily available for the downstream side (shipment of merchandise), or more generally when the company is the initiator, but often less accessible when the company is not the ordering customer (transport of goods by suppliers for example). In light of all these factors, the uncertainty linked to use of these formulas is estimated at 20%.
4.2.6 Accurate calculation of road distances

To accurately determine ton.km and vehicle.km for shipments it can be useful to have exact figures for road distances. Various websites, among them www.infotrafic.com, www.mappy.fr and http://www.viamichelin.fr/, give exact distances between a departure location (municipality or township) and any destination in Europe.
4.2.7 Tons.km per capita and region

It may be useful, within the "Territory" Bilan CarboneTM, to obtain the tonnes.km shipped or received per inhabitant, and per region.
4.2.7.1 Tons.km shipped per capita and region

Statistics from the Ministre de lEquipement (Source: MTETM/SESP, TRM Survey, 2004) provide millions of tonnes.km loaded and unloaded per region and level of GVW. From these data, simply divide the population of the region to achieve the following values (the data are separated into two tables simply for reason of space):
t.km shipped by road, per capita and by region de 5 t 6 t de 6,1 t 10,9 t de 11 t 19 t de 19,1 t 21 t 21,1 32,6 t Tractor-trailers Alsace 0 12 330 0 200 3 450 Aquitaine 1 21 360 11 161 3 255 Auvergne 0 35 291 62 242 2 302 BasseNormandie 0 14 251 11 164 2 847 Bourgogne 0 17 375 32 161 3 227 Bretagne 0 16 289 21 255 3 347 Centre 0 10 355 4 201 3 202 ChampagneArdenne 0 13 264 17 209 4 301 Corse 0 7 75 0 199 499 FrancheComt 0 18 291 9 203 2 760 HauteNormandie 0 11 325 10 119 4 630 Ile-de-France 0 16 172 4 61 1 231
.km shipped by road, per capita and by region 5 t to 6 t 6,1 t to 10,9 t 11 t to 19 t 19,1 t to 21 t 21,1 to 32,6 t Tractor-trailers
LanguedocRoussillon 0 23 193 7 118 2 400
Limousin 0 43 324 13 205 2 355
Lorraine 0 25 289 5 181 3 289
MidiPyrnes 0 16 285 30 187 2 223
Nord-Pas-deCalais 0 8 228 2 137 2 968
Pays de la Loire 0 19 324 17 274 3 549
Picardie 0 19 255 9 186 3 643
PoitouCharentes 0 29 454 29 225 3 857
ProvenceAlpesCted'Azur 0 9 243 14 94 2 219
RhneAlpes 0 22 308 17 193 2 808
Moyenne nationale 0 17 272 13 158 2 711
Table 82 : t.km shipped by road, per capita, per year and by region The same statistics from the Ministre de lEquipement, with the same division by population in the region can achieve the following values (the data are separated into two tables simply for reason of space):
t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region 5 t to 6 t 6,1 t to 10,9 t 11 t to 19 t 19,1 t to 21 t 21,1 to 32,6 t Tractor-trailers BasseNormandie 0 9 269 8 162 2 917 ChampagneArdenne 0 14 253 6 194 3 875 FrancheComt 0 18 302 9 233 2 822 HauteNormandie 0 12 306 9 150 3 811 Ile-deFrance 0 16 181 7 70 1 421
Alsace 0 17 343 2 195 3 048
Aquitaine 1 15 388 16 184 3 247
Auvergne 0 40 305 39 247 2 490
Bourgogne 0 22 370 32 169 3 425
Bretagne 0 14 305 24 237 3 568
Centre 0 8 317 7 206 3 202
Corse 0 7 85 0 202 395
t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region 5 t to 6 t 6,1 t to 10,9 t 11 t to 19 t 19,1 t to 21 t 21,1 to 32,6 t Tractor-trailers
LanguedocRoussillon 0 23 255 7 125 2 066
Limousin 0 45 318 12 178 3 093
Lorraine 0 21 271 3 149 2 989
MidiPyrnes 0 21 314 24 184 2 461
Nord-Pas-deCalais 0 9 184 5 135 5 751
Pays de la Loire 0 24 354 22 286 3 553
Picardie 0 19 262 3 139 3 274
PoitouCharentes 0 22 326 25 242 3 428
Provence-AlpesCte-d'Azur 0 9 248 12 96 2 269
RhneAlpes 0 18 296 18 176 2 747
total 0 17 272 13 158 2 711
Table 83 : t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region
4.3 Air transport

As with road haulage, air freight transport uses fossil fuel, and contributes to GHG emissions123. Below we give emission factors by type of itinerary and by ticket class for passenger transport. The data used are from the Airbus124 and Boeing websites accessed in October 2002 (see appendix 9).
4.3.1 Fuel consumption per passenger.km

The table below gives pertinent information for commercial aircraft in service: - flight range (maximum range carrying only passengers) - the number of seats in each ticket class. . The airliner configurations are the standard configurations outlined by manufacturers in their documentation.
Aircraft Maximum fuel (litres) Seats Action Seats Seats 125 range (km) (econo (business (1st class) class) my class) 7 408 240 26 9 630 212 28 5 278 99 8 6 852 116 8 5 649 138 12 5 371 169 16 12 316 263 30 12 316 10 371 10 371 205 305 241 270 14 816 13 520 13 520 13 520 213 305 241 329 36 30 42 30 36 30 42 30 12 12 12 12 Total seats Equivalent (economy126 class) 298 247 117 134 164 199 333 331 375 381 340 339 375 381 399
A300 A310 A318 A319 A320 A321 A330-200 (2 classes) A330-200 (3 classes) A330-300 (2 classes) A330-300 (3 classes) A340-200 (2 classes) A340-200 (3 classes) A340-300 (2 classes) A340-300 (3 classes) A340-500 (2
123
62 000 75 470 23 860 29 660 29 660 29 660 139 090 139 090 97 530 97 530 155 040 155 040 141 500 141 500 214 810
266 240 107 124 150 185 293 253 335 295 300 261 335 295 359
Emissions from planes taking off from French airports, over the whole of their itineraries, amounted to 50% of emissions from passenger cars in France in 2001. 124 www.airbus.com 125 The operational range is the maximum distance the aircraft can travel carrying the maximum passenger load, without cargo. 126 This is the total number of economy-class seats that the aircraft could hold; the actual number of seats is lower, because business-class and first-class seats take up more space than economy-class seats.
101 / 249
classes) A340-500 (3 classes) A340-600 (2 classes) A340-600 (3 classes) A380 747-400 B777 1 class only
214 810 194 880 194 880 310 000 216 840 171 160
13 520 13 890 13 890 14 816 13 446 11 019
259 383 314 439 550
42 36 54 96
12
313 419
399 467 482 733 416 550
12 20
380 555 416 550
Table 84: Baseline characteristics for the main types of aircraft We make the following assumptions in our calculations: - the average rate of aircraft occupancy is 75%, for all classes, - in economy-class, each seat is assigned an emissions figure equal to the emissions of the entire aircraft divided by the number of "equivalent economyclass seats" it could theoretically hold, - for business-class seats, a supplement of 88% to 133% compared to economy class is assigned, depending on the aircraft (based on the ratio of seats in each class, as given on airline websites), - for first-class seats, a supplement of 250% compared to economy-class seat emissions is assigned (same basis). Aircraft emit CO2 of course, which is easily accounted for using the fuel emission factors calculated in 2.2.3, but they also emit other greenhouse gases: eg water vapour127, condensed water in various forms, NOx and methane that together produce ozone, etc., (see the graph below, obtained from an IPCC document128).
127 Water vapour is taken into account here because it is in part emitted in the stratosphere, which is not the case for water vapour from the use of fossil fuels on the ground. 128 Aviation and Global Atmosphere, Summary for Policymakers / International Panel on Climate Change / 1999.
102 / 249
Figure 4: Radiative forcing by aircraft in 1992 The last line of this graph specifies the degree of understanding of the physical and chemical processes involved (which has a direct impact on the size of the error band, represented by the line segment set on top of the bars). It is easy to see that the "minor" gases and water vapour lead to a total radiative forcing on the order of 0,04 W/m, while CO2 alone produces only 0,02 W/m, that is half as much radiative forcing. Total forcing can vary between 0,02 and 0,1 W/m, however, meaning that the following results may be either excessive, or on the contrary well below actual emissions. For each type of aircraft, emissions for an economy-class passenger are calculated using the formula
Emissions per economy-class passenger = 2 * total fuel * kerosene emission factor (total number of "equivalent economy-class" seats * total distance travelled * average rate of occupancy)
For business-class and first-class passengers we apply the coefficients given above. The results for emissions per passenger.km are as follows (taking into account upstream emissions for kerosene).
103 / 249
Aircraft A300 A310 A318 A319 A320 A321 A330-200 A330-300 A340-200 A340-300 A340-500 A340-600 A380 747-400 B777
129
g C eq per g C eq per g C eq per Range with all seats passenger.km Average per passenger.km in passenger.km occupied (km) in business seat economy class in first class class 7 408 58 130 65 9 630 66 82 68 5 278 80 180 88 6 852 67 151 72 5 649 66 144 73 5 371 58 108 62 12 316 71 165 247 93 10 371 52 121 182 58 14 816 64 149 224 83 13 520 57 133 199 74 13 520 83 193 289 105 13 890 60 141 211 77 14 816 59 138 207 78 13 446 Information on disposition of seats by class is not 80 available 11 019 59 59
Long-range aircraft
129
Short-range aircraft
Table 85: Emission factors per passenger.km for passenger air travel In this table it can be observed that the range of values around the value of 60 g C eq per economy-class passenger.km is on the order of 40%. For the two most commonly used long-range aircraft (B 747 and A 340-600) the two values are very close, on the order of 60 g C eq per economy-class passenger.km. It should also be noted that the difference by ticket class is highly significant in all cases. For short-range aircraft, it should be remembered that: - as a general rule these aircraft are used for only a fraction of their maximum range (a flight from Paris to Nice, for example), and it therefore induces more important expenditures in fuel use per passenger.km, because take-off and landing consume proportionally more fuel. - aircraft generally carry some freight when they are not flying to a city located at the outer limit of their operational range with only passengers on board, - In this calculation we have not taken into account emissions linked to manufacture of aircraft, airport activity, maintenance and upkeep etc. These other factors would probably add a few grams of carbon equivalent per passenger.km, notably for short-distance trips that use proportionally more airport services per km travelled. Considering emissions calculated for the maximum operating range and these remarks, the emission factors retained for the spreadsheet are the following: - 80 g C eq per passenger.km for an economy-class passenger on a shortdistance trip,
One class of seats only.
104 / 249
- 180 g C eq per passenger.km for a business-class passenger on a shortdistance trip, - 60 g C eq per passenger.km for an economy-class passenger on a longdistance trip, - 140 g C eq per passenger.km for a business-class passenger on a longdistance trip, - 210 g C eq per passenger.km for a first-class passenger on a long-distance trip. The margin of error is estimated at 20%. This uncertainty is probably highest on "intermediate" flight ranges (between 1 500 and 3 000 km). The only way to reduce this uncertainty figure would be to obtain statements from airlines giving fuel consumption and distance travelled for each flight reported.
4.3.2 Fuel consumption per ton.km for freight

Some of the aircraft listed above exist in cargo or mixed passenger/cargo configurations. Using the conversion tables supplied by Airbus, giving aircraft range by tonnage aboard, we have derived the following table.
Aircraft A318 A318 A319 A319 A320 A320 A300F A300F A310 A330-200 A330-200 A340-600 A340-600 A380 747-400 Maximum fuel (litres) 23 860 23 860 29 660 29 660 29 660 29 660 68 150 68 150 75 470 139 090 139 090 194 880 194 880 310 000 216 840 Cargo (tons) 16 10 18,5 11 20 15 52 43 32,9 104 68 147,4 80 150 113 Range (km) for load on-board 2 778 5 186 4 593 6 852 2 675 4 116 5 062 6 297 6 482 8 149 11 112 10 371 13 890 10 408 13 446 kg C eq 130 per ton.km 0,835 0,716 0,544 0,612 0,863 0,748 0,403 0,392 0,551 0,255 0,286 0,198 0,273 0,309 0,222
Table 86: Theoretical emission factors per ton.km for air freight The above table applies to fully loaded aircraft, and assumes that the maximum operational range for the load on-board is in fact attained. If an additional 20% are added to the results, to account for distances that are generally shorter than the maximum operating range, aircraft that are not entirely full,
These figures take into account upstream emissions for kerosene as mentioned in 2.1.1 and the factor of 2 linked to reporting of cases other than CO2.
130
105 / 249
particularly in the case of cargo transported in planes also carrying passengers, etc., we come up with new values, which will serve as reference values.
Category Aircraft A318 A318 A319 A319 A320 A320 A300F A300F A310 A330-200 A330-200 A340-600 A340-600 A380 747-400 Maximum fuel (litres) 23 860 23 860 29 660 29 660 29 660 29 660 68 150 68 150 75 470 139 090 139 090 194 880 194 880 310 000 216 840 Range (km) for load on board 2 778 5 186 4 593 6 852 2 675 4 116 5 062 6 297 6 482 8 149 11 112 10 371 13 890 10 408 13 446 Cargo (tons) kg C eq per 131 ton.km 16 1,044 10 0,895 18,5 0,680 11 0,765 20 1,078 15 0,934 52 0,504 43 0,490 33 0,689 104 0,319 68 0,358 147 0,248 80 0,341 150 0,386 113 0,278
Long-range
An average value can be retained for each category, from which the other values diverge by no more than 20%. For short distances, i.e. flights of under 1 000 km, this value is 0,9 kg C eq per ton.km.
Average value retained for short-range flights: Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km A318 1,044 A319 0,765 A320 - occupancy rate 1 1,078 A320 - occupancy rate 2 0,748 0,900 Kg C eq/t.km Deviation from mean 14% -18% 17% -20%
Medium range
Short-range
Table 87: "Real emission factors per ton.km for air freight
Table 88: Emission factors for short-range air freight For medium distances, i.e. flights of between 1 000 and 4 000 km, this value is 0,57 kg C eq per ton.km.
Average value retained for medium-range flights: Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km A300F- occupancy rate 1 0,504 A300F- occupancy rate 2 0,490 A310 0,689 0,570 Kg C eq/t.km Deviation from mean -13% -16% 17%
Table 89: Emission factors for medium-range air freight
131
These figures take into account upstream emissions for kerosene, as mentioned in 2.2.3.
106 / 249
For long distances, i.e. flights of over 4 000 km, this value is 0,32 kg C eq per ton.km.
Average value retained for long-range flights: Aircraft kg C eq per ton.km A330-200 0,358 A340-600 0,341 A340-600 0,273 A380 0,386 747-400 0,278 0,320 Kg C eq/t.km Deviation from mean 11% 6% -17% 17% -15%
Table 90: Emission factors for long-range air freight The margin of error for all these coefficients is set at 20%. The conventional aspect of multiplying CO2 emissions by 2 to obtain emissions for other greenhouse gases makes it legitimate to use conventional coefficients here as well.
4.3.3 Determining distances travelled per trip 4.3.3.1 General case

When departure and arrival locations are known, the distance travelled between them can be obtained using the websites mentioned below. These sites calculate the shortest distance between two points on the globe (the shortest distance follows the arc of the circumference, also called orthrodromic arc), which is more or less the route followed by aircraft, that have no obstacles to avoid (fly-over bans are few in number). - www.amadeus.net lists airports serving a given city, - www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm gives distances between two cities, - http://www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/rel-calc.html gives distances between two airports (that can be located using Amadeus for departure and arrival airports).
4.3.3.2 Long distance mobility mileage

By default, in case of the absence of specific territory information, the distance travelled per person per year in aircraft will be deducted from the same information outlined in paragraph 4.1.2.4, which is reproduced below for aerial emissions:
Passengers travelling in millions*km per week for long distance 1472
Mode Plane
Km per person per year 1 352
Table 91 : Kilometres travelled per person and by plane in 1993

Moreover, available statistics show the following: - A stagnation in domestic traffic between 1994 and 2004 (source: Transportation Accounting, 2004), - An increase of 80 to 90% of passengers transported (not passenger-km) between 1995 and 2005 by international flights from the metropole. Finally, 80 million passengers have used a French airport in 2005, primarily estimated as 40 million in each direction, with: - 50 million passengers on European flights, - 10 million passengers for America, - 13 million passengers for Africa, mainly the North, - 7 million passengers for Asia (including the Middle East). On the basis of approximate distances, it is possible to draw the table below.
Passengers in millions Asia Europe Africa America Total 7 50 13 10 80 Average distance 5 000 500 3 000 6 500 Total distance in million kms 35 000 25 000 39 000 65 000 164 000
2 050
Table 92 : Average distance travelled per passenger per plane The average distance per passenger is therefore approximately 2000 km. Furthermore, if we presume that 50% of the passengers were French, then it shows an average travelling distance by the French - for long distance flights - of 40/60 * 2000 = 1360 km. As a first approach, we will therefore conserve the 1352 km transport from the survey.
4.3.4 Adding accuracy

Unlike road transport where actual consumption deviates relatively little from average values, for air transport actual consumption figures show significant deviation from average values, depending on the aircraft and distances travelled. The reasons for this are structural: the range of aircraft types is much broader than for trucks; distance has a very strong impact on mean figures, because take-off and landing consume significant amounts of fuel, regardless of the distance travelled; etc.
The only way to achieve more accurate estimates of emissions per flight is to obtain information from the operator.
4.4 Rail transport 4.4.1 General information

GHG emissions linked to rail transport are due to: - manufacture of infrastructure (in part production of rail track, but also civil engineering works that are required) - manufacture of rolling stock, - traction energy employed by trains: this may be diesel fuel, which emits direct emissions when combusted, or electricity, which emits more or less GHG depending on the primary energy132 source used for power generation (see 2.4). The emission factors given below do not account for emissions linked to manufacture of rolling stock and to infrastructure, unless specified otherwise. This decision is logical, without much debate, as far as infrastructure (generally built some time ago, excepting high-speed rail installations) is concerned. It is more debatable for rolling stock that must be built and maintained.
4.4.2 Passenger travel 4.4.2.1 Passengers travelling by train in France

Our data was obtained from the Strategy Division of the French National Railways (SNCF), which used its in-house statistics to evaluate the energy efficiency of the company's passenger trains (Train Rapide National-TRN, Train Grande VitesseTGV, Train Express Rgional-TER) and traction modes (diesel and electric). We combine the energy efficiencies calculated by SNCF (koe133/passenger.kilometre) with diesel (see 2.2.3) and electricity (see 2.4.5) emission factors, to obtain emission factors for each mode. The results are as follows:
VOYAGEURS total voyageurs TGV - Train Grande Vitesse TRN - Train Rapide National TER - Train Express Rgional Train Ile-de-France missions moyennes (kg eqC/voyageur.km) lectricit diesel 0.0009 0.0252 0.0007 0.0008 0.0246 0.0014 0.0259 0.0013 0.0181 global 0.0026 0.0007 0.0035 0.0102 0.0015
132 133
Primary energy is the energy used in an electricity generating plant. koe: Kilogram oil equivalent
109 / 249
Table 93: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel in France One passenger.km in France corresponds to 2,6 g C eq on average (not including emissions for train manufacture). The large difference between the emission factors for TGV and TER trains is due to the high proportion of diesel engines used for regional trains, and to the energy resource used for the electricity that powers the high-speed TGV trains. These data also take average occupancy rate into account. These figures are slightly different from those published by ADEME in December 2002134 (2,8 g C eq per passenger.km, on average). This difference stems from the breakdown and analysis of the SNCF data for the purpose of highlighting emissions to be attributed to urban travel and intercity passenger travel.
4.4.2.2 Passengers travelling by train in Europe

The study of external effects carried out by the Union Internationale des Chemins de fer (UIC), commonly known as the "INFRAS IWW study", was updated in October 2004135, taking 2000 as its reference year. Emission factors for passenger rail travel in different European countries can be derived from this study.
Country Germany Austria Belgium Denmark Spain Finland Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Norway Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom Sweden Switzerland European average (EU 17)
g C eq per passenger.km 18,2 6,4 13,2 31,1 14,0 12,3 18,1 10,6 8,7 10,8 10,9 20,8 16,8 20,4 3,5 1,0 12.0
Table 94: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel abroad
134 135
ADEME, Explicit, 2002, Evaluations des efficacits nergtiques et environnementales des transports en 2000. UIC, INFRAS IWW, July 2004, External costs of transport.
110 / 249
4.4.2.3 Long distance mobility mileage

The distance travelled per person per year by train is being deducted from the same information as outlined in paragraph 4.1.2.4, which is reproduced below for railway emissions:
Travelling in millions of passenger*km per week by principal mode trains (including RET) TGV total Long distance 1993 366 281 647
Table 95 : Long distance travelling in millions of passengers*km per week and by rail From this table it is possible to calculate distances averaged per person as follows:
Km per person per year, averagge trains (including RET) TGV total Long distance 1993 336 258 594
Table 96 : Average long distance travelled per person per year and by rail Finally, the total number of passengers.km increased with 25% between 1994 and 2004136 while, at the same time, the French population increased with 5%. However, some of these kilometres are travelled by foreign visitors (who do not contribute to the average distance travelled by a French resident) keep in mind to, in first approximation, increase the mileage travelled with 15% or 683 km per person per year on average.
4.4.3 Freight 4.4.3.1 Rail freight in France

The source for these figures is the same as in 4.4.2.1. One ton.km in France corresponds to 2,0 g carbon equivalent. This figures takes into account the way in which electricity is produced in the country, average load factor for trains, and the proportion of diesel-powered locomotives in the train system.
FREIGHT Total for freight Entire train Average emissions (kg C eq/ton.km) Electricity Diesel fuel 0,0005 0,015 0,0004 Overall 0,0020 0,0020
136
111 / 249
Combined route/rail transport Remaining freight
0,0005 0,0008
0,012 0,022
0,0007 0,0034
Table 97: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight in France
4.4.3.2 Rail freight in Europe

The same INFRAS report as above (4.4.2.5) is the source for the following figures.
Germany Austria Belgium Denmark Spain Finland Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Norway Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom Sweden Switzerland European average (EU-17) kg C eq/ton.km 0,0087 0.0034 0.0051 0.0103 0.0094 0.0055 0.0121 0.0159 0.0079 0.0069 0.0022 0.0083 0.0121 0.0112 0.0012 0.0010 0.0062
Table 98: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight abroad (UIC INFRAS IWW, 2004)
4.4.4 Accurate calculation of rail distances

In the absence of a statement from the railway company (that has these figures), the exact distances between the departure and arrival stations are not known. These distances can be approximated, however, using the website for road distances (4.2.6), insofar as railway lines are often near roadways, as both are generally built in valleys. With this website an international itinerary (for freight, or even simply for passenger travel in the Paris-Brussels TGV) can be broken down into distances travelled in separate countries (by calculating distances from point of departure to the border crossing, and from the border crossing to the next border, and so on to the destination). This breakdown is necessary because emissions per unit of distance vary widely from one country to the next.
4.5 Sea and waterway freight

Emissions related to sea and waterway transport are due to:
- manufacture of ships, and their upkeep, - propulsion energy, which is always a fossil fuel (generally heavy fuel oil).
4.5.1 Emissions linked to ship manufacture

Data for empty weight is available for certain ships:
Type of ship Small roll-on/roll-off Large roll-on/roll-off Small tanker Large tanker Small bulk cargo carrier Large bulk cargo carrier Empty weight (tons) 1.268 4.478 844 18.371 1.720 14.201
Table 99: Empty weight for the main ship types A large bulk cargo carrier, for instance, weighs 14 000 tons, empty. To the extent that this kind of ship is made mostly of steel, manufacturing emissions can be roughly estimated to be the same as for steel (800 kg C eq/ton, without accounting for recycling, if any). If the ship operates 300 days a year, for 20 years (in fact, ships are often in operation for 30 years), manufacturing emissions, per day, are on the order of 2 tons carbon equivalent, compared to over 50 tons carbon equivalent for fuel emissions (see below). Manufacturing emissions are thus just "a drop in the ocean" compared to operating emissions, and in any event are lower than the margin of error tied to the load factor and above all to ship speed, which is the preponderant factor for overall fuel consumption in operation. Therefore we do not take manufacturing emissions into account here.
4.5.2 Specific emissions linked to fuel consumption

The shipowners' association Armateurs de France has furnished a breakdown of commercial shipping vessels by type of ship. There are five major categories: - oil tankers and similar vessels (for transport of chemicals, natural gas) that represent nearly half the world fleet of large ships, in tonnage. They are used only by one specific category of shipper (oil companies), and therefore we have not attempted to calculate emission factors for these ships. This category is not listed in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet. - container ships
- conventional cargo ships (freighters) - roll-on/roll-off vessels, i.e. ships that transport goods "on wheels": truck trailers, automobiles, military vehicles etc. are loaded directly on-board. - ferry boats, for passenger traffic only, or mixed (roll-on/roll-off).
4.5.2.1 Container ships

Container ships are ships that transport merchandise already packed in containers, i.e. regularly shaped (parallelepiped) metal containers that are extremely simple to load and unload. These ships are used primarily to transport manufactured goods (home appliances, electronics, processed foodstuffs, etc.). Only very large items (automobiles, for instance) are not transported by this type of ship. The transport capacity of container ships is measured in "twenty-foot equivalent units" or TEU. The payload capacity, in number of containers, is measured by the unit volume of containers; the standard container is 20 feet long (6 meters) by 2,44 m wide by 2,50 m high. The TEU is a measure of volume, equal to 6 m * 2,44 m * 2,50 m = 36,6 m3. Fuel consumption for merchant ships is generally not specified in relation to distance travelled, but for the number of days at sea; indeed this number is variable for the same itinerary, depending on weather conditions. Each ship thus has two daily energy consumption figures: - energy for propulsion engines, used only when the ship is at sea, - energy for other uses (electricity and heating onboard, etc.) that is consumed both at sea and in port. For container ships Armateurs de France gives the data presented in the following table.
Capacity in TEU 500 1 000 1 500 2 500 3 500 5 000 Capacity in m
3
18 300 36 600 54 900 91 500 128 100 183 000
Commercial Heavy fuel oil speed (knots) consumption at sea (tons/day) 16 20 17,5 30 20 50 20,5 70 22,5 110 22,5 150
Diesel fuel consumption (tons/day 1,5 1,5 2 2 2 3
Emissions per day at sea tons C eq 21,5 31,5 52 72 112 153
Table 100: Emission factors for container ships
114 / 249
It can be observed that daily emissions for a container ship at sea are highly correlated to payload capacity, as shown by the linear regression below, carried out with the data we were given.
160
140
120
100
y = 0,0288x + 4,1706 R 2 = 0,9938
80
60
40
20
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
evp
Figure 5: Correlation between daily emissions for a container ship at sea and its payload capacity In the case of container ships of intermediate capacity, we determine daily emissions at sea using the following formula: Emissions per day at sea in tons C eq = 0,0288*TEU+ 4,1706 An important point is that these daily emissions are relatively independent of the weight of the cargo being transported. If the ship is empty or only partly loaded, the seawater ballast chambers will be filled, to increase the ship's stability. As a result the drag (the friction of seawater against the hull) which increases with the submerged surface area, will be more or less identical whatever the weight of the freight on board. In the first approximation, drag is the prime factor governing the ship's fuel consumption. Furthermore, according to Armateurs de France the proportion of ships travelling empty or lightly loaded is very small. In this way, daily consumption without regard for cargo weight in the first approximation can be converted to consumption per km with knowledge of the ship's commercial speed (relatively standard), and then to consumption hence emissions per m3.km, as the volume of containers on board is always equal to maximum volume (in the first-order approximation). To calculate emissions per ton.km from emissions per m3.km, the cargo tonnage must be converted to volume, which means knowing mass per unit volume for the
merchandise being shipped. This comes down to knowing the weight of the merchandise that can be loaded into a container. This can usually be ascertained using data available to the sender. If the merchandise is shipped on pallets, whose weight and dimensions are known, a quick calculation will give the amount of the goods, and hence the weight, that can be loaded into a container. Unit emissions are then obtained using the formula:
Emissions per ton.km = Daily emissions [(ship speed in km/h*24) * volume * weight per unit volume]
These emission factors are included in the spreadsheet; the data to be entered for the carbon balance are: - capacity of the ship used (in TEU), - mass per unit volume for the freight shipped, correlated to a full container (this mass per unit volume may be less than one pallet, if the dimensions of the container and the pallets do not allow for a completely filled container). The uncertainty range for these emissions per ton.km is estimated to be about 20%.
4.5.2.2 Bulk cargo carriers

Bulk cargo carriers transport freight in bulk such as minerals, grains or other raw materials that can be loaded directly into a ship's hold. As for container ships, readily available data are daily consumption, commercial speed and payload capacity. This data, supplied by the shipowners' association Armateurs de France, gives us the following table.
Ship model Years in service Deadweight (tons) Speed (knots) Tons of Tons of Daily fuel oil diesel itinerary consume fuel (km) d per day consume d per day 30 1,5 578 29 1,5 578 21 1,5 578 30 1,5 667 22,5 1,5 667 50 2 667 36 2 667 32 2 667 65 2 667 50 2 667 47,5 2 667 Consumption emissions per per ton.km (g) ton.km (kg C eq)
Handysize
Handymax Panamax
Capesize
1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990
20 000 20 000 20 000 40 000 40 000 70 000 70 000 70 000 150 000 150 000 150 000
13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2,7 2,6 1,9 1,2 0,9 1,1 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,5 0,5
0,00264 0,00255 0,00188 0,00114 0,00087 0,00108 0,00079 0,00070 0,00065 0,00050 0,00048
116 / 249
Table 101: Emission factors for bulk cargo carriers More generally, emissions per ton.km for a loaded bulk carrier can be obtained from the speed, weight of cargo and daily fuel consumption figures, all of which are known to shipowners, using the formula
Emissions per ton.km = (Tons of fuel oil per day * emissions per ton of fuel oil) / (speed in knots * 1,852 * 24 * cargo in tons)
The uncertainty for these emissions per ton.km is estimated to be about 20% (in fact it will be lower if the above variables are accurately determined).
4.5.2.3 Cargo Carriers

Cargo carriers transport large-sized goods (cars, large machinery etc.). No standard data are available, so fuel consumption and deadweight must be obtained from the owners of the ships used.
4.5.3 Calculating sea routes

As for road and air travel distances, there is a website that gives distances for sea routes when the departure and arrival ports are known. www.dataloy.com. This site has a database covering over 4 000 commercial ports around the world, so that shipping distances between two ports can be calculated. These calculations naturally take into account navigation around continents, and all other constraints to which ships are subject.
4.6. River and waterway goods transport

River and waterway transport in France concerns five river basins and two types of motorized units (self-propelled boats, and towboats used to push barge trains). Various parameters influence energy consumption by the boats, in particular navigation characteristics in the river basin (flood and high water periods, wind, currents, etc.) and load factor. ADEME and Voies Navigables de France (VNF) have recently completed a full study of this subject137, with detailed CO2 emission factors by river basin and by type of boat, as well as consolidated emission factors (see tables below). These emission factors assume 31% empty trips and a load factor between 80% and 100%. They refer only to emissions for fuel consumption.
137
ADEME, VNF, T&L Associs, July 2005, Etude sur le niveau de consommation de carburant des units fluviales franaises.
117 / 249
The first table below gives consolidated indicators, i.e. averages by boat type for all river basins combined, and averages by river basin for all boat types combined.
Energy consumption per unit (g eq p/t.km Boats 14.0 13.8 12.3 11.5 9.5 8.6 7.8 6.8 River basin 9.5 9.3 13.6 11.5 12.0 12.1 10.8 Emission factors (g CO2/t.km) Emission factors (kg C eq/t.km)
Self-propelled
Towboats
< 400t 400 650 t 650 1000 t 1000 1500 t > 1500 t 295 590 kW 590 880 kW 295 590 kW
44.3 43.4 38.8 36.3 30.0 27.1 24.4 21.5 30.1 29.4 42.9 36.2 37.9 38.2 34.0
0.0121 0.0118 0.0106 0.0099 0.0099 0.0074 0.0067 0.0059 0.0082 0.0080 0.0117 0.0099 0.0103 0.0104 0.0093
Seine Rhne Nord Pas de Calais Rhine Moselle Interbassin TOTAL
Table 102: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport Consolidated data by boat type and by river basin (ADEME, VNF, T&L Associs, 2005) The inter-basin category in the above table designates the network of small canals that links the main waterways (essentially rivers - see below). This low-clearance network (< 400 tons) is situated principally in central and in north-eastern France, and today comprises over 60% of navigable waterways, in length.
118 / 249
Map 2: Map of navigable waterways and clearances in 2003 in France (VNF) Detailed data, taking both boat type and navigation basin into account, are presented in the table below:
Energy consumption per unit (g eq p/t.km 14.9 13.7 12.0 6.6 5.9 8.3 7.5 5.2 13.9 11.9 8.7 15.0 13.8 12.7 11.7 10.8 8.5 7.2 6.1 13.4 11.4 Emission factors (g CO2/t.km) 47.0 43.1 37.8 20.7 18.5 26.3 23.6 16.5 43.8 37.4 27.3 47.2 43.5 40.1 37.0 34.1 26.6 22.6 19.2 42.2 36.0 Emission factors (kg C eq/t.km) 0.0128 0.0118 0.0103 0.0056 0.0050 0.0072 0.0072 0.0045 0.0119 0.0102 0.0074 0.0129 0.0119 0.0109 0.0101 0.0093 0.0073 0.0062 0.0052 0.0115 0.0098
River basin
Boats < 400t 400 650 t 650 1000 t 1000 1500 t > 1500 t 295 590 kW 590 880 kW > 880 kW 1000 1500 t > 1500 t > 880 kW < 400t 400 650 t 650 1000 t 1000 1500 t > 1500 t 295 590 kW 590 880 kW > 880 kW 1000 1500 t > 1500 t
Self-propelled Seine
Towboat Self-propelled Rhine Towboat
Self-propelled Nord Pas de Calais Towboat Moselle
Self-propelled
119 / 249
Towboat
Self-propelled Rhne
> 880 kW < 400t 400 650 t 650 1000 t 1000 1500 t > 1500 t 295 590 kW 590 880 kW > 880 kW
8.4 16.9 14.8 12.8 7.1 6.7 9.6 8.9 5.9
26.3 53.2 46.6 40.5 22.4 21.0 30.2 27.9 18.7
0.0072 0.0145 0.0127 0.0110 0.0061 0.0057 0.0082 0.0076 0.0051S
Towboat
Table 103: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport Detailed data by navigation basin (ADEME, VNF, T&L Associs, 2005) We have assigned a 10% uncertainty factor to these emission factors, because the study used is based on detailed and actual consumption figures by boat and by basin.
120 / 249
5 - Accounting for inputs: purchased materials and services

5.0 Preliminary remarks on inputs
The greenhouse gases emitted in production of primary materials (glass, steel, other metals, plastic, etc.) come essentially from the fossil fuels used in industrial manufacturing processes (coal used to make steel, for instance). Emission factors for these materials have been obtained in one of two ways: - via life-cycle analyses published in the literature, which are cited, - or by direct calculation when data is available for energy expenditures broken down by energy source. These emissions factors are intended to be updated as progress is made in the industries involved, and as new knowledge is acquired (particularly sectoral carbon balances for various materials-producing industries). The emission factors are used in two cases: - accounting for inputs, - to derive approximations for other emission factors, as we have seen for amortisation of vehicles in the case of transport.
5.1 Steel and ferrous metals

Making steel causes GHG emissions primarily due to CO2 emissions from coal used to smelt iron ore, and emissions due to combustion of coke-oven gas. The Swiss Journal Cahiers de l'environnement138 gives atmospheric emissions inventories for the following GHG: CO2, N2O, CH4, and halocarbons (the latter are emitted in marginal amounts) for two grades of ferrous metals: - electrolytic chrome coated steel (ECCS) - tinplate.
Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), 1998, Cahiers de l'Environnement, N 250-I, Dchets, inventaires cologiques relatifs aux emballages, volume I.
138
121 / 249
These metals are produced mainly for packaging, and the inventories take the recycling rate into account. The values obtained for these two grades of ferrous metals are very similar. on average 870 kg carbon equivalent are emitted in producing one ton of new ECCS or new tinplate (i.e. produced entirely from iron ore). When the products are made entirely from scrap metal (reprocessed steel) emissions are 300 kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel produced. The following figures are also available: - the energy content of one ton of pig iron (CEREN, 1999): 0,25 toe, - the energy content of one ton of worked steel (CEREN, 1999): 0,5 to 1,5 toe - the energy content of one ton of raw steel (Enerdata): 0,4 toe, - the energy content of one ton of raw steel (Observatoire de l'Energie, Sessi): 0,52 toe, broken down as follows: - 289 kWh of electricity, - ,0,72 tons of mined coal and oven coke, - 138 kWh of natural gas, - 5,3 kg of heavy fuel oil, - 1,6 kg of home heating oil, which corresponds to emissions of 0,55 tons carbon equivalent, excluding transport and secondary transformation (new and reprocessed steel together). We also note that the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has published a report139 giving a value ranging between 790 kg and 970 kg carbon equivalent per ton for steel cans (without specifying the GHGs considered), a range which is consistent with the figures mentioned above. Based on these figures that are all of the same order of magnitude, we have adopted the reference values published by the Swiss journal, i.e. 870 kg C per ton of steel from virgin ore, and 300 kg C for a ton of steel made entirely from reprocessed steel (recycled or scrap metal). For one ton of steel that includes some reprocessed steel, assuming that the proportion of recycled/scrap metal is known (X%), we use the following formula: kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel = 300 * X% + 870 * (1-X%) It should be noted that with a reprocessed steel content of 50% (i.e. the raw materials for the steel produced includes 50% scrap metal and 50% iron ore) we obtain a value
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.
139
122 / 249
of 585 kg carbon equivalent per ton of steel. This value is very close to those derived from the OE data for French production, which does indeed include roughly 50% of scrap metal in the feedstock used (the rest being iron ore, of course). Given the good agreement between these values, and consistency with another publication cited in 5.3 below140, the uncertainty for this emission factor is set at 10%.
5.2 Aluminium
Production of aluminium is a source of GHG emissions, due to: - energy used (heat generated in the process, and electricity generated elsewhere) - release of perfluorocarbons (in particular CF4) during electrolysis of alumina (fluoridated additives are incorporated during this process). Figures for these emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons, especially CF4) are drawn from the same Swiss journal, Cahiers de l'Environnement, 250-I. These data take into account the reprocessed metal content (for aluminium can be produced from aluminium scrap) and a distribution of primary energy for power generation that roughly corresponds to a European average. These figures apply to aluminium ingots (before transformation into finished products). Data for sheet aluminium vary from those for bars by only a few percentage points (i.e. less than the variation due to electricity source). We use the following figures for all "raw" aluminium (sheets, ingots, bars). Emission factors range from 2,89 t C eq per ton of aluminium produced entirely from bauxite, to 0,67 t C eq per ton of aluminium made from 100% reprocessed aluminium. As demonstrated above, an interpolation can be carried out for aluminium made partly from reprocessed metal, with the following formula, where X% represents the proportion of reprocessed material (i.e. the amount of aluminium scrap in the raw materials, the remainder being smelted from bauxite):
kg carbon equivalent per ton of aluminium = 670 * X% + 2890 * (1-X%)
As aluminium production requires large amounts of electricity, and emission factors for electricity may vary by a factor of 10 from one country to another (see 2.4), actual emissions for production of one ton of aluminium can vary widely, depending on circumstances. For example, in Australia, where the reprocessed metal content is
140
CSIRO, August 2003, Sustainability Network, Update 30E.
123 / 249
22%, but electricity is generated using only coal, emissions are over 6 t C eq per ton of aluminium. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that oversees environmental issues141, specifies the following values for aluminium beverage cans made in the US: - 3,9 tons C eq per ton of aluminium if the latter is made entirely from ore, - 0,7 tons C eq per ton of aluminium if the latter is made entirely from recycled materials142. Knowing that average emission factors for electricity in the United States are 30% higher than the European average, a figure of approximately 3 tons C eq per ton of aluminium seems to be an acceptable value for aluminium made entirely from bauxite in Europe. In addition, we note that electricity is produced with few GHG emissions in Switzerland, as in France (Switzerland has practically only nuclear or hydroelectric power plants, see appendix 1). The Swiss journal therefore includes local production using electricity with an emission factor close to that of France. Accordingly we have retained the value used in the Swiss inventory: 2 890 kg C eq per ton of aluminium from ore only; 670 kg C eq per ton of aluminium from 100% recycled scrap. This value is valid for all aluminium produced in Europe, but not for that made in Asia. The above formula will give an intermediate value for aluminium that is made partly from reprocessed aluminium scrap.
5.3 Other metals

Few life-cycle analyses are readily available for other metals. The following average values for some common metals, including steel and aluminium, are taken from an Australian publication143. They are calculated on the basis of coal-fired electricity generation (corresponding to the situation in Australia).
www.epa.gov US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 143 CSIRO, August 2003, Sustainability Network, Update 30E.
142
141
124 / 249
Metal
kg carbon equivalent per kg of metal 0,63 6,11 0,90 1,69 0,57 0,87 1,25 0,90 3,11 4,39
Recycling rate taken into account (Australian rate for steel and aluminium, worldwide rate for the other metals) 36% 22% 40% 40% 47% 47% 36% 36% 34% 34%
Steel Aluminium Copper, process 1 Copper, process 2 Lead, process 1 Lead, process 2 Zinc, process 1 Zinc, process 2 Nickel, process 1 Nickel, process 2
Table 104: Emission factors for different metals produced in Australia (CSIRO, 2003) For France, CEREN publishes energy consumption figures by sector of activity (based on NAF standard codification)144, distinguishing between fossil fuels and electricity, and expressed per ton of metal produced or processed. Considering that each ton oil equivalent of fossil fuel used in industry engenders 0,76 tons carbon equivalent of GHG emissions145, and assuming that each kWh of electricity used engenders 96 g carbon equivalent in emissions (corresponding to the European average), we arrive at the following values per ton of metal:
NAF code Exact activity designation Fuel consumption in toe/ton 0,17 0,29 0,16 0,88 0,19 0,06 Fuel CO2 emissions in t C/ton 0,13 0,22 0,12 0,67 0,14 0,04 Electricity Electricity Total CO2 consumption in CO2 emissions in 146 emissions in t C/ton toe/ton t C/ton 0,15 0,02 0,02 0,50 0,25 0,28 0,18 0,05 0,05 1,17 0,45 0,50 0,18 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,09
27.4F 27.4F 27.4J 27.4M 27.4G 27.4K
Lead (first and second melt) Zinc Copper Nickel Lead and zinc (first transformation) Copper (first transformation)
Table 105: Emission factors for metallurgical activities (CEREN 1999) Merging all the activities for a given metal, we can derive another approximation, as follows. This is necessarily a lower limit, as it does not account for mining (there are practically no metal ore mines in France, excepting nickel mines in New Caledonia).
144 145
CEREN, July 1999, Contenu nergtique des produits de base de l'industrie, les matriaux de construction. Carbon content based on an average energy mix for industry: 19% coal, 27% fuel oil, 49% natural gas, 5% renewable and other. 146 On a final energy basis, i.e. 1 toe = 11 600 kWh.
125 / 249
Metal Lead Zinc Copper Nickel
Total CO2 emissions in t C/ton 0,33 0,68 0,27 1,17
Table 106: Emission factors for different metals (excluding ore) Elsewhere, a Memo for Policymakers from the French Interministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect (MIES)147 gives the figure of 280 kg C eq per ton for copper. This same memo lists 436 kg C eq per ton of steel and 1,8 t C eq per ton of aluminium. Collating all the suggested values, we have compiled the following table, noting the share of electricity (leading to the most significant deviations) for CEREN figures.
Metal Lead Zinc Copper Nickel Lower limit (CEREN) 0,33 0,68 0,27 1,17 Lower limit (Australia) 0,57 0,9 0,9 3,11 Upper limit (Australia) 0,87 1,25 1,69 4,39 % of electricity in energy consumption (for CEREN figures) 10% 40% 25% 34%
Table 107: Recapitulation of emission factors for production of different metals Knowing that the CEREN figures do not take upstream mining or transport into account, and that inversely a significant share of these metals are imported as products (not as ore), we can opt for values in between the CEREN figures and the "low" values for Australia (where electricity is produced essentially from coal). The results are compiled in the table below (we have retained a median value for a broad range of values with an uncertainty factor reflecting the amplitude of this range).
Metal Lead Zinc Copper Nickel Value retained (kg carbon equivalent per kg of metal 0,57 0,80 0,80 2,50 Uncertainty range 30% 20% 50% 30%
Table 108: Summary of emission factors retained for production of different metals
147
MIES: Mission Interministrielle de lEffet de Serre (French Interministerial Task-Force on Climate Change).
126 / 249
Clearly, these are approximate values, and it would be advisable to carry out more in-depth carbon balances by sector of production. Metals not listed above are assigned, tentatively, an emission factor of 1 000 kg C eq per ton, and an uncertainty factor of 80%.
5.4 Plastics
The Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME)148 has published lifecycle analyses giving atmospheric releases of CO2, methane, N2O and halocarbons linked to production of a certain number of basic chemicals and plastics (halocarbon emissions are generally negligible, and are not included below).
5.4.1.1 Polystyrene
Atmospheric releases related to polystyrene production (non-expanded, before transformation to finished product) are given below149 :
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polystyrene Emissions kg C eq per ton Gas GWP/CO2 (g/ton) produced Methane 21 11.000 63,00 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 2.600.000 709,09 Total kg carbon equivalent 772,09
Table 109: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1997) The GWP figures used for methane and N2O are those for 1995, but using 2001 figures changes the final value by only about 1%. In the absence of other sources of information, we use this value for polystyrene: 770 kg carbon equivalent per ton. According to the same source styrene has emissions of 737 kg carbon equivalent.
5.4.1.2 Polyvinyl chloride

A document issued by the same association150 gives the following values for the main GHG emissions for production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), before transformation:
148 149
www.plasticseurope.org Dr. I. Boustead, April 1997, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry report 4: polystyrene (2nd edition). This report covers general purpose polystyrene (GPPS): pure polystyrene, with few additives, a clear and brittle product. 150 Dr. I. Boustead, May 1998, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry report 6: polyvinyl chloride (2nd edition).
127 / 249
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polyvinyl chloride Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 6.300 36,08 N2O 310 0,00 CO2 1 1.800.000 490,91 Total kg carbon equivalent 526,99
Table 110: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1998) As above, we retain the suggested value of 520 kg carbon equivalent per ton. An interpolation formula is used to account for variable reprocessed content, identical in principle to that used for steel and aluminium (see 5.1 and 5.2).
5.4.1.3 High-density polyethylene

Another APME publication (available on their website151) indicates that production of one ton of high-density polyethylene causes 500 kg carbon equivalent of emissions per ton (before transformation to finished product).
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of high-density polyethylene Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 5.700 32,65 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 1.700.000 463,64 Total carbon equivalent 496,28
Table 111: Emission factors for high-density polystyrene production (APME, 1999) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted two separate lifecycle analyses for high-density polyethylene152, establishing emissions at 500 and 790 kg carbon equivalent per ton respectively (but without specifying which GHG are taken into account). We opt for the rounded APME 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton. value for high-density polyethylene:
EPA also gives a value of 250 kg carbon equivalent per ton for 100% reprocessed high-density polyethylene: we will retain this value, for lack of other information.
Dr. I. Boustead, 1999, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (reference year 1995). US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.
152
151
128 / 249
Once again, a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content.
5.4.1.4 Low-density polyethylene

The same APME publication indicates a emissions value of 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton of low-density polyethylene (before transformation to finished product) as shown below.
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of low-density polyethylene Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 5.800 33,22 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 1.900.000 518,18 Total carbon equivalent 551,40
Table 112: Emission factors for low-density polyethylene production (APME, 1999) The EPA studies cited above suggest respectively 630 and 1 050 kg C eq/ton. We have retained the APME value, i.e. 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton. The EPA document also gives a value of 230 kg carbon equivalent per ton for reprocessed low-density polyethylene: we will retain this value, for lack of other information. Once again, a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content.
5.4.1.5 Polyethylene terephtalate (PET)

The 1999 APME publication mentioned above gives figures for atmospheric emissions linked to production of one ton of polyethylene terephtalate (PET).
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of polyethylene terephtalate (PET) Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 10.000 57,27 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 4.100.000 1 118,18 Total carbon equivalent 1 175,45
Table 113: Emission factors for production of amorphous polyethylene terephtalate (APME 1999)
129 / 249
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of bottle-quality PET Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 10.000 57,27 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 4.300.000 1 172,73 Total carbon equivalent 1 230,00
Table 114: Emission factors for production of bottle-quality polyethylene terephtalate (APME, 1999)
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of PET film Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) Methane 21 21.000 120,27 N2O 310 0 0,00 CO2 1 5.500.000 1 500,00 Total carbon equivalent 1 620,27
Table 115: Emission factors for production of polyethylene terephtalate film (APME 1999) Lastly, as above, the previously cited EPA studies list respectively 980 and 1 290 kg carbon equivalent per ton, for production of one ton of PET. Tentatively we retain the following values: - amorphous PET: 1 175 kg carbon equivalent per ton, - bottle-quality PET: 1 230 kg carbon equivalent per ton, - average value for PET: 1 200 kg carbon equivalent per ton, - PET film: 1 600 kg carbon equivalent per ton (after processing to film). For recycled PET we use the only available value (from the EPA publication), i.e. 400 kg carbon equivalent per ton. Here again a linear interpolation is used to account for variable reprocessed content.
5.4.1.6 Nylon
We include atmospheric emissions linked to production of Nylon, from the APME153 reports, to give an idea of emissions for a product that is more sophisticated than basic plastics.
Atmospheric emissions for production of one ton of Nylon 66 Gas GWP/CO2 Emissions kg C eq per ton produced (g/ton) 21 24.000 137,45
Methane
153
Dr. I. Boustead, 1999, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry.
130 / 249
N2O CO2 Total carbon equivalent
310 1
740 6.900.000
62,56 1 881,82 2 081,84
Table 116: Emission factors for Nylon 66 production
5.4.1.7 Average values

In drawing up a carbon balance it may not be easy to break down plastics used by category (as an example, in reporting emissions due to plastic packaging for purchased products, for which the plastics composition is not given). In such cases average values must be used, representing average emissions for production of one ton of plastic material. This mean is based on respective tonnages of different plastics and on emission factors by type of plastic. The Memo for Policymakers from the French Inter-ministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect (MIES)154 gives an average value of 640 kg carbon equivalent per ton for plastic. As this figure is consistent with the values obtained above for the most common plastics, it is used, for the lack of anything better, in cases in which the type of plastic is not determined. The MIES memo does not specify the greenhouse gases taken into account.
5.5 Glass
The first set of data at our disposal for estimating GHG emissions per ton for glass manufacture is the database compiled by CEREN listing the energy content of basic products (reference year 1995)155. The energy content of glass can be converted to carbon equivalent content for CO2 alone, using the average mix of primary energy sources other than electricity156 in France. This gives the following table:
Type of product hollow glass bottle, demijohn, cylinder glass plate glass handblown glass technical glassware fibreglass Tons carbon equivalent per ton of glass 0,145 0,171 1,612 0,555 0,228
Table 117: Emission factors for different glass products (CEREN 1999)
154 155
Mission Interministrielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mmento des dcideurs. CEREN, 1999, Energies par produit. 156 19% coal, 27% fuel oil, 49% gas, 5% renewable resources and others.
131 / 249
CEREN also lists average energy consumption on the order of 0,35 toe/ton for the NAF industry code corresponding to glassworks157. Using the standard energy mix for the industry, this figure gives 226 kg carbon equivalent per ton, for CO2 alone, an order of magnitude which is consistent with the figure obtained above. Another source, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), furnishes life-cycle analyses for several types of glass, without indication of their shapes or uses; these studies cover all greenhouse gases (not only CO2) and include average recycling rates for each type of product.
Type of glass Green glass (99% recycled content) Brown glass (61% recycled glass content) Colourless glass (55% recycled content) Tons carbon equivalent per ton 0,163 0,213 0,209
Table 118: Emission factors for different glass products (OFEFP) A linear interpolation based on the above values gives a value of around 280 kg carbon equivalent per ton of glass, for glass made entirely from virgin materials (without any recycled glass). The MIES Memo for Policymakers158 also gives average values, without specifying the GHG covered.
Type of product plate glass glass wool Tons carbon equivalent per ton 0,414 0,580
Table 119: Emission factors for plate glass and glass wool production (MIES, 1999) Lastly, the US EPA159 gives a value of 120 kg carbon equivalent per ton of bottle glass, without specifying the GHG involved; this figure can be compared to the CEREN figures based on energy use. We have retained the following figures: - bottle glass: 120 kg carbon equivalent per ton (EPA), - plate glass: 414 kg carbon equivalent per ton (MIES), - glass wool: 580 kg carbon equivalent per ton (MIES), - default average value: 280 kg carbon equivalent per ton (OFEFP)
This is the average energy consumption per ton of manufactured product sold for all companies in the "glassworks" sector. Mission Interministrielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mmento des dcideurs. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste.
158 159
157
132 / 249
- recycled glass (other than bottles): 165 kg carbon equivalent per ton (OFEFP) For technical glassware, we have made an interpolation based on the other glass products, observing that there is a difference of a factor of about 2,5 between GHG emissions on energy consumption alone for companies located in France (CEREN) and emissions (presumably all GHG) given by MIES. While remaining prudent about this extrapolation, we arrive at a figure of about 1 000 kg carbon equivalent per ton for this product category.
5.6 Building materials 5.6.1 Cement, concrete 5.6.1.1 Some definitions

Cement is a hydraulic binder, a finely ground inorganic material that when mixed with water forms a paste that sets and hardens in reaction to hydration. After hardening, this paste keeps its resistance and stability, even in water. Cement is a prime component of concrete. The generic term "concrete" designates a construction material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete made of aggregate (sand, gravel) held together by a binder. The binder is "hydraulic" (called cement) when it sets in reaction to hydration, yielding a cement concrete. Hydrocarbon (bitumen) binders may also be used, yielding a bituminous concrete.
5.6.1.2 Emission factors

According to Enerdata, a consulting firm specialised in energy issues160, one ton of cement requires an energy expenditure of about 0,1 toe, which corresponds to CO2 emissions equal to roughly 100 kg carbon equivalent per ton, based on combustion of carbon-rich fuels (old tires, coal, heavy fuel oil, etc.). On the basis of product energy content as compiled by CEREN161, we can calculate that one ton of clinker (the main component of cement) causes CO2 emissions on the order of 70 kg carbon equivalent, similar to the above value. In both cases, an approach by energy expenditure alone does not account for the non-energy emissions of this industry. The raw material of the cement industry is obtained by de-carbonation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), a process that engenders non-energy CO2 emissions, i.e. not caused by energy use.
160 161
http://www.enerdata.fr/ CEREN, 1999, Energies by product.
133 / 249
The MIES Memo for Policymakers gives a value of 235 kg carbon equivalent per ton (including de-carbonation)162, without specifying the GHG taken into consideration. Rapid calculations based on documents from the GHG Protocol Initiative163 give a figure of roughly 250 kg carbon equivalent per ton (assuming that all GHG are taken in account here). We have retained the value of 235 kg carbon equivalent per ton proposed by MIES. It can be noted, in passing, that non-energy emissions are slightly higher than energy emissions (135 kg C eq per ton, compared to 100 kg C eq per ton, roughly speaking). Emission factors for specific types of concrete, in particular bituminous concrete used in road building, are given in 9.2 (roadway materials).
5.6.2 Other materials 5.6.2.1 Quarried stone

According to CEREN stone extraction has low energy consumption per unit weight164. Emissions for this activity are due primarily to transport, and building materials are classically materials that travel little (excepting very rare materials). Considering values obtained for roadway construction gravel materials (see 9.2.1), on the order of 5 kg C eq per ton excluding transport, and the fact that gravel usually requires more treatment than stone, we tentatively assume a figure of 3 kg C eq per ton, excluding transport. These figures are only first approximations, and therefore carry an uncertainty factor of 80%.
5.6.2.2 Wood
As wood stores carbon, wood used as a building material qualifies as a "carbon sink", so that instead of reporting positive emissions, a company using wood is credited with negative emissions. In such cases, the wood contains carbon that was removed from the atmosphere as the trees grew. The carbon content of felled trees is not returned to the atmosphere, as it remains in the things built with the wood. At the same time other trees grow, replacing those that have been harvested, and pulling CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding more.
162 163
Mission Interministrielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mmento des dcideurs. www.ghgprotocol.org 164 CEREN, 1999, Energies par produit.
134 / 249
There are however two explicit condition that must be fulfilled for carpentry wood to qualify as a carbon sink. Firstly, the wood must come from well managed forests, i.e. a forest where replanting compensates for harvested trees. In the absence of replanting (or natural regeneration), cutting a tree to make a building frame only shifts an existing carbon store from one place to another, without reconstituting a new store. Tropical and exotic woods generally come from forests that are not managed in this way, and where harvested trees are not compensated by planting (the land area of tropical forest is diminishing) there is no carbon sink. In fact exploitation of one ton of tropical wood probably leads to significant overall emissions: to harvest the tree species that have commercial value (no more than a few individuals per hectare), forestry operators build tracks that then allow farmers to clear the rest of the forest, causing significant CO2 emissions. The only case in which wood is a carbon sink is when the operator replants trees; in practice, in the absence of information on what the operator does, this tool considers only wood from European forests to qualify as a carbon sink (European forests are fairly well managed, overall). The second condition pertains to the fundamental sustainability of the object made of wood. If the wood is used to construct a building frame that will last over a century it is appropriate to call it a sink; but if the wood is made into short-lived furniture (20 to 30 years), the existence of a sink is debatable, for the carbon resides only briefly in the wooden object (that will eventually be incinerated). Subject to these two conditions, the value retained comes from the MIES Memo for Policymakers, i.e. -(minus) 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of wood165.
5.6.2.3 Other building materials

Emission factors for building materials and products are available in the INIES database166. This database, accessible free of charge on the Internet167, contains environmental and health statements from which information on the GHG emissions of materials can be extracted. The emission factors from this database are explained in 9.1 and included in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet.
165 166
Mission Interministrielle de l'Effet de Serre, June 1999, Mmento des dcideurs. INIES: Information sur lImpact Environnemental et Sanitaire. 167 www.inies.fr
135 / 249
5.7 Paper and cardboard

According to the Swiss OFEFP168 publication cited above, atmospheric emissions (all GHG combined) due to manufacture of one ton of paper/cardboard finished product are on the order of several hundred kg of carbon (the amount varies with the type of paper or cardboard), not counting methane emissions due to wastewater treatment. Papermaking yields wastewater with high organic matter content, which farther down the line will release methane emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency gives a value of 0,55 tons carbon equivalent per ton of paper (without recycling) and 0,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of cardboard169, without indicating which GHG are included. EPA values for paper pulp from recycled materials on the same order of magnitude: 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton. In some instances they are even higher, probably due to preparation processes (de-inking) that use as much energy as making paper pulp from wood. Knowing that most of the energy used for papermaking comes from fossil resources (4/5 of the total170), we have tentatively retained the EPA figures, assuming that they include methane emissions related to wastewater treatment: - 550 kg carbon equivalent per ton of paper (regardless of type: newsprint, ream paper, etc.). - 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of cardboard. We note that the GHG content of paper used for paper towels and paper napkins is roughly twice this amount, according to the EPA. Once again, an industry carbon balance for GHG emissions would be a very good thing.
5.8 Miscellaneous purchases and supplies, default factor 5.8.1. Small supplies
This chapter is devoted to small supplies (other than paper products) that are always required, whatever the activity. As it is not practical to report pens etc. one by one, we propose an overall emission factor for these supplies, lumped together, which is in fact the average emission factor for French industry.
168 Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Countryside (OFEFP), 1998, Cahiers de l'Environnement, N 250-I, Dchets, inventaires cologiques relatifs aux emballages, volume I. 169 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 170 Energies par produit, CEREN, 1999
136 / 249
The gross domestic product (GDP) of France currently stands at about 1 600 billion Euros, and domestic emissions at 170 million tons carbon equivalent. This gives a "greenhouse gas content" on the order of 100 tons carbon equivalent for 1 million Euros of GDP. As GDP is nothing other than the value of products and services available for final use, the average "carbon content" of products and services is on the order of 100 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure. This factor, for lack of better, is applied to miscellaneous purchases and small supplies with an uncertainty range of 50%.
5.8.2. Consumable office equipment supplies

For consumable office equipment supplies (e.g. toner and ink cartridges for printers) the average factor for computer equipment is applied (see 9.3.3.6), as ink cartridges are now made of semiconductors and special inks, with a very high cost per unit weight. This factor is on the order of 250 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure (uncertainty 50%).
5.9 Services 5.9.1 Preliminary remarks

The Services category covers a broad range of support services: computers and information technology, security, telephone, hotel accommodations, even childcare provided by the reporting company. For the purpose of this tool the accounting is designed to establish an order of magnitude for outside services commonly used for office work (computer maintenance, insurance, banking etc.). For "up-scale" services (advertising, consultants, etc.) that require significant air travel or "luxury" hotel accommodations the ratio given here will most probably not be valid. The emission factor suggested here is given with just one objective in mind: to enable users to see whether or not services constitute major items in the total count. If not, the absolute value is of little importance, but if the answer is positive, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the company must ask its main service providers to conduct their own carbon balances.
5.9.2 Suggested ratio

In an analysis of energy demand the CNRS concludes that in 1990 the postal and telecommunications sector consumed 1 188 000 toe for sales of roughly 15 000 million Euros. This figure includes inputs (vehicles, transport). Knowing that electricity represents 40% of primary energy consumption in France, we assume a ratio of 50% electricity for this sector (the tertiary sector consumes proportionally more electricity than transport or industry). As electricity is assigned zero emissions (in a first approximation), it results that one ton oil equivalent consumed in the commercial sector engenders 0,38 tons carbon equivalent in emissions. Thus 150 000 of postal and telecommunications services corresponds to 4,4 tons carbon equivalent of emissions. By analogy, this gives us an idea for services in general. On the basis of 1 188 000 toe for 15 000 million Euros, we have roughly 76,1 toe/M, or 3 toe annually per employee overall (assuming that each employee generates around 38 000 turnover in this sector). This is consistent with orders of magnitude observed elsewhere, and with the first Bilan Carbone carbon balance carried out by a commercial company.
5.9.3 Information technology expenditures, miscellaneous services

In the absence of carbon balances for service sectors, we use the postal and telecommunications ratio for other services: information technology (where the factor is probably higher, due to significant emissions related to manufacture of computers), professional services, training, etc.
138 / 249
6 - Accounting for other inputs: products used in agriculture, livestock raising and food processing
6.1 Preliminary remarks
For these activities emission factors have been derived essentially by attempting to draw up simplified carbon audits for the production chains, comprising preponderant CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, and other GHG if any. Non-fossil CO2 emissions are not taken into consideration in these calculations. For example, they do not include: - animal respiration (CITEPA estimates that breathing by human and animals represents about one-third the amount of fossil emissions171), - rapid rotation organic carbon fluxes, stemming from annual crops (a plant is grown and then consumed by animals or humans, and the corresponding carbon is returned to the environment within a year in the form of breathing and excrements, as a first approximation), - carbon fluxes from perennial crops (forestry crops in particular) when felled wood is replaced by new planting (inversely deforestation gives rise to nett emissions). This is of course an approximate line of reasoning, that is acceptable for a first approach, but many factors are included here on a tentative basis. It would be highly useful to conduct carbon balances by production chain, to refine the emission factors set forth in this chapter. It is all the more important to audit carbon in agriculture, knowing that in France agriculture ranks as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (all gases together), before transport or industry172. The carbon content figures obtained are used for the most part in the two following cases: - for inputs used in food processing industries173, - for the carbon balance of corporate and staff restaurants.
CITEPA, August 1999, La France face ses objectifs internationaux. CITEPA, 2005, Inventaire des missions de polluants atmosphriques en France, Format SECTEN. A note published by IFEN indicates also that the food industry is "the worst student in the class" for the increase in its own GHG emissions compared to the rise in added value.
172 173 171
139 / 249
All the emission factors listed here in chapter 6 are assigned an uncertainty figure of 30%.
6.2 Fertilizer
A publication from the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Technology (FAT)174 inventories atmospheric emissions linked to manufacture of the main types of fertilizer used in modern agriculture, nitrogen-based or not. These data are compiled in the table below:
Type of fertilizer Urea Ammonia nitrate phosphate Ammonia nitrate Urea - Ammonia nitrate Trisuperphosphate (TSP) Ammonia nitrate phosphate (ASP) Thomas slag Potassium Lime Bulk manure Pig slurry Unit kg N kg N kg N kg N kg P kg P kg P kg K2O kg CaO ton 3 m CO2 2,19E+06 1,41E+06 9,69E+05 1,60E+06 2,46E+06 1,54E+06 1,10E+06 6,30E+05 1,41E+05 2,94E+06 2,92E+06 Emission in mg of gas per unit N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 9480 12000 10300 0,022 21 3140 9420 0,018 9450 8880 9190 0,014 9460 10500 9590 0,017 58,8 15200 3790 0,029 40 13300 2490 0,024 22,6 3080 1440 0,010 8,29 1390 1720 0,004 3,25 429 359 0,003 64,7 12700 9120 0,028 98,8 10300 6960 0,054 CF4 0,172 0,142 0,111 0,139 0,235 0,193 0,079 0,030 0,028 0,227 0,430
Table 120: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas Using the carbon equivalent of the various gases covered here, we obtain the following figures:
Type of fertilizer Urea Ammonia nitrate phosphate Ammonia nitrate Urea - Ammonia nitrate Trisuperphosphate (TSP) Ammonia nitrate phosphate (ASP) Thomas slag Potassium Lime Bulk manure Pig slurry Unit kg N kg N kg N kg N kg P kg P kg P kg K2O kg CaO ton 3 m CO2 0,597 0,385 0,264 0,436 0,671 0,42 0,3 0,172 0,038 0,802 0,796 Carbon equivalent in kg/unit N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 0,765 0,033 0,065 7E-05 0,002 0,009 0,059 6E-05 0,763 0,024 0,058 5E-05 0,764 0,029 0,06 6E-05 0,005 0,041 0,024 1E-04 0,003 0,036 0,016 8E-05 0,002 0,008 0,009 3E-05 7E-04 0,004 0,011 1E-05 3E-04 0,001 0,002 1E-05 0,005 0,035 0,057 9E-05 0,008 0,028 0,044 2E-04 TOTAL CF4 3E-04 2E-04 2E-04 2E-04 4E-04 3E-04 1E-04 5E-05 4E-05 4E-04 7E-04 1,46 0,45 1,11 1,29 0,74 0,48 0,32 0,19 0,04 0,90 0,88
Table 121: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas
Source : Gaillard et al. 1997, Inventaire environnemental des intrants agricoles en production vgtale, Comptes rendus de la FAT.
174
140 / 249
Ammonia nitrate, also called ammonitrate, engenders manufacturing emissions of 1,11 kg carbon equivalent per kg of nitrogen (fertilizer is generally measured in kg of nitrogen, or in nitrogen units). Uncertainty factors for these values applicable for Europe are set at 30%.
6.3 Phytosanitary (plant protection) products

The same FAT publication includes life-cycle analyses that can be used to derive atmospheric emissions linked to production of phytosanitary products that are widely used in agriculture (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.).
6.3.1 Herbicides
Plant health products used in agriculture are generally measured in terms of "kg of active matter". The only significant value is the weight of the active ingredient, which may be diluted or dispersed in one or more excipients (sometimes simply water) to obtain a commercial formulation. The FAT figures for herbicides are compiled in the table below.
Active herbicidal ingredient Amidosulfuron Asulame Atrazine Bifenox Carbtamide Chlortoluron Dinosbe Ethofumesate Fluroxypyr Glyphosate Ioxynil Isoproturon MCPA MCPB Mecoprop P Metamitrone Metolachlore Pendimethaline Phenmediphame Pyridate Rimsulfuron Tbutame Terbuthylazine Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4 9,59E+06 8,03E+06 5,02E+06 2,63E+06 8,03E+06 9,59E+06 2,21E+06 8,64E+06 2,00E+07 1,59E+07 8,64E+06 9,59E+06 4,22E+06 7,86E+06 7,86E+06 8,16E+06 9,03E+06 3,59E+06 8,03E+06 8,64E+06 9,59E+06 8,63E+06 8,16E+06 258 222 126 76,5 222 258 43,2 231 538 495 231 258 103 208 208 208 233 104 222 231 258 226 208 25500 20800 13600 6560 20800 25500 6560 22600 50700 38800 22600 25500 11500 20400 20400 21600 24100 9440 20800 22600 25500 22900 21600 31500 28500 21000 6920 28500 31500 7710 25900 49000 44700 25900 31500 11900 20400 20400 25500 25500 13500 28500 25900 31500 24900 25500 0,131 0,113 0,059 0,04 0,113 0,131 0,016 0,114 0,258 0,273 0,114 0,131 0,047 0,1 0,1 0,096 0,114 0,058 0,113 0,114 0,131 0,112 0,096 1,05 0,901 0,469 0,319 0,901 1,05 0,128 0,91 2,06 2,19 0,91 1,05 0,375 0,802 0,802 0,769 0,91 0,463 0,901 0,91 1,05 0,893 0,769 kg carbon equivalent per kg of active ingredient 2,91 2,45 1,55 0,79 2,45 2,91 0,67 2,60 5,95 4,77 2,60 2,91 1,27 2,35 2,35 2,46 2,71 1,10 2,45 2,60 2,91 2,59 2,46
Table 122: Emission factors for herbicide products

Barring specific information on the herbicide used, we use as a default value the figure of 2 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle), with an uncertainty factor equal to 50% (which gives a range of 1 to 3 tons C eq, covering most of the values above).
6.3.2 Fungicides
The same publication gives the following figures for these active ingredients:
Active fungicidal ingredient Carbendazime Chlorothalonil Fenpropimorphe Flusilazole Mancozbe Manbe Prochloraze Tebuconazole Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4 CO2 1,39E+07 3,26E+06 5,53E+06 5,53E+06 2,46E+06 2,56E+06 5,53E+06 5,53E+06 367 104 150 150 65 70,4 150 150 36100 8400 14400 14400 6510 6880 14400 14400 38800 10800 18400 18400 12100 13100 18400 18400 0,175 0,063 0,075 0,075 0,031 0,037 0,075 0,075 1,4 0,5 0,598 0,598 0,247 0,293 0,598 0,598 kg carbon equivalent per kg of active ingredient 4,17 0,99 1,68 1,68 0,77 0,81 1,68 1,68
Table 123: Emission factors for fungicide products In the absence of other more specific information, we use 1,7 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle) as a default value, with an uncertainty factor of 50%.
6.3.3 Insecticides
The same publication gives the following figures for the two active ingredient studied:
Active insecticide ingredient Cypermethrine Lambda-cyhalothrine Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient TOTAL CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4 2,37E+07 627 60000 54300 0,291 2,32 7,02 2,37E+07 627 60000 54300 0,291 2,32 7,02
Table 124: Emission factors for insecticide products In the absence of other more specific information, we use 7 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredient (active matter or principle) as a default value, with an uncertainty factor of 20%.
6.3.4 Molluscicidal agents

The same publication gives the following figures for the active ingredient studied:
Active molluscicidal ingredient Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4 TOTAL
142 / 249
Methiocarbe
8,03E+06
222
20800
28500
0,113
0,901
2,45
Table 125: Emission factors for molluscicide products This value also serves as the default value if other active ingredients are reported, with an uncertainty factor of 50% in this case.
6.3.5 Growth regulators

The same publication gives the following figures for the three active ingredients studied:
Growth regulator active ingredients Chlormequat (CCC) Ethephon Trinexapac-thyle Emissions in mg per kg of active ingredient TOTAL CO2 N2O NOx CH4 C2F6 CF4 7,86E+06 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37 7860000 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37 7860000 214 20500 24100 0,107 0,857 2,37
Table 126: Emission factors for different growth regulators This value of 2,4 tons carbon equivalent also serves as the default value if other active ingredients are reported in this category, with an uncertainty factor of 50% in this case.
6.3.6 Default value

When only the weight of active ingredients is known, without distinction between type of product (herbicide, fungicide, etc.), the default value corresponds to the proportion of these active ingredients used for a standard major crop, i.e. 10% insecticide and 90% herbicide plus fungicide. This assumption gives an approximate value of 2,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of active ingredients, with an uncertainty factor of 30%.
6.4 Grains, flour

Grain crops grown in France are used mainly to feed animals. Bread flour and grains for direct human consumption (pasta, grain maize, etc.) are minority markets compared to total production. For this reason the yields below refer to animal feed and not to products for human consumption. The sources of GHG emissions covered here are the following: - N2O releases linked to use of nitrogen fertilizer, - direct fuel use in farm machinery, - energy expenditure related to manufacture and maintenance of farm machinery, manufacture of phytosanitary products and fertilizer, etc.
143 / 249
6.4.1 Wheat
The values for fuel consumption per hectare of wheat crop are drawn from the analysis of Biofuel175 production conducted by Ecobilan for ADEME. The Ecobilan study uses reference values supplied by the Institut du Vgtal.
Energy uses for crop cultivation Tractor fuel consumption Tractor hours per hectare Hourly fuel consumption for other motorized machinery Hours per hectare for other motorized machinery Hourly consumption for other hitched machinery Hours per hectare for other hitched machinery Total diesel fuel consumption per hectare Kg carbon equivalent per hectare for crop cultivation
176
Value 14 3,37 17 1 3,2 13,3 106,74 86,9
Unit Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours litres
Table 127: Energy emission factors for fuel consumption in wheat cultivation, per hectare (ADEME ECOBILAN, 2003) The values furnished for inputs in this same study are as follows:
Inputs Ammonia nitrate P fertilizer K fertilizer Fungicides Herbicides Insecticides Growth regulators Value 184 46 76 0,3 Unit kg of N per hectare (ha) kg of P205 per hectare (ha) kg of P205 per hectare (ha) kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) 0,9 kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) 0,2 kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) 1,5 kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha)
Table 128: Emissions from products used for wheat cultivation (ADEME- ECOBILAN, 2003) Applying the emission factors for these compounds (6.3 above) we obtain GHG emissions of 235 kg carbon equivalent per hectare, for the manufacture of these inputs. In addition, the spreading of nitrogen fertilizer causes emissions equal to 3,1% of the nitrogen applied (see 3.2). Given the weight of nitrogen applied per hectare, the N2O emissions from fertilizer amount to 460 kg carbon equivalent per hectare. Emissions due to the manufacture of farm machinery must also be reported, on a pro rata basis correlating hours of use to the useful life of the machinery. The Institut du
175 176
ADEME ECOBILAN, 2003, Bilans nergtique et gaz effet de serre des filires de production de biocarburants. The emission factors are those given in 2.2, taking into account upstream emissions from fuel refining.
144 / 249
Vgtal has estimated emissions for the manufacture and upkeep of farm machinery per hour of use. In the case of wheat the values are as follows:
Equipment Tractor Motorized 177 machinery Tools Total per hectare Hours per hectare 3,37 1 13,3 kWh per hour 13,1 33,3 110,8 kg carbon equivalent 0,5 1,3 4,2 6,0
Table 129: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for wheat cultivation On this basis emissions per hectare are as follows:
CO2 N2O Carbon equivalente total 363 kg qu. C par hectare 460 kg qu. C par hectare 824 kg qu. C par hectare
Table 130: Emissions per hectare of wheat crop The mass yield for wheat is approximately 9 tons per hectare and per year178. Therefore producing one ton of wheat engenders 92 kg carbon equivalent of GHG emissions. Given a humidity index of 15% at harvest, these emissions are equal to 108 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter.
6.4.2 Maize for fodder

The energy expenditure related to use of farm machinery is broken down as follows:
Energy uses for crop cultivation Hourly fuel consumption for tractor Hours per hectare Hourly fuel consumption for other motorized machinery Hours per hectare Hourly consumption for other hitched machinery Hours per hectare Total diesel fuel consumption per hectare Cultivation emissions (kg carbon equivalent/ha) Value Unit 15,1 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) 5 Hours 15,6 Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours Diesel fuel per hour (litres) Hours litres
1 5,3 15 170,6 92,0
Table 131: Energy emission factors for maize cultivation, per hectare For inputs, the values given in the abovementioned Ecobilan/ADEME study179 are the following:
177 178
Harvesting combine. Institut du Vgtal. 179 ADEME ECOBILAN, 2003, Bilans nergtique et gaz effet de serre des filires de production de biocarburants.
145 / 249
Inputs Ammonia nitrate P fertilizer K fertilizer Fungicides Herbicides Insecticides Growth regulators
Value
120 8 20 0,1
Unit kg of N per hectare (ha) kg of P205 per hectare (ha) kg of P205 per hectare (ha) kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) 3,8 kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) 0,2 kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha) kg of active ingredients per hectare (ha)
Table 132: Emissions from products used for maize cultivation The pro rata share for the manufacture of farm machinery gives the following values:
Equipment Tractor Other motorized machinery Tools TOTAL Hours per hectare 5 1 15 kWh per hour 0,9 1,5 5,5 kg C eq per hectare 0,9 1,5 5,5 7,8
Table 133: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for maize cultivation On this basis emissions per hectare are as follows:
CO2 N2O Total carbon equivalent 268 kg C eq per hectare 300 kg C eq per hectare 568 kg C eq per hectare
Table 134: Emission factors per hectare of maize crop The mass yield for this crop is approximately 37 tons of maize fodder per hectare and per year180. Therefore producing one ton of maize fodder engenders 15 kg carbon equivalent of GHG emissions. Given a humidity index of 70% at harvest181, these emissions are equal to 51 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter. When maize fodder is stored as silage, we add an extra 20% to cover transport between the place of harvest and storage silos, the energy for milling and other operations, construction and upkeep of the silo, etc. Our calculations give the following values: - 108 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter for wheat (average humidity 15%)
180 181
Institut du Vgtal. Source: Arvalis Institut du Vgtal, informal exchange, 2003.
146 / 249
- 59 kg carbon equivalent per ton of dry matter for silage.
6.4.3 Flour
One ton of wheat yields 760 kg of flour. We assume that this production requires 300 km of intermediate transport in tractor-trailers.
Carbon equivalent per ton of wheat Rate of extraction Wheat emissions per ton of flour Transport emissions
182
92 76% 120 7,8 5 133
Flour mill emissions Total emissions per ton of flour
183
Table 135: Emission factors for wheat flour Flour is therefore to be recorded with 133 kg carbon equivalent per ton (ex mill).
6.5 Fruits and vegetables

Vegetable crops represent 1,6% of arable land in France (0,3 million hectares out of 18,1) and 1% of all farm lands taken together (see appendix 5). As this activity is marginal in agriculture it is not covered in this edition of the Bilan Carbone tool. Likewise, fruit crops are marginal in terms of cultivated lands. It would nonetheless be useful to obtain carbon balance assessments for fruits and vegetables that would enable us to add an emission factor for this type of production to Bilan Carbone.
6.6 Beef and veal

Production of meat from cattle is a source of GHG emissions: - directly, in the form of methane (CH4) released during digestion by ruminant animals, and methane emissions from fermenting animal excrement; - indirectly, via cultivation of various plants and crops (hay, oilseed plants, etc.) for animal feed. Slaughtering, including transport of live animals and carcasses, is not accounted for here. In a first-order approximation animal excrement is assimilated to grassland fertilizers, and hence the related N2O emissions (but not methane emissions) are already included in the carbon equivalent content assigned to hay.
182 183
300 km at 26 grams carbon equivalent per ton.km; cf. 4.2.2. According to CEREN; this is mostly electricity.
147 / 249
We have not made any distinction between free-range animals and barn-raised animals, for the following reasons: - In France, free-range livestock generally graze in pasturelands that have been fertilized, and that therefore have N2O emissions that are identical (or higher) than those of hay. - The mass yield per hectare (in dry matter) is more or less the same for hay and for pasture grasses. - Energy expenditures per hectare come essentially from fertilizer and fuel for farm machinery (plant protection products do not make much of a difference from this point of view), in short from sources that exist for fodder and pasture alike. This reasoning is not applicable, however, to extensive grazing on non-fertilized land: - mountain pastures - Pampa in Argentina, Australian steppes, etc. (but in these cases transport and refrigeration would have to be included in the inventory).
6.6.1 Annual livestock emissions

The emission categories below are found in various publications; by consolidating them we can obtain annual emissions for the different types of cattle that make up domestic herds. We assume, in the absence of more specific information, that all the dry matter consumed by livestock is in the form of fodder (maize fodder or fertilised prairie grass). This is of course an approximation, because animal feed regimens also include proteins (peas, beans), press cakes from other products, etc. Annual emissions for digestion, excrement and feed are compiled in the tables below.
Annual emissions per animal Enteric Excrement Carbon fermentation CH4 (kg)185 equivalent 184 (kg) for CH4 CH4 (kg) 100,67 51,82 956,49 80,00 33,44 711,60 76,67 32,05 681,95 46,67 19,51 415,10 15,33 6,41 136,39 53,33 22,30 474,40
Dairy cows Nursing cows Bulls Yearlings, young bulls Yearlings, calves Steers
Table 136: Annual livestock emissions (feed, digestion, excrement)
184 185
Acadmie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus, vol. 85. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure.
148 / 249
Animals
Feed per day (kg dry matter)
kg C eq per t of fodder CO2 emissions
Fodder, kg C eq per head and per year N2O emissions
CH4 per year kg kg C eq per C eq head and per year N2O CO2 emissions emissions
Dairy cows Nursing cows Bulls Yearlings, young bulls Yearlings, calves Steers
16 16 15 15 3 15
32 32 32 32 32 32
27 27 27 27 27 27
188,36 188,36 176,58 176,58 35,32 176,58
158,00 158,00 148,12 148,12 29,62 148,12
956,49 711,60 681,95 415,10 136,39 474,40
1 302,85 1 057,95 1 006,65 739,80 201,33 799,10
Table 137: Emission factors for livestock, per head and per year
6.6.2 Imputation of nursing cows

A nursing cow is assumed to follow the following stages: - milk-fed calf for six months - grass-fed calf for six months - immature yearling for one year - mature reproducing cow that produces calves (four calves186) - each nursed calf is slaughtered when it weighs 181 kg alive187 - lastly the cow is sent to the abattoir to be slaughtered for meat188, with an average live weight of 680 kg, yielding a 340 kg carcass (meat and bone). The four years of the reproducing cow are assigned to the calves, and the two preceding years to the meat from the adult cow.
Animal life span Number Carbon equivalent per year of years CO2 from N2O from Methane, growing growing fermentation fodder fodder and excrement 35 30 136 0,5 35 30 136 0,5 177 148 415 1 188 158 712 4 436 365 1 399 47 39 178 Total carbon equivalent CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL
Milk-fed calf, 6 months Grass-fed calf, 6 months Yearling, one year Nursing cow, 4 years Nursing cow - lifetime Share per calf (4 calves) Kg carbon equivalent per kg of carcass from slaughtered cow
18 18 177 753 965 188 0,62
15 15 148 632 810 158 0,52
68 68 415 2 846 3 398 712 1,62
101 101 740 4 232 5 173 1 058 2,77
Table 138: Emission factors for nursing cows sent to slaughter This gives a total of 2,77 kg carbon equivalent per ton of carcass meat from dairy cows.
186 Gestation lasts a little less than twelve months. The first calf if born when the cow is three years old (2 years old when bred, plus a little under a year for gestation). 187 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 188 The least expensive beef sold in supermarkets is generally meat from dairy or nursing cows slaughtered at the end of their useful life.
149 / 249
6.6.3 Milk-fed calves

In light of the preceding information, we assign to milk-fed calves: - emissions from the mother cow during gestation and nursing (one year for a nursing cow) - the calf's own emissions during this same period. The calf is slaughtered at the age of six months, at a live weight assumed to be 181 kg. The carcass weight (meat and bone) represents around 50% of the live weight189.
Milk-fed calves Emissions from mother cow (share above) Milk-fed calf, 6 months Total per calf Live weight % of carcass Weight of carcass Kg C eq per kg meat with bone Total carbon equivalent 1 058 101 1 159 181 50% 91 12,80
Table 139: Emission factors for milk-fed calves This gives an emission factor of 12,8 kg carbon equivalent per ton of calf carcass.
6.6.4 Dairy cows and milk

A dairy cow grows to sexual maturity in two years, carries its first calf for one year, produces milk over three years, and ultimately is sent to slaughter. A dairy cow produces 5 500 litres of milk on average during its period of lactation190, thus yielding a total of 16 500 litres over its full life span. We distribute emissions between meat and milk by mass, using the following formula: - the three-year period of milking cow are assigned to the milk produced, - the three preceding years are assigned to the butchery meat. Dairy cows also produce calves that consume some of the milk produced. Assigning emissions entirely to milk does not lead to error, however, because the milk effectively available is the milk that the calves do not drink, and the "GHG content" of the calves corresponds to the GHG content of the milk they drink, as in 6.5.3. With these assumptions we can construct the following table:
189 190
Source: reference site for red meat, www.mhr-viandes.com. Source: INRA.
150 / 249
Dairy cows CO2 Milk-fed calf, 6 months Grass-fed calf, 6 months Yearling, one year Dairy cow, 4 years (3 as milking cow) Total for dairy cow over full life span kg C eq per kg of milk Kg C eq per kg of meat from dairy cow 18 18 177 753 965 0,046 0,62
Carbon equivalent N2O CH4 15 68 15 68 148 415 632 3 826 810 4 377 0,038 0,232 0,52 1,62
TOTAL 101 101 740 5 211 6 153 0,316 2,77
Table 140: Emission factors for whole milk The calculations give the figure of 316 g carbon equivalent per litre of milk, or as a first approximation, 316 kg carbon equivalent per ton of whole milk. In addition, milk is subject to several processes (sterilization, skimming) that introduce energy expenditures and secondary products (notably butter). For the sake of simplicity we use the above value for the time being, but an assessment of the dairy industry would be useful (this would require imputation of fungible emissions).
6.6.5 Steers 6.6.5.1 Beef cattle

A steer raised for beef, butchered at the age of 36 months, will "contain" the sum of emissions for a milk-fed calf (6.6.3 above), emissions for the six-month grass-fed period and 24 months of feed, and methane emissions from the young animal. A steer is assumed to weigh 680 kg live weight at the time of slaughter191. Like calves, steers yield about 50% nett weight with bone per kg of live weight192. We have not taken byproducts into account (hides for tanning).
Steers Adult steer, 24 months Grass-fed calf, 6 months Calf (see 6.6.3)) TOTAL Per kg of carcass CO2 353 18 206 577 1,70 Carbon equivalent N2O CH4 296 949 15 68 173 780 484 1 797 1,42 5,28 TOTAL 1 598 101 1 159 2 857 8,40
Table 141: Emission factors for steers (beef cattle)
191 192
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. Source: reference site for red meat, www.mhr-viandes.com.
151 / 249
This gives a total of 8,4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of beef with bone for beef cattle raised on fodder. This figure does not apply to extensive range grazing.
6.6.5.2 Average values

Red meat effectively consumed in France comes, in a rough approximation - one-third from beef cattle, - one-third from butchered dairy cows, - one-third from butchered nursing cows. On this basis an average value can be derived for beet of unspecified origin, equal to 4,74 tons carbon equivalent per ton of meat, as follows:
tons sold Provenance Beef cattle Dairy cows sent to slaughter Nursing cows sent to slaughter Total or average 478 624 464 485 422 260 1 365 369 kg carbon equivalent per m CO2 N2O CH4 TOTAL 1,70 1,42 5,28 8,40 0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77 0,62 0,52 1,62 2,77 1,00 0,84 2,91 4,74
Table 142: Average emission factors for beef
6.7 Dairy products 6.7.1 Boiled cheese

It takes 11.5 litres of milk to make one kg of gruyere cheese. Leaving aside heating energy (quite secondary compared to milk emissions) we obtain the following values:
Cheese Gruyere litres of milk per kg of cheese 11,43 kg carbon equivalent 3,61
Table 143: Emission factor for boiled cheese We retain the figure of 3 610 kg carbon equivalent per ton of boiled cheese.
6.7.2 Fresh cheeses, yoghurt

It takes slightly over one litre of milk to make one kg of yoghurt. Including heating energy (non-negligible in this case), transport and packaging, we assume emissions of 470 g carbon equivalent per kg of yoghurt, or 470 kg carbon equivalent per ton of yoghurt.
152 / 249
6.7.3 Raw milk cheeses

These cheeses require an amount of milk per kg of cheese that is in between the quantity needed for boiled cheese and that needed for yoghurt. On the basis of the above data we estimate approximately 1 500 kg carbon equivalent per ton of raw cheese.
6.7.4 Butter, cream

Butter is made up of milk fat. Milk contains about 40 g of lipids per litre. Therefore around 25 litres of milk are needed to make one kg of butter. But in practice most butter is made with fat obtained by partial skimming of milk. Thus a greater quantity of milk is required to make one kg of butter, and the issue of assigning emissions between different products of the same process arises. If it is assumed that one kg of butter represents 10 litres of milk used only to make butter, we obtain the figure of 3 160 kg carbon equivalent per ton of butter, which we will use for lack of a better figure.
6.8 Industrial swine

A milk pig is weaned at 28 days, at which time it weighs 7 kg193. Then it is fattened for 161 days, attaining 105 kg on average194. Each kg of live weight195 represents 3,21 kg of feed (essentially grain; wheat is taken as the proxy for calculations here), and this feed is a source of fossil CO2 and of N2O emissions. Pig slurry (excrement) emits methane and N2O. Methane emissions from excrement are equal to 9,89 kg per animal and par year, on average196, i.e. 62 kg carbon equivalent per animal and per year, or 27,4 kg carbon equivalent per animal over its entire life span, representing 0,26 kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight at time of slaughter. N2O emissions are estimated to average 1 kg per animal per year, equal to 0,34 kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight. Lastly, the ratio of useful weight to live weight at the time of slaughter is 76%197. In the absence of any data we do not include emissions from the sow during gestation and nursing.
193 194 195
Source: INRA. Source: INRA. Source: INRA. 196 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. 197 Source: INRA.
153 / 249
All these elements are compiled in the table below.

Industrial swine emissions Emissions from excrement per kg of live weight Feed emissions per kg of live weight Total per kg of live weight Total per kg of nett weight CO2 0,00 0,14 0,14 0,19 N2O 0,34 0,18 0,52 0,69 CH4 0,26 0,00 0,26 0,34 TOTAL 0,60 0,33 0,93 1,22
Table 144: Emission factors for industrial swine We retain the figure of 1 220 kg carbon equivalent per ton of pork with bone.
6.9 Poultry and poultry products 6.9.1 Industrial chicken

For industrially raised chicken, the weight of feed per kg of live weight is approximately 1,9 kg (chicken slaughtered at 42 days, i.e. 6 weeks, at a weight of about 2 kg)198. As for swine, poultry excrement are a source of methane emissions. The abovementioned publication gives the figure of 0,15 kg of methane per animal and per year for poultry199. The useful weight/live weight ratio is 66%200.
Industrial chicken emissions Emissions from excrement per kg of live weight Feed emissions per kg of live weight Additional emissions for heating, slaughter, 201 etc Total per kg of live weight Total per kg of nett weight CO2 0,00 0,08 0,00 0,10 0,15 N2O 0,00 0,11 0,00 0,11 0,16 CH4 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,05 0,08 TOTAL 0,05 0,19 0,02 0,26 0,40
Table 145: Emission factors for industrial chicken Emissions due to energy consumption for poultry raising (buildings are frequently heated and lit around the clock; transport, energy used for slaughtering, etc.) is set at a flat rate of 10% of the total.
198 199 200
Source: INRA. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure. Source: INRA. 201 Author's estimate.
154 / 249
We retain the figure of 400 kg carbon equivalent per ton of industrial chicken with bone. Information on other fowl is given in appendix 6.
6.9.2 Eggs
For industrially raised hens, 2,13 kg of feed is required to produce one kg of eggs202. An average egg weighs 63 grams203. We assume that poultry excrement per kg of eggs is the same as per kg of industrial chicken meat. Here also we add 10% to cover "other" operations: egg gathering, building heating and upkeep, etc. These factors give the values in the table below.
Eggs kg carbon equivalent per kg 0,22 0,05 0,27 0,03 0,30 0,019
Feed Including excrement Subtotal 10% additional processes Carbon equivalent per kg Carbon equivalent per egg
Table 146: Emission factors for one egg We retain the figure of 19 g carbon equivalent per egg, or 300 kg carbon equivalent per ton of eggs.
6.10 Sheep
Sheep are ruminants, like cows. Emissions reporting must therefore include: - methane (CH4) released by digestion, - methane emissions due to fermentation of excrement, - the GHG content of fodder used to feed animals. As the metabolism of sheep digestion is the same as for cows, and their excrement also sources of methane, we tentatively retain the same figures for methane emissions per unit of weight with bone. But as sheep are often grazed in mountain pastures, and hence on non-fertilized land, we count emissions from feed as zero.
202 203
Source: INRA. Source: INRA
155 / 249
As a result this first-order approximation focuses only on methane, with the following figures204:
Animals Digestion CH4 3 per year (m ) 16,5 20 8,2 21 2,6 1 Digestion CH4 Excrement CH4 Total kg carbon per year (kg) per year (kg) equivalent per year 11,00 2,85 86,89 13,33 3,46 105,32 5,47 1,42 43,18 14,00 3,63 110,59 1,73 0,45 13,69 0,67 0,17 5,27
Nursing ewes Milking ewes She-lambs Rams Grass-fed lambs Milk-fed lambs
Table 147: Emission factors for sheep Use of sheep's wool is ignored in this initial approximation. This is almost legitimate in terms of allocation of emissions by weight, and is legitimate in terms of economic allocation for France, where use of wool is marginal. This is probably less true in other European countries.
6.10.1 Milk-fed lambs

We make the assumption that a nursing ewe produces 1,7 lambs per year205. In the same way as for cattle, we assign to the lamb all the mother's emissions during gestation and nursing, assuming that the nursing ewe is kept only to have lambs. The values below refer only to methane emissions, as specified above.
Milk-fed lambs Kg C eq for share of mother's emissions Kg C eq for milk-fed lamb, 2 months TOTAL Live weight % of carcass Weight of carcass Kg C eq per kg of carcass CH4 87 1 88 22 50% 11 7,98
Table 148: Emission factors for milk-fed lambs
6.10.2 Grass-fed lambs

These are the same animals, two months later.
Grass-fed lambs Kg C eq for the milk-fed lamb Kg C eq for grass-fed lamb, 2 months TOTAL Live weight % of carcass
204 205
CH4 88 2 90 47 50%
Acadmie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus, vol. 85. Source: INRA.
156 / 249
Weight of carcass Kg C eq per kg meat with bone
24 3,83
Table 149: Emission factors for grass-fed lambs
6.11 Fish
IFREMER reports that French fishing fleets consume around 250 million litres of diesel fuel, bringing in about 500 000 tons of fish. In a first estimation, emissions linked to harvesting one ton of fish will be equal to 407 kg carbon equivalent. Adding 10% to account for emissions linked to transport, handling, refrigeration etc. we obtain an emission factor of 440 kg carbon equivalent per ton for fish. This value is doubled for tropical fishing (tuna) which uses twice as much energy, and involves long-distance transport by air or refrigerated ship. For shrimp, harvesting efficiency is only 20%, compared to 70% for fishing in general. The percentage of the catch thrown overboard is on the order of 30% for "normal" fishing (trawling for instance), but for shrimp it is closer to 80% (in weight), as shrimp boats keep only the shrimp and discard all the rest of the catch206. For shrimp fishing, fuel consumption per ton of catch can be roughly estimated to be 3,5 times the standard rate (ratio of 70% yield to 20%), and consequently direct fuel emissions amount to 1,2 ton carbon equivalent per ton of shrimp, as an order of magnitude. This applies only to fished shrimp, and excludes downstream transport emissions (a significant fraction of shrimp is shipped by air) and diesel refinery emissions. Adding in approximate emissions to account for these items, we reach the value of 1,5 ton carbon equivalent per ton of shrimp.
6.12 Alcoholic spirits, sugar

Preliminary inquiries made of companies in the spirits trade give us orders of magnitude, that remain to be verified. - Pure alcohol engenders emissions on the order of 0,4 0,1 ton carbon equivalent per ton of alcohol (this depends to a large extent on the form of energy used for distilling). - Sugar engenders emissions on the order of 0,2 0,05 ton carbon equivalent per ton. More study is needed for all these figures, and some investigations are already underway.
206
Conversation with Loc Antoine, IFREMER.
157 / 249
6.13 Other products

Data collection is planned to estimate emissions for other common foodstuffs or processed foods. Some examples are: - fats and oils - chocolate (or cocoa) - common vegetable (potatoes, beets, etc.) - etc.
6.14 Consolidated emission factors for farms 6.14.1 Emissions per hectare for the main crops
When the Bilan Carbone method is applied to a local authority, with the objective of estimating emissions for cultivated farmlands, it will often be easier to ascertain the number of hectares per crop than the harvested weight for each crop. In this case emission factors per hectare can be used, based on average values: - fertilizer use per hectare for each crop (distinguishing between nitrogen fertilizer and potassium fertiliser), which determines nitrous oxide emissions and emissions due to manufacture of fertilizers, - hours of farm machinery use per hectare for each crop, which determines direct CO2 emissions due to the use of diesel fuel.
6.14.1.1 Nitrous oxide emanations

Based on various sources (notably Prolea207, Institut du Vgtal208, Ecobilan209, ADEME210, INRA) average values for nitrogen fertilizer per hectare (conventional agriculture) are listed in the table below.
Type of Crop Standard wheat Standard grain maize Standard maize fodder Sorghum Standard beets Vineyard Non-intensive vineyard Sunflower Oilseed rape
207 208
211
Average nitrogen units per hectare 184 175 120 150 87 200 50 40 170
Exchanges with Benot Carrouee, Prolea, 2003. ITCF ADEME, 2003, Rfrentiel pour le calcul des bilans nergtiques. 209 AGPM Ecobilan, 1998, Analyse de cycle de vie de l'amidon de mas, de mas grain et de mas ensilage. 210 ADEME Ecobilan, 2003, Bilans nergtique et gaz effet de serre des filires de production de biocarburants. 211 These are "quality" vineyards with production ceilings (for example in Champagne country), meaning that high yields are not an objective.
158 / 249
Fertilized pasture Potatoes
94 160
Table 150: Average nitrogen units per hectare, by crop Nitrogen units refer to the weight, in kg, of the nitrogen content of fertilizer compounds. Farmers rarely compute the total weight of fertilizer, and generally measure only the nitrogen in the compounds used (so that blending fertilizer with a non-nitrogen compound does not change the amount of nitrogen applied). For cases where the crop type is not known, the default value is set at 100 nitrogen units per hectare. Unfortunately no data are available for fruit and vegetable farming. A conventional factor is available for nitrous oxide emissions in relation to the amount of nitrogen applied to soil (see 3.2). Using this factor we obtain emissions per hectare for each crop type, listed below:
Type of Crop Standard wheat Standard grain maize Standard maize fodder Sorghum Standard beets Vineyard Non-intensive vineyard Sunflower Oilseed rape Fertilized pasture Potatoes Average N2O emissions, in kg C eq per hectare 460 438 300 375 218 501 125 100 425 235 400
Table 151: Average N2O emission factor by crop
6.14.1.2 Manufacture of fertilizer

Once the quantities of nitrogen applied are known, emissions attributable to the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer can be derived using the data given in 6.2. Potassium fertilizer is also taken into account, even though it counts for far fewer emissions (potash is a mined product, much less energy-intensive per ton than chemical products)212.
212
IFEN, J-M Jancovici, 2004, Indicateurs de dveloppement durable.
159 / 249
Crop
Standard wheat Standard grain maize Standard maize fodder Sorghum Standard beets Vineyard Non-intensive vineyard Sunflower Oilseed rape Fertilized pasture Potatoes
Manufacture of fertilizer Average values, in kg C eq per hectare 231 220 151 189 109 252 63 50 214 118 201
Table 152: Emission factors for fertilizer manufacture The default value here is 125 kg carbon equivalent per hectare (corresponding to the manufacture of 100 nitrogen units applied per hectare).
6.14.1.3 Farm machinery

The same sources as in 6.1.4.1.1 give average figures for the use of farm machinery by crop type, in hours of use, and the emissions due to fuel use, as well as the emissions due to the manufacture and upkeep of the machinery in question. Although relatively marginal in total emissions, these emissions are nonetheless counted, and calculated per hectare of cropland, giving the following values:
Crop Carbon equivalent per hectare Direct fuel use Manufacture and upkeep of machinery 87 6 81 7 92 8 63 5 159 7 280 30 144 9 163 9 6 0,1 131 6
Standard wheat Standard grain maize Standard maize fodder Sorghum Standard beets Vineyard Sunflower Oilseed rape Fertilized pasture Potatoes
Table 153: Emission factors for farm machinery (consumption, upkeep, manufacture) per hectare of cropland
160 / 249
6.14.2 Methane emissions from livestock

All livestock operations have methane emissions, due to: - enteric fermentation of ruminants, - intestinal fermentation of other herbivores, - fermentation of organic material in excrement (slurry and manure). If the Bilan Carbone user wants to obtain emissions directly generated by livestock, without considering emissions related to feed production, it is advisable to estimate methane emissions separately, as they are the only animal emissions to be taken into consideration in the framework of anthropogenic disruption of the climate. On the basis of various studies, methane emissions per head of livestock are described in 6.6 to 6.10 and compiled below.
Animal Dairy cows Nursing cows Bulls Yearlings, young bulls Yearlings, calves Steers Nursing ewes Milking ewes She-lambs Rams Grass-fed lambs Butchery lambs Goats He-goats She-goats Geldings, non-carrying mares Foaling mares, stallions Colts Work horses Swine Chickens Guinea fowl Ducks kg methane per head and per year 152 113 109 66 22 76 14 17 6,9 17,5 2,2 0,84 16 19 5,73 51 54 29 51 9,9 0,15 0,15 0,20
Table 154: Methane emissions from livestock On the basis of a GWP of 23 for methane, the carbon equivalent per head and per year is as follows:
161 / 249
Animal Dairy cows Nursing cows Bulls Yearlings, young bulls Yearlings, calves Steers Nursing ewes Milking ewes She-lambs Rams Grass-fed lambs Butchery lambs Goats He-goats She-goats Geldings, non-carrying mares Foaling mares, stallions Colts Work horses Swine Chickens Guinea fowl Ducks
Kg carbon equivalent per head and per year 956 712 682 415 136 474 87 105 43 111 14 5 102 121 36 322 338 184 322 62 0,9 0,9 1,3
Table 155: Methane emissions from livestock in kg C eq These values can be used to calculate annual emissions when herd size is known.
162 / 249
7 - Accounting for direct waste and sewage

The sections below aim to assign a "GHG content" to processes designed for end-oflife treatment of waste (landfilling, incineration, recycling/reprocessing). Whatever the type of treatment or disposal, we assume that one ton of waste engenders 80 ton.km of transport in a rubbish truck with a GVW of 20 tons, half full for its entire trip (the truck starts out empty and finishes full). This transport causes 4 kg carbon equivalent of emissions. Regarding energy recovery from waste that is not recycled as raw material for reprocessing into a new material, we use the avoided impacts method. Calculation of value obtained from energy and/or materials recovery depends on the type of waste and the information available. Generally speaking energy recovery from incineration can be calculated from the heat value of waste and incinerator boiler output (estimated at 86%). The GHG emissions avoided due to energy recovery can be evaluated using the emissions factors given in chapter 2. The data given below refer to waste directly produced by the company conducting the carbon balance, and to end-of-life disposal of products or services marketed by this same entity213.
7.1 Inert waste

Inert waste is waste that is not subject to any significant physical, chemical or biological alteration that does not decompose, does not burn and triggers no physical or chemical reaction. In practice this category includes all materials that do not contain organic compounds, i.e. - metals - other minerals (glass, stone, rubble, etc.).
7.1.1 Inert waste materials landfill disposal and incineration

213
As most reporting entities do not know precisely what becomes of their products or services, the default figure (or average French "mix") can be used to evaluate end-of-life emissions for this products/service.
163 / 249
Inert materials do not cause GHG emissions, whether they are disposed of in landfill or by incineration. We must take a closer look, however: - in case of landfill disposal, the only emissions linked to inert materials are the emissions for waste transport to landfill, and for maintenance of the landfill. The amount of energy involved is negligible compared to the energy required to make the materials214. To avoid entering a zero value, we propose assigning 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton, corresponding to 80 km of truck transport; - In the case of incineration, some of the material is recovered after combustion (aluminium or steel in bottom ash, which is sometimes used in roadway construction). As this is an example of closed-loop recycling (the scrap is recovered to make new steel) it is not taken into account for end-of-life treatment, for the reasons elaborated in the methodological guidelines. Likewise, for the reporting entity's direct waste occurrences and packaging used for products sold or supplied, by convention end-of-life emissions for minerals are limited to transport, i.e. 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton.
7.1.2 Inert waste materials default value

The breakdown of inert waste disposal by activity branch in France is as follows215:
% sent to landfill without methane recovery % sent to landfill with methane recovery 14% % incinerated without energy recovery % incinerated with energy recovery % materials recovery
Waste arisings Steel, aluminium packaging Copper, zinc, nickel, lead Glass packaging, glass, construction materials
32%
--
1%
53%
33%
16%
--
--
51%
Table 156: Breakdown of inert waste disposal by branch of activity (ADEME, 2004) As emission factors per ton of inert waste are the same for all treatment processes, and the factor for end-of-life disposal of mineral waste is 4 kg C eq per ton (7.1.1), the average value for the carbon content of inert waste at end-of-life disposal is 4 kg C eq per ton, for all waste treatment methods.
214 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste. 215 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France.
164 / 249
It should be remarked that this value is very low in relation to the carbon content linked to the manufacture of inert materials.
7.2 Non-fermentable but combustible materials

This category comprises essentially plastics (paper is fermentable)216.
7.2.1 Plastic sent to landfill

Plastic sent to landfill is not subject to any chemical reaction (in particular it does not ferment). The only emissions for end-of-life disposal are linked to transport, i.e. 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton; as above, this value is marginal compared to emissions caused by manufacture of the material. The emissions assigned to plastic sent to landfill are therefore 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton.
7.2.2 Plastic incinerated without energy recovery

When plastics are incinerated their fossil carbon content (for plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, therefore their carbon is fossil) is released by combustion, and must be accounted for. For combustion alone, the emission factor calculated in 2.2.5 is applied by default to all types of plastic. This material must also be transported, representing 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of plastic waste. Thus 474 kg carbon equivalent per ton are imputed to incineration of plastic without energy recovery.
7.2.3 Plastic incinerated with energy recovery

Energy recovery consists in using the energy of incineration combustion, to produce electricity or steam (which is then used for heating). The conventional method of accounting for energy recovery is to estimate the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted to generate the same quantity of electricity or steam from natural gas, and then to subtract this quantity of CO2 from the total combustion emissions, to obtain the nett emissions correspondent to incineration with energy recovery.
216
Paper is an organic compound that decomposes in landfill.
165 / 249
For this operation we make the following assumptions: - the majority of energy recovery installations generate electricity, - avoided fossil carbon emissions are estimated on the basis of the annual emissions average for the country's power plants, for an equivalent amount of electricity. On this basis the values for the United States217 are the following:
Nature of incinerated material Polyethylene (high and low density) Polystyrene, PVC PET Plastic, conventional average value Emissions avoided by energy recovery (kg C eq per ton of material incinerated) -510 -510 510 -510
(218)
Table 157: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (USA) If the same reasoning is applied to France, avoided emissions have a much lower carbon content (23 g of C per kWh in France, as opposed to 167 g in the United States for the year covered the study). It also seems logical to conserve an annual average, and not a value restricted to certain months or times of day, as incinerators operate all year round. To adapt this figure for France the US value for avoided emissions should be multiplied by the fraction 23/167, assuming that the energy efficiency of generating electricity from incineration combustion is more or less the same in the United States and in France (a reasonable assumption). Clearly, in estimating the avoided impact for electricity production, the avoided emissions are greater if the alternative is coal, rather than nuclear or hydro-electric power. Accordingly we impute avoided emissions for incineration energy recovery representing the following savings.
Nature of incinerated material Plastic, conventional average value Savings linked to energy recovery in kg C eq per ton of material incinerated -73
Table 158: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (Europe)
217 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 85. 218 The default value will apply to practically all plastic encountered.
166 / 249
Therefore materials incinerated with energy recovery are reported with the following nett values:
Nature of incinerated material Plastic, conventional average value kg carbon equivalent per ton of material incinerated with energy recovery 401
Table 159: Emission factors for incineration of plastics with energy recovery
7.2.4 Recycled plastic

As in the case above, savings due to recycling are not included in end-of-life disposal, because most recycling is closed-loop recycling. One ton of recycling plastic is thus assigned emissions due to transport to a materials recovery facility, set at 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton.
7.2.5 Breakdown of types of disposal in France and average values

For 2002 end-of-life plastics are broken down as follows, by type of treatment (this refers only to packaging, but as explained above this category will be preponderant in waste for which the disposal destination is not known)219:
% sent to landfill without methane recovery 32% % sent to landfill with methane recovery 15% % incinerated without energy recovery 2% % incinerated with energy recovery 36% % materials recovery 15%
Table 160: Breakdown of plastic waste disposal by type of treatment (France) The average value is by definition the sum of the unit values divided by the number of occurrences of the unit values. This calculation gives average values for the carbon content of end-of-life plastics in France, using the following formula. 47%*4+2%*474+36%*401+15%*4 = 156220 This is the value used when the final disposal destination for food waste is not known.
7.3 Fermentable and combustible materials

This category includes materials not covered in other categories, primarily
219 220
ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France. As written this formula would give a slightly lower figure, because the percentages have been rounded off. The exact calculation gives 165.
167 / 249
- food waste - paper and cardboard
7.3.1 Materials sent to landfill without energy or materials recovery 7.3.1.1 Paper and cardboard
If paper and cardboard are sent to landfill, they ferment, engendering methane and CO2 emissions. In addition, a proportion of the carbon non-fossil, as paper and cardboard are made from wood is sequestered in soil. A study published by the US EPA221 gives the following values for methane emissions (in carbon equivalent) for paper and cardboard (discarded dry, but dampened by contact with other waste) per ton of dry waste, taking into account methane emissions and carbon sequestration in landfills.
Material sent to landfill without methane recovery Discarded office paper (average) Cardboard End-of-life disposal carbon equivalent by type of material (kg C per ton) 400 280
Table 161: Emission factors for waste paper and cardboard landfilled without methane recovery (EPA, 1998) Accordingly paper sent to landfill is assigned an emission factor of 400 kg carbon equivalent per ton. Data from the same source lead to a figure of 280 kg carbon equivalent per ton for cardboard sent to landfill.
7.3.1.2 Food waste

Fermentation of food waste sent to landfill engenders methane emissions as well as nitrous oxide (N2O); the latter are for the most part marginal. As for paper, some of the carbon non-fossil contained in this waste is sequestered in landfill soil. Total methane emitted less sequestered carbon gives roughly 290 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste sent to landfill222.
221 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 108. 222 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 108.
168 / 249
7.3.2 Material sent to landfill with energy or materials recovery

Energy recovery from landfills consists in recovery methane released by fermentation of waste, and using it in the same way as natural gas. In this case two types of savings are achieved compared to disposal without energy recovery: - the recovered methane is not released to the atmosphere, - combustion of methane can be used to supply energy.
7.3.2.1 Food waste

Methane produced by one ton of food waste represents 290 kg carbon equivalent (see 7.3.1.2 above), corresponding to emission of about 50 kg of methane223. When converted to electricity this methane will lead to 37 kg of CO2, but this is not fossil CO2. This non-fossil CO2 replaces fossil CO2, however, that would have been emitted if fossil methane were used in the power plant in question, and thus avoided fossil CO2 emissions should be taken into account in referring to this methane used to produce electricity. In comparison with landfilling without energy recovery, methane recovery yields the following savings: - 290 kg carbon equivalent for methane not emitted to the atmosphere, - 37 kg carbon equivalent of CO2. The carbon equivalent figure associated with disposing of one ton of food waste in a landfill with methane recovery is thus minus 37 kg carbon equivalent per ton (that can also be written -37 kg C-eq/t) - in other words a savings.
7.3.2.2 Paper and cardboard

The carbon equivalent for nett methane emissions (total methane less sequestered carbon) produced by one ton of paper is 400 kg carbon equivalent according to the data given in 7.3.1.1. This corresponds to around 69 kg of methane, and following the same reasoning as above (as paper and cardboard come from biomass) this avoids fossil CO2 emissions amounting to 52 kg carbon equivalent. Compared to landfilling without energy recovery, the savings are the following: - 400 kg C per ton, for combustion of methane,
223
This calculation was done at a time when the GWP for methane was 21. The quantity of methane is thus obtained by the operation (290/21)*44/12.
169 / 249
- 52 kg C per ton, for CO2 emissions avoided in producing electricity from natural gas. The carbon equivalent figure associated with disposing of one ton of paper in a landfill with methane recovery is thus - (minus) 52 kg carbon equivalent per ton. For cardboard, using the same reasoning, the savings are 36 kg carbon equivalent per ton.
7.3.3 Incineration without energy recovery 7.3.3.1 Food waste

Incineration of food waste leads to non-fossil carbon emissions. Furthermore this is a rapid-rotation cycle: plants grown for food absorbed the carbon discharged to the atmosphere within a year, more or less (for meat the cycle is bit longer, but not much224). The only emissions from incinerated food waste are transport emissions, set at 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of waste.

Incineration of paper and cardboard also leads to carbon dioxide emissions. Combustion of paper returns organic carbon to the environment, because paper is made from trees (notably pine trees) and from recycled cloth (cotton fibre). Even so, combustion of wood from stable forestry plantations is considered to be neutral from a climate point of view, because the emissions from burned wood are offset by CO2 sequestration by standing trees and the replanted plots225. Likewise, combustion of paper and cardboard is also taken to be climate-neutral, considering that this is burning wood that has previously been made in to paper. Incineration of paper is therefore neutral, and only transport to the incinerator is taken into account, on the basis of 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton of paper or cardboard.
7.3.4 Incineration with energy recovery 7.3.4.1 Food waste

224 Poultry and swine are slaughtered after a few months; only cattle "survive" for several years, a short period in comparison to the time scale of climate change. 225 Strictly speaking, neutrality from a climate point of view is achieved when the amount burned in the year corresponds to new growth in the year.
170 / 249
The US EPA indicates an avoided emissions value of 60 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste226 incinerated with energy recovery. But as outlined above, this savings figure is based on a carbon equivalent of 167 g per kWh (because the recovered energy is used to generate electricity), whereas in France the figure is 23 g carbon equivalent per kWh. The corrected figure for these savings by convention is 60*23/167 = 9 kg carbon equivalent per ton of food waste incinerated with energy recovery. Deducting transport to the incinerator from these savings, food waste incinerated with energy recovery is assigned - (minus) 5 kg carbon equivalent per ton.

Here again our only reference data comes from the already cited EPA document. Following the same reasoning as in 7.2.3, we arrive at emissions credits as follows.
Nature of material kg carbon equivalent of emissions avoided by energy recovery per ton of waste (USA) -180 -190 kg carbon equivalent of emissions avoided by energy recovery per ton of waste (France) -26 -27
Paper Cardboard
Table 162: Savings achieved by incineration of paper and cardboard with energy recovery, in the United States and in France Accordingly, emission factors for incineration of paper and cardboard with energy recovery are equal to the sum of this negative value and a value of 4 kg carbon equivalent per ton for transport.
7.3.5 Recycling
As above, recycling is by convention assigned zero emissions, excepting transport emissions.
7.3.6 Statistical average for waste disposal in France

Regarding food waste we assume that negligible amounts are sent to landfill with methane recovery, giving the following breakdown227:
226 US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, p. 91. 227 ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France.
171 / 249
% sent to landfill without methane recovery 36%
% sent to landfill with methane recovery 18%
% incinerated without energy recovery 2%
% incinerated with energy recovery 32%
Composting or energy recovery 12%
Table 163: Breakdown of food waste disposal by type of treatment (France) On this basis the average GHG emission value for disposal of food waste is 96 kg carbon equivalent per ton. This is the value used when the final disposal destination for food waste is not known. For paper and cardboard the breakdown by type of disposal is the following228:
% sent to landfill without methane recovery 17% % sent to landfill with methane recovery 8% % incinerated without energy recovery 2% % incinerated with energy recovery 21% % materials recovery 52%
Table 164: Breakdown of paper and cardboard waste disposal by type of treatment (France) This gives the following average values: - 61 kg carbon equivalent per ton for paper, - 42 kg carbon equivalent per ton for cardboard. These values are used when the final disposal destination of paper/cardboard waste is not known.
7.4 Hazardous industrial waste

The environmental impacts of hazardous waste storage at multi-user sites in France are evaluated in a study229 conducted by FNADE230 and ADEME in 2001-2002 (published in 2003). This study uses life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology. This is a technique that counts up potential environmental impacts generated throughout the life cycle of a product or service. This inventory data was based on average values representing the situation in France in 2000. A repository231 is a place designed for waste storage, above or below ground. Waste repositories are classed in three categories in France:
228 229 230
ADEME, 2004, La valorisation des emballages en France. ADEME FNADE, 2003, Eco-profil du stockage des dchets dangereux en sites collectifs en France. FNADE: Fdration Nationale des Activits de Dpollution et de lEnvironnement 231 Formerly called "centre denfouissement technique" (CET) in France, now "centre de stockage de dchets ultimes" (CSDU).
172 / 249
- class I: hazardous waste (stabilized final waste) - class II: non-hazardous waste (household and assimilated waste) - class III: inert waste (rubble and excavated material). The study is devoted exclusively to class I waste repositories. The waste accepted at these repositories originates with industrial processes or pollution clean-up installations (for instance, incineration residues). For the most part these wastes are solid or mineral, with very low reactivity and solubility, and unlikely to evolve over time. These repositories do not accept fermentable waste, liquids, radioactive substances, infectious or potentially infections items, wastes that cannot be pelletized, unprocessed powdered waste, explosive, inflammable or hot substances, or items with dioxin content greater than 50 ppm by mass. Once incoming waste is analysed and accepted, it is subject to stabilization and solidification treatment before being stored in cells. The chemical compounds in the waste are retained by cold stabilization treatment. Some wastes are already stable when they arrive at the site and do not require this treatment. Solidification enhances the mechanical resistance of the waste. The aim of these operations is to prevent transfer of pollutants from the waste to the surrounding environment. The waste is stored in watertight cells to limit interaction between the waste and the environment, in particular leaching. The LCA study covers only the above stages, and is based on a sample group of 11 sites, typical of the average situation in France in 2000. The study finds that for one ton of waste in storage 124 kg of CO2 are emitted, coming primarily from the manufacture of the raw materials used for stabilization treatment. This process also emits methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx), respectively 160 g, 359 g and 289 g for one ton of waste. The table below shows the breakdown of emissions for each phase of the waste repository life cycle.
Construction of site and storage facility CO2 (g) CH4 (g) NOx SOx 5 439 9 50 8 Waste stabilization Raw Process materials 110 517 762 142 248 256 2 2 3 Transport of waste to site 760 1 9 0,6 Waste storage 994 0,7 5 5 Site closure (10 000 years) 5 073 8 46 17 Aftercare TOTAL 123 545 159 359 289
173 / 249
Table 165: Life cycle inventory data for the storage of one ton of hazardous waste, by life cycle stages (ADEME FNADE, 2003)
By adding up the different greenhouse gases emitted, we found an average emission factor of 125 kg carbon equivalent per ton of waste. Note that the aforementioned values may vary by a factor of 1 to 4 depending on the site, which explains why we assign a 50% uncertainty range to this emission factor. The above values consolidate data for all the waste taken in at the storage sites and the values cannot be extrapolated for any particular type of dangerous waste.
7.5 End-of-life non-energy emissions and leakages

The emission factors used for non-energy emissions and leakages at end-of-life are explained in 3.1 of this manual. Likewise, section 3.3 is devoted to the data used in the Bilan Carbone utility (called "Clim_froid") for estimating emissions of refrigerant fluids, during use and at the time of disposal232.
7.6 Wastewater
In theory the emissions related to wastewater come from two sources: - a stay in anaerobic conditions (marshes, ponds, lagoons, river cut- off...) and water-laden organic matter (ie containing carbon), which leads to methane emissions in so far as it remains for a long time (a few weeks at least, or more if this matter is diffused in slightly damp form), - a breakdown of nitrogen compounds, in aerobic conditions or not, which leads to N2O emissions. Since, in practice, a minimum stay in anaerobic conditions and a minimum concentration of wastewater organic matter is required for the emissions to be significant, the following is not applicable: - Water discharged in a non-stagnant milieu (water moving or flowing in a river, for example), where anaerobic conditions are not met, - Water discharged into a network that leads to a purification plant, because the continued anaerobic conditions of organic matter in suspension (which takes only time to arrive at the station) is much too short for significant emissions to take place. Only water exiting the station, and rejected in a stagnant milieu, if any, are to be taken into account.
232
For further information refer to appendix 2 of the User's Manual for the Bilan_carbone_V4.xls spreadsheet.
174 / 249
Finally, the emission factors below concerning methane emissions: the N2O released by the decomposition of nitrogen compounds is a minor factor in wastewater emissions, and applies above all to swine excrement in agriculture.
The perfect matching of the emission factors to reality should result in the use of differentiated factors, according to the type of treatment (which determines
whether decomposition is more or less aerobic) and climate conditions (that govern rapidity of fermentation). Also in this context, a greater or lesser amount of available carbon is effectively converted to methane. For the lack of literature currently available, we have simply supplied the upper limit value for possible emissions for cases that fall under this approach, and this is 0,25 kg of methane per kg of biodegradable organic carbon contained in the waste233. The weight of organic carbon is also the weight of what is classically called biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), a standard indicator of the fermentable content of wastewater. In the absence of site-specific data (direct measurements, or a method tailored to the circumstances, etc.), the formula used by default is kg NH4 produced = 0,25 * kg BOD Consequently the carbon equivalent is kg carbon equivalent from wastewater = 0,25 * kg BOD * 6,27234 If this entry is significant in the total (which will probably rarely be the case), more detailed investigation, and possibly direct measurements, will be necessary. Furthermore, for certain activities that discharge wastewater with a high organic material content, there are applicable average values if direct measurement is not possible. NB: these average values apply only to untreated wastewater discharged to the environment. In no case can they be applied to an industry that purifies wastewater before discharge, or an industry that discharges its wastewater - directly or via a sewer - to a treatment plant that purifies the effluent shortly after discharge. By definition these values do not apply to tertiary-sector activities.
Source of wastewater Sugar refinery wastewater Alcoholic beverage distillery wastewater kg carbon equivalent per m3 of wastewater 154 63
233 Environment Ministry, Australia, 1997, A Quick Reference Guide, Estimating Potential Methane Production, Recovery and Use from Waste. (www.environment.gov.au). 234 The figure 6,27 is the value approaching (23*1244), i.e. the carbon equivalent of one kg of methane.
175 / 249
Brewery wastewater Organic chemicals industry wastewater Starch wastewater Dairy product wastewater Food and vegetable processing industries Edible oil manufacturing wastewater Papermaking wastewater Tannery wastewater Food processing, default value
16 47 16 3 6 78 6 8 5
Table 166: Emission factors for wastewater treatment
176 / 249
8 - End-of-life disposal of packaging

Packaging for products sold is distinguished from other types of waste in this tool, for the following reasons: - unlike other input materials reported, this packaging is waste by nature: after use it is necessarily discarded, - unlike waste that arises directly within the reporting company, for which it is possible to know, roughly speaking, what disposal methods are used (landfilling, incineration), for product packaging it is hard to know exactly how a given piece of packing will be disposed of at the end of its life. - given the large amounts of packaging produced and the often quite large geographic area within which they will be disposed of, it makes sense to use a statistical approach to end-of-life treatment for these particular items, - lastly, the management of packaging is often entrusted to a few clearly identified individuals within companies. As explained above, it is impossible to know where a given piece of packaging will finish its life. Inversely, as companies generally package large numbers of products, that will be sold over a large area, we have opted for a statistical approach: It is assumed that end-of-life disposal of packaging reflects the proportion of different kinds of waste treatment in France. - Incineration with energy recovery - Incineration without energy recovery - Material sent to landfill with methane recovery - Material sent to landfill without methane recovery - Recycling In other words, for end-of-life treatment of packaging, we use the average emissions values given in 7.1.2, 7.2.5 and 7.3.5 above.
Material Metals PET Other plastics Glass Cardboard Paper End-of-life emissions in kg C eq per ton 4 168 282 4 42 61
Table 167: Emission factors for disposal of packaging waste

Manufacture of packaging materials is handled as an item in the category of Input materials, and thus manufacturing and end-of-life emissions can be aggregated for this packaging (the carbon balance spreadsheet automatically proposes this aggregation). The spreadsheet supplies a graph representing "Total packaging emissions", using the above values plus those given in 5. The table below recapitulates this consolidation.
kg C eq for manufacturing and endof-life disposal "on average 874 304 2 894 674 782 532 832 512 1 368 568 1 052 802 932 1 482 1 768 418 124 404 169 1 004 584 804 804 2 504 574 1 004 542 611
Material Steel or tinplate produced from ore Steel or tinplate produced 100% reprocessed scrap Aluminium produced from ore Aluminium produced from 100% reprocessed scrap High-density polyethylene (new) High-density polyethylene (100% recycled) Low-density polyethylene (new) Low-density polyethylene (100% recycled) PET (new) PET (100% reprocessed) Polystyrene (new) PVC (new) Plastic - average Composite - polyurethane Polyethylene plastic film Plate glass Bottle glass Container glass Glass (100% reprocessed) Technical glassware Fibreglass Copper Zinc Nickel Lead Other common metals Cardboard (unprinted) Paper (unprinted)
Table 168: Emission factors for packaging production These values are used to establish an explanatory graph in the spreadsheet to illustrate the impact of packaging from one end of the chain to the other.
178 / 249
9 - Accounting for amortized assets

The main objective in this chapter is to derive emission factors enabling reporting companies to estimate GHG emissions for construction of capital goods and assets (buildings, machinery, etc.). Buildings and machinery are made of basic materials, then transported and assembled, and all of these stages engender GHG emissions. In this chapter we propose an approximate accounting method, based on surface area, a variable that is usually easy to determine. The distinctive methodological feature for this category is the use of amortization, exactly as in financial accounting. We have chosen linear amortization, over the same period of time as for financial accounts. In effect emissions corresponding to construction of machinery or a building are spread over several years. Emission factors will be refined by successive iterations when accurate calculations have been carried out by builders and manufacturers of capital goods.
9.1 Buildings 9.1.1 Rough approach for building surface area

NB: The values suggested below are derived from energy expenditures for construction of different types of buildings, and therefore refer only to fossil CO2. A CNRS study (ECODEV programme) carried out in 1998 gives the distribution of new construction started in 1990, by type of use, and indicates overall energy expenditure by type of building. Intermediate consumption (transport, manufacture of materials etc.) is taken into account in this study. Buildings are divided into concrete structures (for example, an office building) and metallic structures (a hangar or industrial building). The study estimates the proportional share for these two types. Lastly, a metallic structure requires roughly three times less energy to build than a concrete structure.
179 / 249
Type of building Housing Farm buildings Industrial buildings Garages Commercial buildings Office space Schools Healthcare facilities Leisure facilities
total surface area thousands of toe corresponding (m) to construction 25 080 000 4 050 12 733 000 2 056 17 495 000 2 825 1 854 000 299 5 553 000 897 6 981 000 1 127 2 536 000 410 2 599 000 420 2 213 000 357
% of metallic structures 0% 50% 70% 50% 30% 10% 0% 0% 20%
Table 169: Energy expenditures for building construction by type of activity Using this data, the energy expenditure per m of building construction can be calculated (see table below).
Type of building total surface area (m) 25 080 000 12 733 000 17 495 000 1 854 000 5 553 000 6 981 000 2 536 000 2 599 000 2 213 000 m in metallic structures 0 6 366 500 12 246 500 927 000 1 665 900 698 100 0 0 442 600 m concrete koe /m metallic structure 54 81 101 81 67 58 54 54 62
235
2
koe/m concrete structure 161 242 303 242 202 173 162 162 186
Housing Farm buildings Industrial buildings Garages Commercial buildings Office space Schools Healthcare facilities Leisure facilities
25 080 000 6 366 500 5 248 500 927 000 3 887 100 6 282 900 2 536 000 2 599 000 1 770 400
Table 170: Energy expenditures for building construction by material It remains to calculate the emission factor for one kilo-oil-equivalent (koe) in construction, taking minor GHG into account if possible. The method used is described below. - The CNRS study gives energy consumption in tons-oil-equivalent (toe) by sector of activity. - CEREN data include the share of electricity in total energy use, by NAF code. - Combining the two, we obtain the share of electricity in energy use for each sector (see below). - We assume that CO2 emissions for electricity generation are negligible (an acceptable assumption, considering other emissions).
235
koe = kilo oil equivalent, toe = ton oil equivalent.
180 / 249
- The remaining energy use, in fossil fuels, is assigned the standard value of 0,76 tons carbon equivalent per toe236, which allows energy GHG emissions to be calculated. - Non-energy emissions are added for cement (ratio of 1,35 to 1) and for nonferrous metals (ratio of 1 to 1 for aluminium). This gives the following table:
Products Upstream % consumption electricity in toe 330 000 1 427 000 3 020 000 358 000 1 088 000 206 000 992 000 3 864 000 131 000 140 000 263 000 11 819 000 toe fuel tons C/toe tons C for tons C for total tons for energy nonC remainder emissions energy emissions 0,76 125 400 125 400 250 800 0,76 867 616 867 616 0,76 1 950 2 633 742 4 584 920 662 0,76 163 248 163 248 0,76 413 440 413 440 0,76 117 420 117 420 0,76 376 960 376 960 753 920 0,76 1 468 1 468 320 320 0,76 49 780 49 780 0,76 53 200 53 200 0,76 39 976 39 976 5 626 3 136 102 8 762 280 382
Non-ferrous metals Ferrous metals Building materials Glass Metallurgy Plastic Electrical equipment Machinery Household goods Parachemicals Wood TOTAL
50% 165 000 20% 1 141 600 15% 2 567 000 40% 214 800 50% 544 000 25% 154 500 50% 496 000 50% 1 932 000 50% 50% 80% 65 500 70 000 52 600 7 403 000
Table 171: Emissions for building construction, by activity sector in France On this basis of 8 800 000 tons C eq in emissions (including some minor gases) for energy consumption of 11 819 000 toe, a first approximation (for use in further calculations) gives us the figure of 0,74 tons C eq per toe used in construction. Emission factors per m2 can then be derived fairly easily using the data above, by assigning the factor of 0,74 tons C eq per toe in construction, to the "energy content" in the table 134.
Type of building kg carbon equivalent per m Metallic structure (hangar, Concrete structure (office etc.) building) 40 119 60 179 75 225 60 179 50 150 43 128 40 120 40 120
2
Housing Farm buildings Industrial buildings Garages Commercial buildings Office space Schools Healthcare facilities
236
Carbon content of the average mix of fossil fuels used by the industry.
181 / 249
Leisure facilities
46
138
Table 172: Emission factors per m2 by building type and activity Emissions linked to construction of a 150-m house with a concrete structure will be on the order of 150*119 = 17 850 kg carbon equivalent, or 17,8 tons C eq. Seeing that heating for 150 m represents 0,5 to 2 tons C eq per year, this is not a negligible amount, even amortized over several decades. Using this rudimentary method, it is possible to model emissions linked to construction of new infrastructure and their amortization, in orders of magnitude. The uncertainty by default factor is set at 50%.
9.1.2 Overall approach based on energy consumption

Construction emissions can also be derived from building energy consumption. In this approach it is assumed that construction emissions237 represent a fraction of total emissions over the life of the building, and are determined by building type. - For existing building stock, this fraction lies between 7% and 10% (with 5% imputed to manufacture of building materials alone). - For new buildings, the proportion is on the order of 15%. - The proportion for construction emissions could be as high as 20% to 25% for buildings designed for low energy consumption during their operational life238. Only two approaches are used in the Bilan Carbone spreadsheet: the surface area approach (9.1.1) and the approach based on the quantities of building materials used (9.1.3).
9.1.3 A more detailed approach, based on quantities of materials used

A more accurate estimate can be established if the nature and quantities of building materials used are known to the user, as in the case of a new building to be erected. In this case emission factors per functional unit (FU)239 (a ton of cement, a m2 of roofing, etc.) Transport, handling and on-site treatment emissions are added in, if they have not already been accounted for.
237 Direct energy consumption at construction sites, indirect consumption for manufacture, distribution and transport of materials, and ancillary consumption in other economic sectors that can be imputed to buildings (insurance, for example). 238 ADEME, June 2005, Stratgie utilisation rationnelle de l'nergie, Chapitre II: les btiments. 239 ISO 14040 defines the functional unit as "the quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit in a life cycle assessment study".
182 / 249
The emission factors recommended for this approach are taken from the INIES database240. This database contains environmental and health statements for different construction materials submitted by manufacturers and trade groups in this sector, containing information for product life-cycle analysis. GHG emissions due to manufacture, transport, use and disposal can be evaluated for each separate material. The INIES database currently includes some 40 statements, and new ones are regularly submitted. Some emission factors taken from this database are given in the table below.
Materials/Products Concrete-block masonry wall Prestressed concrete joist Plaster blocks Single-layer steel siding Concrete roof tiles Thermal insulation products Homogeneous PVC flooring PVC piping Suspended ceiling panels Terracotta single-wall construction Units m linear m 1 m of wall 1 m of wall 1 m of roof 1 m of wall 1 m of floor 1 linear m 1 m 1 m Emission factors in kg C eq per unit 5,01 0,92 4,47 2,32 2,86 1,64 1,80 0,70 1,17 14,73
Table 173: Emission factors for construction materials and products (INIES database)
9.2 Roadways and parking areas

As for all infrastructures, roadway construction involves materials that have been produced upstream (steel, concrete, asphalt, bitumen, etc.). The only publication on this topic currently available in France is a study conducted by the firm Colas in September 2003241, which contains the following figures. The detailed factors given in 9.1.3 above are also valid, if necessary.
9.2.1 Primary components

Just as a building is made from primary components such as bricks, cement pads, concrete pillars, poured concrete, tiles, etc., a roadway is made from primary components that are implemented differently depending on the type of roadway. In sum primary components can be divided into three categories: - gravel, i.e. quarried material that is more or less finely crushed, - binders, that are the roadway equivalent of cement,
240 INIES: Informations sur lImpact Environnemental et Sanitaire. The INIES database is accessible free of charge on the Internet, (www.inies.fr). 241 Colas, 2003, La route cologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie.
183 / 249
- metals, for protective barriers or for the roadway equivalent of reinforced concrete. These components are blended in variable proportions, giving "products" that are used in road construction, with standard designations in the public works industry Only products not covered in chapter 5 are listed below (steel in particular is not mentioned here). For the most part these components are used specifically for roadway construction. The reference publication distinguishes between emissions for manufacture, transport and application phases. The emission factors could thus be "lowered" if one of these phases is not relevant to the case in question. These are of course average values.
Product Bituminous concrete Bitumen gravel 3 High-modulus asphalt Warm asphalt Gravel emulsion Cold-rolled bituminous concrete Gravel cement Precracked gravel cement Hydraulic gravel binder Precracked roadway gravel binder Cement concrete (roadways) Continuous reinforced concrete (roadways) Untreated gravel Treated surface roadway binder On-site hot recycling 10% recycled bituminous concrete 20% recycled bituminous concrete 30% recycled bituminous concrete 50% recycled bituminous concrete On-site hot emulsion recycling kg carbon equivalent per ton 15 13 15 14 8 10 14 14 6 6 37 55 4 4 11 14 12 11 10 3
Table 174: Emission factors for roadway and parking area construction materials Insofar as these values include roadway application, there is no need to add supplementary emissions (company headquarters emissions are not included on a pro rata basis, but as for all industrial activities it is unlikely that this would significantly modify the outcome). Incidentally it can be observed that percentages for supplementary emissions due to transport and application vary between 10% and 30% (untreated gravel is the exception, with 50%) and that the average comes to a little over 15% (see table below).
Product Supplement for transport and
184 / 249
Bituminous concrete Bitumen gravel 3 High-modulus asphalt Warm asphalt Gravel emulsion Cold-rolled bituminous concrete Gravel cement Precracked gravel cement Hydraulic gravel binder Precracked roadway gravel binder Cement concrete Continuous reinforced concrete Untreated gravel Treated surface roadway binder 10% recycled bituminous concrete 20% recycled bituminous concrete 30% recycled bituminous concrete 50% recycled bituminous concrete On-site hot emulsion recycling Average
application 12% 15% 11% 13% 24% 20% 11% 10% 28% 29% 5% 3% 51% 13% 12% 13% 12% 11% 15% 16%
Table 175: Supplementary percentage for transport and application of roadway and parking area construction materials This observation incites us to take 15% as the baseline value for construction-phase emissions. In other words, when construction emissions are derived from the weight of materials used, a supplement of 15% is added to materials manufacturing emissions to account for this phase.
9.2.2 Emission factors per m for roadways and park ing areas
As data on the weight of materials used will not always be available, calculations can also be made using more readily available information, i.e. types of roadways and their dimensions (length and width).
9.2.2.1 Types of roadways

New roadways are calibrated according to the amount of traffic expected. Vehicle traffic is divided into two types, light vehicles (GVW <3,5 tons) and heavy-duty vehicles (GVW >3,5 tons). The Colas study242 uses the LCPC243-SETRA244 classification. It specifies eight types of roads, from TC1 to TC8.
242 243
Colas, 2003, La route cologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses. 244 Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Ministre des Transports, France.
185 / 249
Type of roadway TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8
Anticipated daily traffic Anticipated daily car of heavy-duty vehicles traffic (both directions) < 25 < 380 25 to 50 400 to 750 50 to 150 750 to 2 300 150 to 300 2 300 to 4 600 300 to 750 4 600 to 11 500 750 to 2 000 11 500 to 31 000 2 000 to 5 000 31 000 to 77 000 Over 5 000 Over 77 000
Table 176: Traffic on different types of roadways
9.2.2.2 Emissions per m

In addition to road class, that determines the maximum pressure a road can withstand and therefore the thickness and rigidity of materials used, roads are also characterized by structure, falling into one of three families: - reinforced concrete structure, - semi-rigid structure, - bituminous structure. The above-mentioned publication also gives values for emissions per m of roadway for each class, broken down by structure. These values are represented in a graph (they are not given in table form in the publication), and hence may be off by a few percentage points, but given that the variation of actual values from average values obtained by life-cycle analyses is often much greater, this uncertainty is not problematic.
Type of roadway TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 kg carbon equivalent per m and by structure Reinforced Semi-rigid Bitumen concrete 85 40 15 87 45 20 92 45 25 100 54 28 105 57 32 115 60 37 125 65 40
Table 177: Emission factors for roadway construction by type of structure Values for TC8 roadways are not given in the study, but a linear interpolation from values obtained for the preceding classes (by structure) should give an acceptable order of magnitude.
9.2.2.3 Emissions related to safety barriers
186 / 249
Safety barriers are frequently installed on heavily travelled roads and motorways with two lanes in each direction. As the emissions per meter of guard rail are nearly equal to roadway construction emissions, they must be taken into account.
Roadway class kg carbon equivalent per meter of safety barrier 88 280 280
TC5 TC6 TC7
Table 178: Emission factors for safety barriers by class of roadway
9.2.2.4 Parking areas

Construction techniques used for parking areas are the same as for roadways. In a first estimation, the structure of a supermarket parking area is equivalent to the roadway traffic class TC2. An average rest area on a motorway is equivalent to class TC3245.
9.3 Machinery and vehicles 9.3.1 Vehicles

On the basis of calculations carried out in 4.1.1.1 we use an emission factor of 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of vehicle weight in accounting for manufacture of land vehicles. This estimation takes all six greenhouse gases into effect. As we have mentioned before, carbon balance by branch of activity would be most useful for establishing accurate emission factors.
9.3.2 Production machinery

For machinery and production line equipment we propose to use the same emission factor, 1,5 tons carbon equivalent per ton of machinery weight, until such time as more detailed information is available. This estimation takes all six greenhouse gases into effect.
245
Exchanges with Julien Bilal, Colas, May 2004.
187 / 249
This is of course a very rough approximation; but industries that use production lines generally consume very large amounts of energy for production, and this energy use will predominate over amortization of capital assets.
9.3.3 Office and computer equipment 9.3.3.1 Manufacture of computer chips

Eric Williams, a researcher at the United Nations University, has published an article on fossil energy consumption for the production of the various subassemblies that make up personal computers, in a report entitled "Computers and the Environment; understanding and managing their impacts"246. This article gives figures for the manufacture of components (microprocessors for instance) from silicon wafers. Fabrication of the wafer is not taken into account, only energy consumption for producing chips from the wafers. The reference year is 2002, and the computations are those of the author of this publication.
Manufacture of computer chips Electricity consumption (kWh) Direct fossil fuel consumption (GJ) Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg)
247
Per chip 2,9 0,0016 0,97
World total 52 000 000 000 28 000 000 17 000 000 000
Per computer 281 0,155 94
Table 179: Energy consumption for chip manufacture Assuming that 70% of electricity comes from coal, that the only directly consumed fuel is gas, and that power plant efficiency is 50%, we arrive at a distribution of 90% coal and 10% gas for the primary fossil fuels used in computer components (the 94 kg of fossil fuels "contained" in a computer correspond to 9,4 kg of gas and the rest as coal). As the fossil fuels quantities are given by weight, and not in energy units, it should be remarked that the greater the share of gas, the higher the emissions. This is logical: CO2 emissions from gas are higher per unit of weight than from coal (one ton of coal contains less energy than one ton of gas). The above assumptions therefore tend to overestimate the share of coal in the total (for some electricity is generated from gas, and a smaller share from oil, and direct fuel consumption possibly also includes some oil).
Published by Kluwers Academic Publishers, 2004. Including electricity production; chip manufacturers are located in Japan and in the United States, where electricity generated from fossil fuel represents about two-thirds of total power production, and in Europe, where electricity from fossil resources represents about half of total production.
247
246
188 / 249
There is little chance that the suggested fuel mix overestimates CO2 emissions if the fuel "content" for component manufacture has been correctly calculated by this author.
9.3.3.2 Printed circuit boards

The same reference also includes values for the manufacture of the printed circuit boards on which the components are mounted (source Electronic Industry Association of Japan (EIAJ) 248, reference year 1997).
Manufacture of printed circuit boards Electricity consumption (kWh) Direct fossil fuel consumption (litres of oil) Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) World total 4 670 000 000 975 000 000 2 380 000 000 Per computer 27 5,6 14
Table 180: Energy consumption for manufacture of printed circuit boards With the same assumptions as above, coal represents 50% of primary fossil energy.
9.3.3.3 Screens
The same reference lists values for manufacture of cathode ray tubes (source EIAJ, reference year 1997) and flat screens (source EPA, reference year 2002). The information for cathode ray tubes (CRT) relies on data from Japanese industry.
Manufacture of cathode ray tubes Electricity consumption (kWh) Direct fossil fuel consumption (litres of oil) Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) Japan 1995 914 200 000 1 330 000 414 000 Per tube 21 3 9,5
Table 181: Energy consumption for cathode ray tube manufacture For flat screens the information given is the following:
Manufacture of flat screens Electricity consumption (kWh) Direct fossil fuel consumption (98% gas) Overall fossil fuel consumption (kg) Per flat screen (kg) 87 198 226
Table 182: Energy consumption for manufacture of flat screens
Computers and the environment; Understanding and managing their impacts, Eric Williams, R. Kuehr, United Nations University, Electronic Industry Association of Japan, 2004.
248
189 / 249
With the same assumptions as above, coal represents 58% of primary fossil energy for cathode ray tubes and 47% for flat screens.
9.3.3.4 Other components and total

It remains to ascertain fossil fuel consumption for production: - materials used for computer and screen housings, - silicon wafers used by silicon founders, - chemicals and primary materials (steel, plastic, glass, etc.) used for computer manufacture. Without information on the share of electricity, the values found in the reference publication are the following:
Manufacture of materials Materials for CPU housing Materials for screen housing Production of silicon wafers Production of required chemical products kg of fossil fuel per computer 21 22 17 64
Table 183: Fossil fuels used for ancillary computer materials (kg) The share of coal in primary energy is assumed to be 40% for primary materials production (which requires lots of heat, and therefore direct consumption of gas). In any event variation in this percentage has only a marginal effect. Combining this information we reach the following total for an office computer with a CRT screen:
Office computer with cathode ray tube Electronic components Printed circuit board Cathode ray tube Materials for CPU housing Materials for screen housing Production of chemical products Production of silicon wafers TOTAL kg fuels 94 14 9,5 21 22 64 17 241,5 % coal 90% 49% 58% 40% 40% 80% 20% % gas 10% 51% 42% 60% 60% 20% 80% kg C eq 68,6 11,4 7,5 17,4 18,2 48,0 14,8 185,8
Table 184: Emission factor for computer with cathode ray tube As a first estimation, and with an uncertainty range of 30%, an office computer with a CRT screen is assigned an emission factor of 185 kg carbon equivalent. This value does not take into account halocarbon emissions during manufacture of components (for some sites this may represent emissions close to those of direct fossil fuel
190 / 249
consumption, in terms of carbon equivalent), nor emissions linked to commercial activity (transport, heating of retail stores, advertising, etc.). A central processing unit (CPU) alone can be assigned an emission factor of 140 kg carbon equivalent, after deduction of the tube, materials for screen housing, and half of upstream emissions. For a computer with a flat screen, the data are the following:
Office computer with flat screen kg fuels % coal % gas kg C eq carbon equivalent 68,6 11,4 184,3 17,4 48,0 14,8 350,6
Electronic components Printed circuit board Flat screen Materials for CPU housing Production of chemical products Production of silicon wafers TOTAL
94 14 226 21 64 17 436
90% 49% 47% 40% 80% 20%
10% 51% 53% 60% 20% 80%
Table 185: Emission factor for computer with flat screen As a first estimation, and with an uncertainty range of 30%, an office computer with a flat screen is assigned an emission factor of 350 kg carbon equivalent.
9.3.3.5 Printers and servers

From a 1998 study on end-of-life disposal of "brown" appliances249 we learn that the average composition of an end-of-life computer or printer is as follows:
Material Ferrous metals Other metals Plastic Cathode ray tubes Printed circuit boards Total weight Average weight per unit (kg) Computer Printer 10,3 2,8 4,4 0,5 4,3 1,3 6,5 2,5 0,4 28 5
Table 186: Average weight of materials in a computer and printer As the "electronics content" of a small printer is five to six times lower than that of the computer, and as energy consumption "resides" mostly in electronic components, we tentatively assign an emission factor that is five or six times lower for printers, i.e. 30 kg carbon equivalent per printer.
Collecte et traitement des produits lectriques et lectroniques "grand public" en fin de vie, GIRUS for Rgion Nord Pas de Calais and ADEME, October 1998.
249
191 / 249
For servers and mainframe computers, we propose, tentatively, to assign emission values proportionally to sale price, compared to the price of a CPU (see above). If a server or large printer costs the equivalent of five times the price of a personal computer CPU, it can be assigned an emission factor of 5*140 = 700 kg carbon equivalent.
9.3.3.6 Method based on purchase price

Assuming that the average purchase price of computer equipped with a flat screen is 1 400 ex VAT (a price reported in several Bilan Carbone assessments), the GHG content is 250 g carbon equivalent per euro of expenditure for computer equipment (1 400 divided by 350 kg C eq). This emission factor is tentatively retained for budgetary approaches, with an uncertainty range of 50%.
9.3.3.7 Reprographic equipment

Given that reprographic devices are simply a particular kind of computer equipment, and following the results obtained above, we find an average emission factor of 800 kg carbon equivalent for photocopiers, and 400 kg carbon equivalent250 for recentmodel fax machines (which are often also printers).
250
This calculation is based on comparison of average costs for the procurement department of a major bank.
192 / 249
10 - Bibliographical References
10.1 - Sources 10.1.1 - List of individuals consulted in the course of preparing the emission factors
In alphabetical order M. AUBERT INRA Philippe BAJEAT - ADEME Carine BARBIER - CNRS ECODEV Stphane BARBUSSE - ADEME Sbastien BARNEOUD-ROUSSET - Armateurs de France Ren BEAUMONT - INRA Jean-Jacques BECKER - Ministre de l'Environnement Sbastien BEGUIER - CITEPA Sylvie BENARD LVMH Hilaire BEWA - ADEME Julien BILAL - COLAS Jean-Pierre BIRAT - ARCELOR Flix BOCQUET - Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Luc BODINEAU - ADEME Jean-Pierre BOURDIER - EDF Bernard BRESSE - ADEME Martin BUSSENSCHUTT - EAWAG Sandrine CARBALLES - ADEME Bernard CARPENTIER - Institut du Vgtal Benot CARROUEE - PROLEA Marc CASAMASSIMA - ADEME Pierre CELLIER INRA
Bernard CHABOT ADEME Michel CHAPPAT - Colas France Jean-Marie CHARLES - DGEMP, Ministre de l'Industrie Anne CHENE-PEZOT ADEME Jean-Luc CHEVALLIER - CSTB Sbastien CIBICK - ASPA Alsace Jean COIFFARD - CEREN Alain CORFDIR - ENPC Marc COTTIGNIES - ADEME Myriam CRON - ADEME Roland CURTET - Ministre de lEquipement, des Logements et des Transports Jean-Pierre DECURE - Ministre de lEquipement, des Logements et des Transports Isabelle DEPORTES ADEME Hubert DESPRETZ - ADEME Benjamin DESSUS - CNRS ECODEV Philippe DESVIGNES - Institut du Vgtal Jean-Marc DOMANGE - Ciments Calcia Jean-Yves DOURMAD - INRA Marlne DRESCH - ADEME Dominique DRON - MIES Jean-Pierre DULPHY - INRA Yves EGAL ORBANIS Marie FILOTTI - ADEME Laurine FEINBERG - ADEME Jean-Pierre FONTELLE - CITEPA Guillaume GABORIT - CITEPA Elisabeth GAILLARDE - ADEME Virginie GARCIA - ADEME Andr GASTAUD - MIES M. GERMON - INRA Bernard GROS - ARCELOR Olivier GUYADER - IFREMER Julia HAAKE - O2 France Stphane HIS - Institut Franais du Ptrole Nicolas HOUDANT - Energies Demain Catherine JONDREVILLE - INRA
M. JUMEL - CEMAGREF Joseph KLEINPETER - ASPA Alsace Pierre-Yves KOEHRER - O2 France Franois KORNMANN - Alternconsult Richard LAVERGNE - Observatoire de l'Energie, Ministre charg de l'Energie. Nicolas LE BIGOT - Comit des Constructeurs Franais d'Automobiles Herv LEFEBVRE - ADEME Afsaneh LELLAHI, Institut du Vgtal Philippe LEONARDON - ADEME Benot LESAFFRE - Ministre de lAgriculture Philippe LEVAVASSEUR - ST Microelectronics Franois LHOPITEAU, president, Institut Technique de l'Agriculture Biologique Daniel MADET - EDF Pierre MALAVAL - engineer (retired) GREF engineer Sarah MARTIN - ADEME Valrie MARTIN - ADEME Jos MARTINEZ - CEMAGREF Nathalie MARTINEZ - ADEME Yves MERILLOT - ADEME Louis MEURIC - Observatoire de l'Energie, Ministre de l'Industrie Martine MICHAU - Ministre de l'Equipement, des Logements et des Transports Jean-Marie MILLOUR - Armateurs de France Luc MOLINARI - Hays Argon Jean-Eudes MONCOMBLE - EDF Jrme MOUSSET - ADEME Franois MUDRY - Arcelor Jane NOPPE ADEME Sylvie PADILLA - ADEME Pierre PALAT - MIES Jean-Michel PAPLEUX - Comit Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne Marc PEIGNE - Hays Argon Jean PELIN - Union des Industries Chimiques Andr POUGET - Pouget Consultants Jean-Pierre PRADAYROL - SNCF Michael PRATHER - University of California, Irvine Alain RICAUD - Cythelia
Arthur RIEDACKER - MIES Emmanuel RIVIERE - ASPA Alsace Christine SCHUBETZER - ADEME Olivier SIDLER - Enertech Jean-Franois SOUSSANA - INRA Jean-Patrick SUTEAU - ADEME Jean-Pierre TABET - ADEME Arnoudeth TRAIMANY - ADEME Jean-Pierre TRAISNEL - Universit de Paris 8 Francis TROCHERIE IFEN Rgine TROTIGNON ADEME Dominique VEUILLET - ADEME Eric VIDALENC - ADEME Sandrine WENISCH - ADEME Frdrique WILLARD - ADEME
10.1.2 - Literature consulted for the elaboration of the emission factors

A Quick Reference Guide, Estimating Potential Methane Production, Recovery and Use from Waste, Environment Ministry, Australia, 1997 Analyse de cycle de vie de l'amidon de mas, de mas grain et de mas ensilage, Ecobilan report for AGPM, 1998 Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, IPCC, 1999 Bilan Carbone d'une entreprise: Amlioration de la prise en compte du transport de marchandises hors compte propre - Hays Argon, ADEME June 2003 Bilans nergtiques et gaz effet de serre des filires de production de biocarburants, ECOBILAN (for ADEME and DGEMP), 2002 Bilan nergie et effet de serre des filires crales, ADEME, 2006 Bilan environnemental des filires vgtales pour la chimie, les matriaux et lnergie, ADEME BG EPFL, 2004 Bilan Environnemental du chauffage collectif et industriel au bois, ADEME Bio Intelligence Service, 2005
Bilan et gestion des Gaz effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus de l'Acadmie d'Agriculture, vol. 85, 1999 Cahiers de l'environnement, 250/I, Office Fdral de lEnvironnement, des Forts et du Paysage, Switzerland, 1998 Choix logistiques des entreprises et consommation d'nergie, Christophe RIZET, INRETS and Basile KETA, B2K, November 2002 Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis, IPCC, 2001 Climate Change and the Power Industry, European carbon factors, a benchmarking of CO2 emissions by the largest European power producers, PriceWaterHouseCoopers & Enerpresse, 2002 Climate Change, The science of climate change, IPCC, 1995 Collecte et traitement des produits lectriques et lectroniques "grand public" en fin de vie, GIRUS for Rgion Nord Pas de Calais and ADEME, October 1998 Comptes des Transports de la Nation Computers and the environment, R. Kuehr and E. Williams, Kluwers Academic Press, 2004 Creating a standard for a corporate CO2 indicator, UNEP, 1998 Eco-profil du stockage des dchets dangereux en sites collectifs en France, FNADE/ADEME, 2003 Emissions de polluants et consommation lies la circulation routire, ADEME, 1998 Energie, un dfi plantaire, Benjamin DESSUS, Belin 1999 Energies par produits, CEREN for ADEME, 1999 Environmental Reporting: Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, United Kingdom, 1999 Enqute Transports, INSEE, 1993 Etude sur le niveau de consommation de carburant des units fluviales franaises, ADEME, VNF, T&L Associs, July 2005
197 / 249
Etude sur les pollutions de l'air par les moteurs des bateaux de la navigation intrieure, Beguier, Durif, Fontelle, Oudart, CITEPA, September 2000 Evaluation des efficacits nergtiques et environnementales du secteur des transports, ADEME Explicit, December 2002 Evaluation des missions de CO2 des filires nergtiques conventionnelles et non conventionnelles de production de carburants partir de ressources fossiles, Georgia PLOUCHARD, IFP rapport 55 949, April 2001 Flotte de Commerce sous pavillon franais, Ministre de lEquipement, des transports et du logement, SES, July 2002 Global Methane Emissions From Livestock and Poultry Manure, US Environment Protection Agency, 1992 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Waste, US Environment Protection Agency, 1998 I. Boustead, Eco-profiles in the European industry, Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe, April 1997; IBID May 1998; IBID1999 Indicateurs de dveloppement durable, Jancovici, IFEN, 2004 INSEE Premire N 767 - April 2001 Inventaire 1999 et prvisions 15 ans de l'ensemble des fluides frigorignes, Palandre, Nacif, Mercier, Clodic, 1999 Inventaire des missions de HFC utiliss comme fluides frigorignes, ADEME ARMINES, August 1999 Inventaire environnemental des intrants agricoles en production vgtale, Gaillard Grard, Crettaz Pierre, Heusheer Judith, comptes rendus de la FAT, 1997 Inventaire et prvisions des fluides frigorignes et de leurs missions Anne 2000, ADEME -ARMINES, 2002 Inventaire et prvisions des fluides frigorignes et de leurs missions - Anne 2001, ADEME -ARMINES, 2003 Inventaire national des missions de gaz effet de serre, CITEPA, format SECTEN, 2005 IPCC Manual for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 1996
198 / 249
L'effet de serre, La Jaune et La Rouge, May 2000 Lutilisation des vhicules de transport routier de marchandises en 2001, Ministre de lEquipement, des transports et du logement, SES, July 2002 La route cologique du futur, analyse du cycle de vie, Colas, 2003 La valorisation des emballages en France, ADEME, 1999 Les dterminants de la demande nergtique et du dveloppement, CNRS ECODEV, 1998 Les transports par autocars en 2002, Ministre des Transports DAEI-SES, November 2003 Matrise de la Demande dElectricit: Campagne de mesures par usages dans le secteur domestique, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, June 1996 Matrise de la Demande dElectricit: Etude exprimentale des appareils de cuisson, de froid mnager et de lavage/schage du linge dans 100 logements, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, June 1999 Matrise de la Demande dElectricit: Campagne de mesures sur le fonctionnement en veille des appareils domestiques, Olivier Sidler/Enertech, January 2000 Mmento des dcideurs, MIES, 1998 Note de cadrage sur le contenu CO2 du kWh par usage en France, ADEME, January 2005 Rapport environnement d'Air France, 1999 Rfrentiel pour le calcul des bilans nergtiques, ITCF/ADEME, 2003 Suivi du parc et des consommations de l'anne 2002, CEREN, 2003 Tableaux des consommations dnergie en France, Direction Gnrale de lEnergie et des matires premires, Observatoire de lEnergie, dition 2001. The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas emissions for business and non-commercial organizations, United Nations, 2000 Transports, Energie, Environnement, Quels enjeux ? ADEME, 2000 Update 30E, CSIRO Sustainability Network, August 2003
199 / 249
10.1.3 - Main websites consulted in elaborating the Bilan Carbone methodology

ADEME: www.ademe.fr/auto-diag/transports/car_lab/carlabelling/ListeMarque.asp Airbus: www.airbus.com European Energy Agency: www.eea.eu.int AMADEUS: www.amadeus.net Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe, life-cycle analyses: www.plasticseurope.org Aviation Civile franaise: www.aviation-civile.gouv.fr BOEING: www.boeing.com CITEPA: www.citepa.org Distance between two airports: www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/relcalc.html Distance between two cities/countries: www.dataloy.com Distance between two cities/countries: www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm EDF: www.edf.fr Vehicle emissions: www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk Enerdata: www.enerdata.grenet.fr Environment Ministry (UK): www.environment.detr.gov.uk/envrp/gas/index.htm EPA (USA): www.epa.gov Greenhouse Gas Initiative: www.ghgprotocol.org Information on swine: rechamakayajo.qc.ca/crois/croisem.htm Information on boiled cheeses: rechamakayajo.qc.ca/crois/croisem.htm Information on sheep: lebulletin.com/archives/0005/0005i.cfm INFOTRAFIC: www.infotrafic.com/itineraires/itiselvilles.php INSEE : www.insee.fr IPCC (GIEC) International Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch INRA: www.inra.fr Observatoire de lEnergie, DGEMP: www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/sommaire.htm Reference site on red meat: www.mhr-viandes.com
10.2 General bibliography 10.2.1 - IPCC publications

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published, among other works, methodological documents for assessing greenhouse gas emissions, in particular the IPCC Manual for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1996). The IPCC publications are designed for compiling national GHG inventories, but they contain information that is useful for corporate applications. The documents can be downloaded at the following address: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm These publications are not easy to use, and we suggest you refer to them only when you are comfortable with this inventory method. Many IPCC figures are used in this carbon balance tool. The IPCC is above all known for its publications that represent current scientific consensus on climate change, its causes and consequences. The full IPCC reports can be consulted at the IPCC website (www.ipcc.ch), and printed copies can be purchased from the Cambridge University Press251. These reports (in English) are highly technical, and will interest academics, researchers and consulting engineers, rather than the general public. Summaries of the IPCC reports are available in many languages and can be downloaded from the IPCC website (complete reports are available only in English).
10.2.2 - CITEPA publications

The Centre Interprofessionnel Technique d'Etude de la Pollution Atmosphrique (CITEPA) is the French organization responsible for conducting greenhouse gas emission inventories. Various summary documents can be downloaded from the organization's website (www.citepa.org); the full reports must generally be purchased.
10.2.3 - ADEME publications

ADEME publishes many documents on the themes discussed in this document (transport, industry, agriculture, public works and construction, etc.)252 Most of these studies can be consulted at the ADEME documentation centres (Paris, Angers and Valbonne253). The ADEME documents cited in this bibliography are available to readers through these three documentation centres.
251 252
http://uk.cambridge.org See the ADEME website for information on all ADEME publications, http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getDoc?cid=96&m=3&id=22125&ref=12441 253 See the ADEME website for addresses of its documentation centres: http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/KBaseShow?sort=-1&cid=96&m=3&catid=13918
201 / 249
10.2.4 - Publications issued by other French organizations

A useful document for those who want to take a closer look at agriculture: Bilan et gestion des Gaz effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Comptes rendus de l'Acadmie d'Agriculture, vol. 85, 1999. A useful document for local authorities: Mmento des dcideurs, Mission Interministrielle de l'Effet de Serre (MIES), 1998
202 / 249
Appendix 1 Power production in Europe

The diagram given below gives an idea of the distribution of primary energy resources used to generate electricity in Europe (Observatoire de l'Energie, French Industry Ministry; the reference year is 2001). For example France produces most of its electricity from nuclear energy, while Iceland obtains most of its electricity from hydropower. Most electricity in Poland comes from coal, as, to a lesser extent, in Greece, the Czech Republic, Germany and Denmark, while about half of the electricity generated in Sweden and Switzerland comes from nuclear energy and half from hydropower.
OCDE Europe Turquie Rpublique tchque Suisse Sude Rpublique slovaque Royaume-Uni Portugal Pologne Pays-Bas Norvge Luxembourg Italie Islande Irlande Hongrie Grce France Finlande Espagne Danemark Belgique Autriche Allemagne 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Charbon
Ptrole
Gaz
Nuclaire
Hydraulique
Solaire, olien,...
Autres
Figure 6: Electricity production in Europe in 2001, by type of primary energy source (Observatoire de lEnergie) This arises from the fact that the GHG content per kWh varies greatly from one country to the next, and in particular from one producer to the next.
For your information we give below emission factors for some European power producers for 2004 (in kg carbon equivalent per kWh).
Figure 7: Emission factors for some European electricity producers (2004) (Source: PWC_ENERPRESS 2004)
204 / 249
Appendix 2 Carbon content of electricity generated by EDF

The figures given are derived from life-cycle analyses (ISO 14040); they include emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, CH4 and N2O) that occur during operation of power plants (coal combustion, for instance) as well as those incurred during other stages of the power cycle (construction, manufacture and transport of fuels, dismantling, etc.). The full procedure used to elaborate this indicator has been validated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers/Ecobilan. Emissions by type of power production are given in the following table.
Type of production Nuclear power Coal-fired 600 MW Coal-fired 250 MW Fuel oil Combustion turbines Gas (blast furnaces) Hydropower (storage reservoirs) Hydropower (run-of-river) Hydropower (dams) Diesel generators Wind turbines Photovoltaic installations Plant operation 0 887 945 839 844 1682 127 0 0 646 0 0 Rest of cycle 5 114 117 149 68 0 5 5 5 175 3 to 24 60 to 250 TOTAL g CO2 eq/kWh 5 1001 1062 988 912 1682 132 5 5 821 3 to 2 60 to 250
Table 187: Emission factors for electricity production by type of production Comments: * Evaluation of plants using blast furnace stack gases is complex. The results are obtained by comparing two situations: with and without. * Hydropower from storage reservoirs involves using grid power (off-peak) to fill reservoirs. This water runs turbines to produce peak power. * For wind and photovoltaic generators, much of the uncertainty lies with the different resources used to produce the electricity employed in manufacturing the generators. For the principal means of production used by EDF the figures for grams CO2 equivalent per kWh are as follows:
- nuclear power: 5 - unpumped hydropower: 5 - pumped hydropower: 132 - 250 MW coal: 100 3 - 600 MW coal: 108 3 - gas turbines (intermittent operation): 912 Compiling the different means of production used, figures for 2005 are given below.
Month January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 g C eq /kWh 49 73 69 52,8 33,2 41,3 51,7 28,3 44,9 50 55,8 71 g C eq /kWh 13,4 19,9 18,8 14,4 9,1 11,3 14,1 7,7 12,2 13,6 15,2 19,4
Table 188: Monthly emission factors for EDF electricity in 2005
206 / 249
Appendix 3 Carbon dioxide emission factors for fuels
ADEME Note, 8 April 2005
This note presents the different factors to be used to convert fuel consumption to CO2 emissions. It does not cover the evaluation of industrial process emissions (lime decarbonation, among others) nor the CO2 content per kWh of electricity, which is discussed in a separate ADEME/EDF note (see the greenhouse website: www.ademe.fr section Changement climatique). CO2 emission factors are determined by the physical composition of the fuel consumed and its heat content. There are several sources of information on CO2 emission factors for different fuels: Public emission factors recommended by the IPCC (www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/public.htm), Emission factors used by CITEPA254 for official annual inventories approved by government authorities and transmitted to the United Nations; these factors are based on the IPCC factors, with corrections to account for specific national features. Emission factors used in the framework of international agreements (GHG Protocol, among others), the EU guide on emissions reporting under the emissions trading directive, on-going work on ISO standards, etc. Industrial companies in certain sectors may have their own emission factors, in particular for specific types of fuel.
The general rule underpinning emissions assessment is the following: Prefer specific emission factors for individual facilities (in industry), as long as they can be justified. Use specific national emission factors: for France, these are the CITEPA emission factors used to draw up official inventories. In cases where these emission factors are not appropriate, use emission factors established by international bodies (IPCC for instance).
We propose to use the CITEPA national emission factors, to ensure consistency in the CO2 assessments conducted by ADEME and in order to produce figures that can be compared with official CO2 inventories drawn up by CITEPA.
254
CITEPA: Centre Interprofessionnel Technique dEtude de la Pollution Atmosphrique
207 / 249
The coefficients listed below are derived from the annual declarations of polluting emissions submitted by 200 classified installations that are subject to permit requirements. The emission coefficients are expressed in kilogram of CO2 per gigajoule of fuel, including oxidation factors. CITEPA also gives the nett heating value (NHV) for each fuel type in gigajoules per ton. CO2 content per toe (and kWh) of fuel was determined from this information. The coefficients are given for the main fuel types; a detailed list of coefficients is given at the end of this note.
kgCO2/GJ NETT HEATING VALUE (GJ/ton) 44 42 40 49,6 44 26 46 8,8 kgCO2/toe (NHV) gCO2/kWh
Gasoline Diesel fuel/domestic heating oil Heavy heating oil Natural gas Kerosene (aviation fuel) Coal LPG Household waste
73 75 78 57 74 95 64 41,3
3 066 3 150 3 276 2 394 3 108 3 990 2 688 1734,6
264 271 282 206 267 343 231 149
Source: French Environment Ministry (MEDD), annual declaration of polluting emissions for classified installations subject to permit requirements, 2005
Table 189: Emission coefficients for the main fuel types

Specific instructions on CO2 emissions for wood and household waste in GHG emission inventories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Format UNFCCC/CRF) CO2 emissions released during combustion of biomass are part of the natural carbon cycle: carbon in the atmosphere is fixed by plant biomass via photosynthesis, and then released to the atmosphere by decomposition or by combustion. In the UNFCCC inventory, first the stock of carbon constituted by biomass growth during a given year is assessed, and then the amount of carbon contained in CO2 emissions from biomass combustion is deducted from the carbon stock. In France and in Europe, where forests are sustainably managed, forest biomass is increasing and therefore serves as a carbon sink: the amount of CO2 fixed by photosynthesis (natural forest growth + new plantings) is greater than emissions due to decomposition and combustion. Organisations that conduct carbon inventories use the emission factors for biomass given at the end of this note. Nonetheless, the final balance being neutral for the greenhouse effect, a nil emission factor must be used for biomass combustion CO2 emissions in our assessments. For example:
208 / 249
1. The CO2 content to be reported for fuel wood combustion must be nil. In the table below the emission coefficient for wood is not nil, and this is the coefficient used to draw up the inventory. 2. As incineration of the organic fraction of household waste is assimilated to biomass combustion, the emission factor for incineration of household waste given in the table below applies only to the inorganic waste fraction, which represents 43% of the carbon content of household waste. At the end of this note, the carbon content of 96 (kgCO2/GJ) refers to the overall carbon content for household waste (organic and inorganic fractions).
LIST OF COEFFICIENTS
Source: French Environment Ministry (MEDD), annual declaration of polluting emissions for classified installations subject to permit requirements, 2005 * including oxidation factor nett heating value (GJ/t) 26 26 26 32 17 17 28 17 32 18,2 (air-dry) 32,5 11,6 8,8 (highly variable) 12,5 (highly variable) 18,2 (highly variable) 18,2 14 (straw) highly variable specific 9,4 26 23 42 40 42 42 44 44 44 44 45 36 25,6 highly variable EMISSION FACTOR* (kgCO2/GJ) 95 95 96 95 100 98 107 108 96 92 100 110 96 92 91 99 15 106 85 75 73 78 75 75 74 71 73 73 73 73 73 73 70 105 highly variable 40,2 (highly variable) 41,9 40 40,2 73 73 40 73 DERIVED FROM BIOMASS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
CODE TYPE OF FUEL 101 Coking coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) 102 Hard coal (gross heating value >23 865 kJ/kg) Sub-bituminous coal (17 435 kJ/kg<gross heating value<23 865 103 kJ/kg) 104 Briquettes (from hard or sub-bituminous coal) 105 Lignite (gross heating value<17 435 kJ/kg) 106 Lignite briquettes 107 Hard-coal coke 108 Lignite coke 110 Petroleum coke 111 Wood and assimilated waste 112 Charcoal 113 Peat 114 Household waste 115 Solid industrial waste 116 Wood waste (excluding waste assimilated to wood) 117A Agricultural waste / bone meal 1170 Agricultural waste (other than bone meal) 118 Wastewater sludge 119 Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) 120 Shale 121A Other solid fuels / tyres 121B Other solid fuels / Plastics 1210 Other solid fuels (other than tyres and plastics) 201 Crude oil 203 Heavy fuel oil 204 Domestic fuel oil 205 Diesel fuel 206 Kerosene (aviation fuel) 207 Aviation fuel 208 Gasoline for land vehicles 209 Aviation gasoline 210 Naphtha 211 Shale oil 212 Spent motor oil (gasoline engine) 213 Spent motor oil (diesel engine) 214A Spent solvent / G3000 type 2140 Spent solvent (other than G3000 type) 215 Black liquor 216 Fuel oil/coal blend 217 Refinery feedstock 218 Other liquid wastes 219 Lubricants 220 White spirit 221 Paraffins 222 Bitumen 224 Other petroleum products (grease compounds, aromatics, etc.)
209 / 249
225 Other liquid fuels 301 302 303 304 Natural gas Liquefied natural gas Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) Coke-oven gas 49,6 (depends on type) 49,6 46 (variable) 31,5 (highly variable) nett heating value (GJ/t) 2,3 highly variable 14 highly variable 6,9 120 specific 56 75 52 183 0 57 57 64 47 EMISSION FACTOR* (kgCO2/GJ) 268
NO NO NO NO NO DERIVED FROM BIOMASS NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO
CODE 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314
TYPE OF FUEL Blast-furnace gas Coke-oven gas/blast-furnace gas blend Gaseous industrial wastes (chemical industry in particular) Refinery / petrochemicals gas (non-condensable) Biogas Landfill gas Gasworks gas Steelworks gas Hydrogen Other gaseous fuel
210 / 249
Appendix 4 Background note on the CO2 content per kWh by use in France
ADEME Note, 14 January 2005
1. Background
Assessment of the carbon content of electricity is a significant issue in France for evaluating steps to mitigate climate change. While in many countries this question is not problematic, in our country it is complex, given the specific characteristics of the French electricity supply sector. The carbon content of electricity in France varies considerably, depending on the type of assessment: an annual average for all power plants in France, emissions from hydraulic and nuclear plants only (zero emissions), or from coal-fired plants (on the order of 900 gCO2/kWh). This leads to significant hourly and seasonal fluctuation in the carbon content per kWh in France, whereas in other European countries there is less variation, insofar as electricity generated in fossil-fuel-fired plants constitutes a significant share of base power production. Furthermore, since the carbon-emitting plants (flame combustion thermal plants) are operated as peak-load units to "close the loop" of supply and demand in France, the national emissions average varies considerably, depending on temperature and power-plant operating conditions. The carbon content of electricity in France has been falling since 1990, and now ranges between 60 to 120 gCO2/kWh, much lower than the European average (around 340 gCO2/kWh). Consequently the average CO2 content per kWh of electricity produced in France is not a sufficient indicator, and a number of actors have opted for CO2 content differentiated by use. On the grid, however electrons are totally undifferentiated. Trying to identify the power plant that supplies a given user is meaningless from a physical point of view. Calculating a CO2 content by electricity use requires methodological simplifications and conventions that must be clearly set forth, to understand their limits and avoid controversy. These issues, and in particular the CO2 content of electric heating, are addressed in agreements between ADEME and EDF. The two partners have agreed to jointly elaborate a methodology for evaluating CO2 content per kWh by use, and to publish together their findings.
2. Methodology
ADEME and EDF began this joint undertaking in the summer of 2003, leading to agreements, a methodology and shared results. The major principles guiding this work are the following: o Choice of a method that complies with the criteria of additivity, meaning that for a given year the sum of CO2 emissions for different uses is equal to (neither more nor less) total emissions for the entire pool of generating plants. Choice of a method based on shared historical data. The period chosen (1998-2003) is intentionally a long one, to smooth out variations caused by exceptional circumstances, whether in terms of plant operations or climate conditions. The scope of the study is mainland France, excluding power consumed directly by the producer: the aim here is not to analyse the kWh of a specific actor as part of a commercial approach, but to define the content of one kWh consumed in France, in order to support implementation of public policy. Use of monthly data: the "variation" of the CO2 content is in large part explained by seasonal factors (as opposed to hourly variations within one week), and in addition studies using shorter time increments are less reliable and hard to reproduce.
More specifically, the method consisted of distinguishing between base load (around 400 TWh annually) and seasonal production (around 100 TWh) for each type of production nuclear, lake, renewable energy, coal, fuel oil and cogenerationin order to calculate the CO2 content for each of the two components. The corresponding values are respectively 40 and 180 grams per kWh delivered to the final consumer255. Regarding consumption, the study identified a coefficient of seasonalization for each type of use. For instance, electric heating is considered to be 100% seasonal, but industrial use only 10%. To assign a CO2 content to each use, the two production values (base and seasonal) are weighted by the seasonalization coefficient for each use: for heating the value is equal to that for the seasonal component, while for industrial use the value is equal to 10% of the seasonal value and 90% of the base load value. By combining these two approaches applied to measured values, this method takes into account the intrinsic features of each type of usage, and the adjustment of electricity generation to these uses.
3. Findings
This work identified four emission levels by use. These four indicators provide a consensual view for the most common uses. They are based on more detailed indicators (see appendix) that can be used for more specific purposes. o Electricity used for residential and tertiary-sector heating (electric heat and circulation pumps for heating-oil and gas boilers), exclusively in winter, is assigned the CO2 content for seasonal production, i.e. 180 g/kWh. Lighting, in all sectors, has a CO2 content of about 100 g/kWh.
o
255
CO2 emissions are expressed for the amount of electricity supplied by the grid, after deduction of consumption within the supply grid. The CO2 content of the import/export balance (58 to 77 TWh) is conventionally assigned a value corresponding to baseload production of the French power plant pool.
212 / 249
Consumption for residential usescooking, washing, brown appliancesindustrial and tertiary-sector uses other than lighting follows the overall load curve, and therefore is assigned a CO2 content that is more or less equal to the national average, i.e. 60 g/kWh. Lastly, other basic usesrefrigeration, sanitary hot water, other residential uses, agriculture, transport, construction and public works, militaryfor which fluctuation does not follow a seasonal pattern, and air conditioning in the tertiary sector (for which the seasonal peak is inverted in relation to the electricity generation cycle) is assigned a CO2 content of 40 g/kWh.
These indicators are weighted averages for the period analysed in the study. In some instances they cover a wide range of values, as for residential lighting, where the indicator varies from 93 to 151 gCO2/kWh for the 1998-2003 period. This reflects the variable CO2 content for the electricity generated, which is due to three main factors: climate variability, generating plant availability (in particular hydropower and nuclear plants) and management of recourse to different production modes. Even after indepth analysis, no simple correlation could be found between these factors, and there is not enough data to support more complex correlations.
4. Use of results and the scope of their validity

Having pooled and validated these findings, the jointly defined framework for their application is as follows: o These results are intended for use by ADEME and EDF to measure greenhouse effect impacts when evaluating projects at the local level. They will be used by ADEME to study and monitor projects aimed at promoting or implementing energy efficiency, development of renewable energy and local energy policy, in liaison with local authorities and/or local energy operators. o o These findings have been submitted to the appropriate national authorities, contributing to the elaboration of a national benchmark for public policy. These figures do not affect the CO2 quotas allotted to companies under the National Quota Allocation Plan. Only direct emissions are considered under this plan.
These indicators, based on historical information, are the best estimate to date. For a rigorously accurate estimation of the impact of projects or schemes extending over periods longer then 10 or 15 years, the method used would have to take into account future changes in power generation infrastructure and in consumer behaviour. Until such forwardlooking evaluations are available, these indicators will be used in the medium term, and periodically updated (every four years). Methodological work for a prospective evaluation of CO2 content for uses of electricity will be undertaken under the ADEME/EDF convention for 2004-2007. An evaluation study will also be conducted to establish indicators for CO2 emissions avoided by the development of electricity from renewable resources (wind power, hydropower, photovoltaic power, wood, etc.).
213 / 249
CO2 INDICATORS FOR ELECTRICITY USE

Indicateurs de contenu en CO2 de l' lectricit consomm e en France (en g de CO 2/kWh e)
indicateurs d taill s chauffage+ pompes de circ. clairage r sidentiel clairage tertiaire clairage publique et industriel usages r sidentiels : cuisson usages r sidentiels : lavage usages r sidentiels : produits bruns usages tertiaires : autres usages industriels (hors clairage) usages r sidentiels : ECS usages r sidentiels : froid usages r sidentiels : autres usages tertiaires : climatisation agriculture-transport autres (BTP, recherche, arm e, etc.)
source : ADEME et EDF, 2004 R f rence (valeur moyenne) titre indicatif : plages de variation 129 93 64 85 66 63 50 41 38 261 151 88 134 93 88 81 77 86
indicateurs simplifi s 180 100 Chauffage Eclairage
180 116 80 109 82 79 62 52 55 40 40 39 37 38 35
60
Usages intermittents
20
72
40
Usages "en base"
chauffage
clairage
usages "en base"
usages intermittents
214 / 249
Appendix 5 Distribution of agricultural lands in France

For the reference year 1996 the distribution of agricultural lands in France is as follows (various sources).
AGRICULTURAL SURFACES USED Arable Land Incl cerals (except forrage maize) oilseeds protein beetroot, potatoes, diverse vegetable annual forrage (except maize forrage 1,5) artificial and temporary grasslands fallow Land surfaces still budding of which permanent productive grass surfaces pastures and summer marginally productive grass surfaces Other permanent crops of which orchards grapes diverse cultures 29,9 18,1 8,3 1,9 0,6 0,8 0,3 1,7 2,8 1,7 10,5 8,4 0,7 1,4 1,3 0,3 0,9 0,1
Table 190: Distribution of cultivated lands (France)
215 / 249
Appendix 6 Carbon content of poultry
1 - Industrial turkey
The amount of feed is around 2,2 kg per kg of live weight for ducks and guinea fowl. Emissions for waste per kg of weight is assumed to be the same as for industrial chicken. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.
TURKEY kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight 0,22 0,05 0,02 0,30 0,45
Feed Excrement Additional emissions for heating, etc. TOTAL Kg C eq per kg meat with bone
Table 191: Emission factor for industrial turkey This calculation gives a figure of 450 kg of carbon per ton of turkey meat with bone.
2 - Industrial duck and guinea fowl

The amount of feed is around 2,8 kg per kg of live weight for ducks and guinea fowl. Methanogenesis by waste is some 2,5 times greater256. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.
DUCK AND GUINEA FOWL kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight 0,28 0,07 0,02 0,38 0,58
Feed Excrement Additional emissions for heating, etc. TOTAL

Kg C eq per kg meat with bone
Table 192: Emission factor for industrial duck and guinea fowl
256
Acadmie d'Agriculture, 1999, Bilan et gestion des Gaz effet de serre dans l'espace rural, Compte rendu, vol. 85.
216 / 249
We reintegrate a flat 10% to account for energy used in poultry raising, giving a value of 580 kg of carbon per ton of duck meat with bone.
3 - Free-range poultry
The amount of feed is around 3,1 kg and 3,7 kg per kg of live weight for free-range chicken and guinea fowl respectively. As these birds live twice as long as industrial poultry, the emissions contribution of waste is doubled. We assume buildings are not heated. The useful weight/live weight ratio is assumed to be 66%.
FREE-RANGE CHICKEN Feed Excrement TOTAL Kg C eq per kg meat with bone kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight 0,31 0,11 0,42 0,64
Table 193: Emission factor for free-range chicken This gives a figure of 640 kg carbon equivalent per ton of free-range chicken meat with bone.
FREE-RANGE GUINEA FOWL Feed Excrement TOTAL
Kg C eq per kg meat with bone
kg carbon equivalent per kg of live weight 0,38 0,11 0,48 0,73
Table 194: Emission factor for free-range guinea fowl This gives a figure of 730 kg carbon equivalent per ton of free-range guinea fowl meat with bone.
217 / 249
Appendix 7 Breakdown of road vehicles for goods transport by Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)
The composition of the fleet of goods transport vehicles in France is based on figures from the French Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Housing257. This fleet is limited to vehicles less than ten years old as of 1st January 2002. Using these figures we have made two calculations: - first, we calculated an average gross vehicle weight (GVW) for each weight class for which we have fuel consumption statistics (GVW equals the maximum weight a vehicle can have when carrying goods) (see 4.1.1.2.1).). - secondly we looked at the deviation of GVW figures from the mean for each category. This analysis determined the average deviation for the main vehicle clusters, where most vehicles in the weight class are found. In analysing vehicle clusters we admit that few vehicles will be found outside of the clusters, and therefore that the maximum deviation from the mean GVW for these clusters is representative of the margin of error implicit when vehicles are systematically assimilated to the "reference" vehicle in the weight class, with the average GVW. For example, in the category of vehicles weighing from 2,51 to 3,5 t GVW (see 3 above) 42% of vehicles weigh exactly 3,5 t GVW (corresponding to the upper limit for vehicles that can be driven with a Class B "tourism" driving licence). The average GVW for this category is 3 176 kg, a deviation of 9% from the GVW of 3,5 t. This means that taking the average value for fuel consumption (obtained elsewhere) and knowing that this consumption is roughly proportional to mass at low speeds (representative of most itineraries for light utility vehicles), we will have a margin of error of 10% for estimation of fuel consumption of light utility vehicles weighing exactly 3,5 t, when these vehicles are assimilated to an "average" vehicle in this class. In other words, the maximum deviation from the mean for vehicle clusters in each GVW class indicates the margin of error when vehicles are arbitrarily assimilated to an "average" vehicle in this class.
257
Personal communication with Mr. Roland Curtet in Novembre 2002.
218 / 249
1 - Lightweight utility vehicles GVW < 1,5 t

rpartition par PTAC < 1,5 t
350 000 300 000 250 000
Nombre de vhicules
200 000 150 000 100 000 50 000 0

1100 1160 1195 1215 1235 1260 1290 1300 1315 1325 1340 1370 1385 1400 1415 1435 1450 1460 1470 1480 1495
Poids Total Autoris en Charge
Figure 8: Distribution of light utility vehicles under 1,5 t GVW Average value retained: 1360 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters - 20% for 1 100 kg, - <10% for others.
2 - Utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW

Rpartition par PTAC 1,51 2,5 t
160 000 140 000 120 000
Nombre de vhicules
100 000 80 000 60 000 40 000 20 000 0

1502 1540 1570 1605 1635 1665 1688 1703 1730 1745 1771 1791 1815 1855 1895 1935 1970 2015 2090 2170 2220 2320 2385 2450
PTAC
Figure 9: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW Average value retained: 1.796 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for the main clusters is 15%, excepting the cluster at 2,5 t (but this is secondary): 40%.
3 - Utility vehicles between 2,51 t and 3,5 t GVW

400 000 350 000 300 000

Nombre de vhicules
250 000 200 000 150 000 100 000 50 000 0

2505 2525 2555 2590 2625 2650 2685 2715 2740 2770 2800 2825 2860 2900 2931 2975 3030 3070 3095 3130 3160 3180 3215 3260 3400
PTAC
Figure 10: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 2,5 t and 3,5 t GVW Average value retained: 3.176 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters - 9% for 3,5 t - 18% for 2 600 kg, <15% for the other clusters.
4 - Utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW

Rpartition par PTAC 3,51 5 t
1 200
Nombre de vhicules
1 000 800 600 400 200 0

3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4050 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000
PTAC
220 / 249
Figure 11: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW Average value retained: 4.742 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for clusters is lower than 5%.
Rpartition par PTAC 5 6 t

1 800 1 600
Nombre de vhicules
1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 0

5010 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500 5600 5800 5900 5990 6000
PTAC
5 - Trucks between 5,1 and 6 t GVW

Figure 12: Distribution of trucks between 5,1 t and 6 t GVW Average value retained: 5.672 kg. The maximum deviation from the mean for clusters is lower than 10% (6% for the main cluster at 6 t).
6 - Trucks between 6,1 and 10,9 t GVW
221 / 249

8 000 7 000 6 000
Nombre de vhicules
5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0

6000 6300 6600 6800 6900 7100 7490 7600 7750 7900 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200 10400 10600 10800 10990
PTAC
Figure 13: Distribution of trucks between 6.1 t and 10.9 t GVW Average value retained: 8.802 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters - 15% for 7 500 kg GVW, - 2% for 8 600 kg GVW, - 8% for 9 500 kg GVW, - 14% for 10 000 kg GVW,
7 - Trucks between 11 and 19 t GVW

60 000 50 000
nombre de vhicules
40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0
110
113
117
119
122
125
129
131
134
138
141
144
149
151
154
157
159
162
165
168
172
175
177
179
181
184
187
PTAC (kg)
Figure 14: Distribution of trucks between 11 t and 19 t GVW Average value retained: 16.318 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters - 16% for 19 t GVW (about 50% of trucks in this weight class) - 26% for 12 t GVW (12% of trucks in this category)
190
- 20% for 13 t GVW (10% of vehicles in this category) - under 10% for all clusters in the 1518 t GVW (17% of trucks in this weight class).

1 800 1 600
Nombre de vhicules
1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 0
19100
19200
19300
19400
19500
19600
19700
19800
19900
20900
PTAC
8 - Trucks between 19,1 and 21 t GVW

Figure 15: Distribution of trucks between 19.1 t and 21 t GVW Average value retained: 19.368 kg. Deviation from the mean of less than 10% for all vehicles in this weight class.
223 / 249
21000
9 - Trucks between 21,1 and 32,6 t GVW

35 000
Breakdown by GVW 21,1 to 32,6 t

30 000 25 000 20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 22000 22700 22900 23500 24000 24200 24400 24700 24900 25200 25350 25500 25600 25800 25950 26100 26300 26500 26900 28000 28600 30000 31100 31600
GVW (kg)
Figure 16: Distribution of trucks between 21.1 t and 32,6 t GVW Average value retained: 26.870 kg. Deviation from mean at main clusters - 3% for 26 t GVW (over 75% of trucks in this category; upper limit for motor vehicles with three axles) - 19% for 32 t GVW (15% of trucks in this category; upper limit for motor vehicles with four or more axles)
10 - Articulated trucks (tractor-trailers)

This term refers to trucks commonly called tractor-trailers, consisting of a tractor (the forward cabin where the driver sits) and the trailer, where the cargo is loaded. The Maximum Authorized Road Weight (MARW) for these vehicles is 40 tons, and 44 tons for combined (rail-road) transport vehicles, but most of them weight 33 tons when fully loaded, of which 25 tons of load.
224 / 249
Bilan Carbone
Appendix 8 Fuel consumption of passenger vehicles: breakdown by fiscal horsepower

The tables below give estimated real fuel consumption by fiscal horsepower rating for passenger vehicles (see details in 4.1.1.2.3), the resulting emissions, and lastly the total GHG emissions per km when emissions for vehicle manufacture are added in (correlated to total distance the vehicle will travel over its lifetime).
1 - Gasoline vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rating

Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle fleet as of 1 Jan 2002 Litres fuel consumed per 100 km, calculated for actual driving conditions and type of itinerary NonMixed Urban urban 36 672 5,0 5,8 7,1 5,8 6,3 6,0 6,8 7,7 7,2 8,7 10,1 9,3 Useful life Manufacturin Consumption emissions (g C eq/km) in km258 g emissions g by type of itinerary C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban 100 000 120 000 140 000 128 324 10,8 11,0 10,8 10,9 37,2 42,8 46,7 44,4 42,7 50,5 57,0 53,2 52,5 64,4 75,0 68,8 Overall emissions (g C eq/km) by type of itinerary Nonurban 48,0 53,8 57,5 55,3 Mixed 53,5 61,5 67,8 64,1 Urban 63,3 75,4 85,8 79,7
3 4 5 Average for category
720 881 1 011 935
4 563 806 3 342 309 7 942 787
Table 195: Emission factors for 35 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary Total uncertainty for emissions per km travelled comes to around 10%, assuming that the calculation of manufacturing emissions has a margin of error of 40%, and that average consumption per km, by fiscal horsepower rating and type of itinerary, has a margin of error on the order of 5% for large number sets (this corresponds to an error of less than 0,5 litre of fuel per 100 km on average, which is high in light of variation in actual fuel consumption data from the Observatoire de l'Energie).
258
Author's estimate.
2001-2006 ADEME - Calculation of Emission Factors
Version 4.0 Page 225 / 249
Bilan Carbone
It is quite striking that when emissions are calculated in this way, adding together vehicle manufacture, fuel extraction, refining and transport, and correcting fuel consumption to better correspond to actual consumption (but not including upkeep), overall emissions are 1,5 times those listed by vehicle manufacturers, as an order of magnitude. As an example, the Citron Berlingo 1.1i model (5 fiscal horsepower) is rated by the manufacturer as emitting 160 g of CO2 in mixed driving (urban and non-urban), whereas the average calculated for this category and type of itinerary comes to 250g CO2 equivalent per km (67,8 C eq), or 55% higher than the manufacturer's rating.
2 - Gasoline vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rating

Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle Litres fuel consumed per 100 Useful life Manufacturi Consumption emissions (g C 259 fleet as of km, calculated for actual ng eq/km) by type of itinerary in km 1 Jan 2002 driving conditions and type emissions g of itinerary C eq/km NonMixed Urban Non-urban Mixed Urban urban 2 564 652 6,4 7,9 10,5 150 000 10,8 47,0 58,0 77,3 4 293 265 6,7 8,4 11,4 160 000 11,4 49,2 61,9 84,1 455 023 7,1 9,1 12,6 180 000 10,5 52,7 67,4 93,1 996 779 7,6 9,7 13,3 200 000 10,3 56,1 71,5 98,2 416 864 8,1 10,3 14,1 200 000 10,8 59,6 75,9 104,4 8 726 583 6,8 8,5 11,5 164 584 11,0 50,0 62,8 85,1 Overall emissions (g C eq/km) by type of itinerary
6 7 8 9 10 Average for category
1 077 1 212 1 258 1 379 1 442 1 205
Nonurban 57,8 60,6 63,1 66,4 70,4 61,0
Mixed 68,8 73,3 77,9 81,8 86,7 73,8
Urban 88,1 95,5 103,6 108,5 115,2 96,1
Table 196: Emission factors for 610 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary The above remarks apply to this table as well. As this category is bigger than the first one, it seems likely that deviation from the mean will be greater. We have set the error margin at 10% for "corrected" consumption figures (keeping 40% for manufacturing emissions), which gives a estimated overall error margin on the order of 15% for the final figure.
259
Author's estimate.
Bilan Carbone
3 - Gasoline vehicles, over 11 fiscal horsepower rating

For this category we have taken the OE data and corrected fuel consumption, by comparing the OE average with the average obtained using distribution of engine power across the total fleet (data that is not directly available) based on 2001 sales figures.
Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle Litres fuel consumed per 100 Useful life Manufacturi Consumption emissions (g C Overall emissions (g C 260 fleet as of km, calculated for actual ng eq/km) by type of itinerary eq/km) by type of itinerary in km 1 Jan 2002 emissions g driving conditions and type of itinerary C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban NonMixed Urban NonMixed Urban urban urban 742 000 8,3 10,9 15,4 230 889 9,5 61,7 80,6 113,5 71,1 90,0 122,9
Average for category
1 454
Table 197: Emission factors for gasoline vehicles of over 11 fiscal horsepower, by type of itinerary Given the inaccuracy of these estimations, it seems reasonable to assign uncertainty of 15 to 20% to these figures. These figures will never be a source of significant uncertainty in the carbon inventory as a whole, because the fraction of a corporate fleet over 10 fiscal hp, or of cars used by employees to commute to and from work, will always be fairly marginal. Once again, there is a difference of between roughly 40% to 50% between calculated emissions and rated emissions given by vehicle manufacturers, for a mixed itinerary.
260
Author's estimate.
Bilan Carbone
4 - Diesel vehicles, 3 to 5 fiscal horsepower rating

Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle Litres fuel consumed per 100 Useful life Manufacturi Consumption emissions (g C Overall emissions (g C 261 fleet as of km, calculated for actual ng eq/km) by type of itinerary eq/km) by type of itinerary in km 1 Jan 2002 driving conditions and type emissions g of itinerary C eq/km Non-urban Mixed Urban NonMixed Urban NonMixed Urban urban urban 1 623 3,6 4,0 4,6 120 000 9,2 29,5 32,4 37,1 38,7 41,5 46,3 1 045 341 4,6 5,6 7,2 140 000 11,5 37,9 45,3 58,4 49,3 56,7 69,9 3 687 275 5,4 6,5 8,5 160 000 11,2 43,7 53,0 69,3 54,9 64,2 80,5 4 734 239 5,2 6,3 8,2 155 570 11,3 42,4 51,3 66,9 53,7 62,6 78,2
3 4 5 Average for category
735 1 069 1 198 1 169
Table 198: Emission factors for 3-5 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary
5 - Diesel vehicles, 6 to 10 fiscal horsepower rating

Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle Litres fuel consumed per 100 Useful life Manufacturi Overall emissions (g C Consumption emissions (g C 262 fleet as of km, calculated for actual eq/km) by type of itinerary ng eq/km) by type of itinerary in km 1 Jan 2002 driving conditions and type emissions g of itinerary C eq/km NonMixed Urban NonMixed Urban Non-urban Mixed Urban urban urban 5 533 099 5,5 6,7 8,7 180 000 11,1 45,1 54,5 71,1 56,2 65,6 82,3 1 624 164 5,9 7,2 9,4 200 000 11,3 48,2 58,5 76,7 59,5 69,8 88,0 331 791 6,8 8,3 10,9 220 000 10,9 55,3 67,5 88,8 66,2 78,4 99,7 140 662 7,8 9,4 12,3 240 000 10,9 63,2 76,7 100,3 74,1 87,6 111,1 201 789 8,2 9,9 12,9 260 000 10,3 66,9 80,8 104,8 77,3 91,2 115,1
6 7 8 9 10
1 334 1 502 1 599 1 737 1 793
261 262
Author's estimate. Author's estimate.
Bilan Carbone
1 399
7 831 505
5,8
7,0
9,1
188 981
11,1
47,1
57,0
74,4
58,2
68,1
85,5
Table 199: Emission factors for 6-10 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary
6 - Diesel vehicles, 11 fiscal horsepower and over

As for gasoline-fuelled vehicles, we have worked directly with averages.
Fiscal horsepower rating Empty weight (kg) Total vehicle Litres fuel consumed per 100 Useful life Manufacturi Overall emissions (g C Consumption emissions (g C 263 fleet as of km, calculated for actual ng eq/km) by type of itinerary eq/km) by type of itinerary in km 1 Jan 2002 driving conditions and type emissions g of itinerary C eq/km NonMixed Urban NonMixed Urban Non-urban Mixed Urban urban urban 1 895 211 000 9,1 11,1 14,6 313 081 9,1 73,9 90,4 118,9 83,0 99,4 128,0
Table 200: Emission factors for 11 fiscal horsepower (and over) diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary
263
Author's estimate.
Bilan Carbone
Appendix 9 Operating range and seating in Airbus aircraft
1 - Operating range
The Airbus website contains diagrams that show the operating range of the manufacturer's aircraft in relation to the load on board. These diagrams are all compiled in the following way: they list the maximum operating range for a given weight on board at take-off. These data are used in the calculation described in 4.3.
1.1 A300 cargo aircraft
Figure 17: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A300, cargo model
1.2 A310
Figure 18: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A310
Bilan Carbone
1.3 A318
1.4 A319
Bilan Carbone
1.5 A320
1.6 A330-200
Bilan Carbone
1.7 A330-300
1.8 A340-200
Bilan Carbone
1.9 A340-300
1.10 A340-500
Bilan Carbone
1.11 A340-600
2. Passenger seats
Using the passenger cabin seating plans the amount of space occupied per seat and per ticket class is derived, counting the number of business class seats that replace second-class seats, and the number of first-class seats that replace second-class and business-class seats. The diagrams below give just a few examples, but as it happens the ratio of seat space per class is applicable to all Airbus planes.
2.1 A320
Figure 28: Seating chart by ticket class for A320
Bilan Carbone
Looking at these diagrams it is clear that 26 second-class seats are replaced by 12 business-class seats, so that one business-class seat = 2,17 economy-class seats (this is the ratio used to allocate emissions per seat).
2.2 A330-200
Three-cabin aircraft
Figure 29: Seating chart for A330-200, two-cabin model Three-cabin aircraft
Figure 30: Seating chart for A330-200, three-cabin model The above diagram shows that first-class seats take up 50% more space than business-class seats. Looking closely, it can be seen also that a business-class seat takes up 2,33 times as much space as an economy-class seat, as 56 economy-class seats were replaced by 24 business-class seats in the central part of the aircraft (comparing the seating arrangements in the upper and lower diagrams).
2.3 A340-200
Figure 31: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-200 For this model the ratios derived for the A330-200 model give the same number of "economy-class equivalent" seats, give or take a few seats, for the 2 and 3-cabin aircraft.
2001-2006 ADEME - Calculation of Emission Factors Version 4.0 Page 236 / 249
Bilan Carbone
2.4 A340-600
Figure 32: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-600 Same conclusion as above.
Bilan Carbone
TABLES
Table 1: Gross/nett heating value ratio for liquid and gaseous fuels ........................... 19 Table 2: Equivalences between the energy measuring units........................................ 20 Table 3: Emission factors for liquid fuels .......................................................................... 21 Table 4: Emissions due to extraction and refining of motor fuels from standard crude oil (IFP, 2001)................................................................................................................. 21 Table 5: Emission factors for refinery energy consumption........................................... 22 Table 6: Petroleum extraction and transport emission factors...................................... 23 Table 7: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for petroleum (IFP, 2001) ............................................................. 23 Table 8: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emission factors according to fuel type...................................................................... 24 Table 9: Conversion of global emission factors (upstream + combustion) according to fuel type ...................................................................................................................... 24 Table 10: Emission factors for natural gas combustion (ADEME, MEDD, 2005) ...... 25 Table 11: Emission factors for upstream natural gas processes (IFP, 2001)............. 25 Table 12: Calculation of emission factors (upstream + combustion) in kg/ton nett heating value by breaking down upstream emission factors and combustion emissions factors for natural gas ................................................................................ 26 Table 13: Calculation of an overall emission factor (upstream + combustion) for natural gas ...................................................................................................................... 26 Table 14: Mass energy and associated CO2 emissions.................................................. 27 Table 15: Mass energy and CO2 emissions pour unit energy for solid fossil fuels ..... 27 Table 16: Upstream emission factors for solid fuels ........................................................ 27 Table 17: Overall emission factors (upstream + combustion) for solid fuels, other than waste-to-energy fuels.................................................................................................... 28 Table 18: Principal Biofuels and their emission factors (ADEME, 2005 et ADEME, 2006)................................................................................................................................ 31 Table 19: Emission factors for Biofuels from dedicated crops (ADEME, 2005) ......... 31 Table 20: Emission factors for liquid Biofuels (ADEME/DGEMP, 2002) ..................... 33 Table 21: Bilan Carbone emission factors for liquid Biofuels ..................................... 33 Table 22: Emission factors for power production by country in 2004 .......................... 37 Table 23: Emission factors CO2/kWh by power supplier, Europe 2004 (PWC ENERPRESSE, 2005) .................................................................................................. 38 Table 24: Monthly emission factors for EDF in 2005 ....................................................... 40 Table 25: Emission factors for the different production modes used for grid power in France ............................................................................................................................. 41 Table 26: Emission factors for electricity usage in France (g CO2/kWh)..................... 42 Table 27: Standard consumption of household electric appliances ............................. 43 Table 28: Emission factors for household electric appliances ...................................... 44
Bilan Carbone
Table 29: Average electricity consumption in 2003 by branch of activity (all uses and broken down by specific uses) (ADEME, 2005) ....................................................... 45 Table 30: Average heating fuel oil consumption per m2 heated, broken down by branch of activity (Observatoire de l'Energie, 2001) ................................................ 48 Table 31: Average natural gas consumption for heating and hot water per m2, broken down by branch of activity CEREN 1990-2003......................................................... 49 Table 32: Climate correction coefficient............................................................................ 49 Table 33: French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of housing per m2 - heating only ...................................................................................... 50 Table 34 : French energy consumption average by nature of housing per m2 electrical heating............................................................................................................ 51 Table 35 : French energy consumption average by fossil energy and nature of housing sanitary hot water only ............................................................................... 52 Table 36 : French average for energy consumption, by nature of housing electric sanitary hot water......................................................................................... 52 Table 37: Energy mix for residential heating in France.................................................. 53 Table 38: Energy mix for residential hot water in France............................................... 53 Table 39: Non-energy emission factors (processes and leakage) ............................... 55 Table 40: Commercial cooling by type of equipment (ADEME-ARMINES, 1999).. 58 Table 41: Commercial cooling surface area (ADEME ARMINES, 2001) ............. 58 Table 42: Industrial cooling for the food processing industry (ADEME-ARMINES, 2003)................................................................................................................................ 59 Table 43: Milk tanks ............................................................................................................. 59 Table 44: Industrial cooling positive temperature systems......................................... 59 Table 45: Industrial cooling negative temperature systems ....................................... 60 Table 46: Average characteristics to be used when information on cooling systems is not available ................................................................................................................... 60 Table 47: Service sector cooling (air conditioning) ......................................................... 60 Table 48: Energy consumption for the construction of land vehicles in France (1999) .......................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 49: Emission factors for the construction of land vehicles in France ................ 64 Table 50: Emission factors for manufacture of materials used to build a one-ton vehicle ............................................................................................................................. 65 Table 51: Emissions per km travelled for gasoline vehicles, by zone of residence... 67 Table 52: Emissions per km travelled for diesel vehicles, by zone of residence ....... 68 Table 53: Average vehicle consumption by length of time in use................................. 68 Table 54: Average consumption of gasoline and diesel vehicles by fiscal horsepower rating................................................................................................................................ 69 Table 55: Conventional-cycle consumption figures for gasoline vehicles, 3-5 fiscal horse power.................................................................................................................... 71 Table 56: Average commuting distance travelled by type of itinerary ......................... 72 Table 57: Emission factors per car for commuting travel by type of itinerary ............. 73 Table 58: Emission factors for commuting travel by driving cycle, per km travelled . 74 Table 59: Distances travelled and distribution modal for daily trips ....................................... 75 Table 60: Total travel displacements, by method in 1993............................................... 76 Table 61: Mileages travelled per person per year in France in 1993............................ 76
Bilan Carbone
Table 62: Emission factors for the manufacture of minibuses, city buses and intercity coaches ........................................................................................................................... 77 Table 63: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses (ADEME, 2002)................................................................................................................................ 78 Table 64: Emission factors per vehicle.km for different types of buses....................... 78 Table 65: Emission factors per passenger.km for different types of buses ................ 79 Table 66 : Average distance travelled annually by the French in 1993, and part of public transport............................................................................................................... 80 Table 67 : Average distance travelled annually in public transport by the French in 1993 ................................................................................................................................. 80 Table 68: Total weekly mileages by mode, 1993 ............................................................. 81 Table 69 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, 1993 ............................ 81 Table 70 : Kilometres travelled per person per year by mode, for public transport .... 81 Table 71: Kilometres travelled per person per year over long distance, by mode .......................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 72: Combustion emission factors for two-wheeled vehicles (ADEME, 2002).. 84 Table 73: GVW classes for light utility vehicles and trucks ........................................... 85 Table 74: GVW characteristics........................................................................................... 87 Table 75: Average vehicle life in km by GVW class ....................................................... 87 Table 76: Emission factors for vehicle manufacture by GVW class............................. 89 Table 77: Emission factors for vehicle fuel consumption per km and by GVW class 90 Table 78: Average emission factors per vehicle.km and by GVW class ..................... 91 Table 79: Characteristics of goods transport by GVW class ......................................... 95 Table 80: Emission factors for goods transport, empty and fully loaded vehicles ..... 96 Table 81: National average emission factors for goods transport by GVW class...... 99 Table 82 : t.km shipped by road, per capita, per year and by region.......................... 100 Table 83 : t.km received by road, per capita, per year and by region......................... 100 Table 84: Baseline characteristics for the main types of aircraft ................................ 102 Table 85: Emission factors per passenger.km for passenger air travel..................... 104 Table 86: Theoretical emission factors per ton.km for air freight................................ 105 Table 87: "Real emission factors per ton.km for air freight.......................................... 106 Table 88: Emission factors for short-range air freight................................................... 106 Table 89: Emission factors for medium-range air freight ............................................. 106 Table 90: Emission factors for long-range air freight.................................................... 107 Table 91 : Kilometres travelled per person and by plane in 1993 ............................... 107 Table 92 : Average distance travelled per passenger per plane ................................. 108 Table 93: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel in France ................... 110 Table 94: Emission factors per passenger.km for train travel abroad ....................... 110 Table 95 : Long distance travelling in millions of passengers*km per week and by rail ........................................................................................................................................ 111 Table 96 : Average long distance travelled per person per year and by rail.............. 111 Table 97: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight in France ................................. 112 Table 98: Emission factors per ton.km for rail freight abroad (UIC INFRAS IWW, 2004).............................................................................................................................. 112 Table 99: Empty weight for the main ship types............................................................ 113 Table 100: Emission factors for container ships............................................................ 114 Table 101: Emission factors for bulk cargo carriers...................................................... 117
Bilan Carbone
Table 102: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport ................. 118 Table 103: Energy consumption and emission factors for river transport ................. 120 Table 104: Emission factors for different metals produced in Australia (CSIRO, 2003) ........................................................................................................................................ 125 Table 105: Emission factors for metallurgical activities (CEREN 1999) ............... 125 Table 106: Emission factors for different metals (excluding ore)................................ 126 Table 107: Recapitulation of emission factors for production of different metals .... 126 Table 108: Summary of emission factors retained for production of different metals ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Table 109: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1997) .................... 127 Table 110: Emission factors for polystyrene production (APME, 1998) .................... 128 Table 111: Emission factors for high-density polystyrene production........................ 128 Table 112: Emission factors for low-density polyethylene production (APME, 1999) ........................................................................................................................................ 129 Table 113: Emission factors for production of amorphous polyethylene terephtalate (APME 1999)............................................................................................................. 129 Table 114: Emission factors for production of bottle-quality polyethylene terephtalate (APME, 1999)............................................................................................................... 130 Table 115: Emission factors for production of polyethylene terephtalate film (APME 1999).............................................................................................................................. 130 Table 116: Emission factors for Nylon 66 production ................................................... 131 Table 117: Emission factors for different glass products (CEREN 1999) ................. 131 Table 118: Emission factors for different glass products (OFEFP) ............................ 132 Table 119: Emission factors for plate glass and glass wool production (MIES, 1999) ........................................................................................................................................ 132 Table 120: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas ................................................................................................................................. 140 Table 121: Emission factors for fertilizer production, broken down by greenhouse gas ................................................................................................................................. 140 Table 122: Emission factors for herbicide products...................................................... 141 Table 123: Emission factors for fungicide products ...................................................... 142 Table 124: Emission factors for insecticide products ................................................... 142 Table 125: Emission factors for molluscicide products ................................................ 143 Table 126: Emission factors for different growth regulators ........................................ 143 Table 127: Energy emission factors for fuel consumption in wheat cultivation, per hectare (ADEME ECOBILAN, 2003)..................................................................... 144 Table 128: Emissions from products used for wheat cultivation (ADEMEECOBILAN, 2003) ....................................................................................................... 144 Table 129: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for wheat cultivation.... 145 Table 130: Emissions per hectare of wheat crop .......................................................... 145 Table 131: Energy emission factors for maize cultivation, per hectare ..................... 145 Table 132: Emissions from products used for maize cultivation................................. 146 Table 133: Emission factors for manufacture of machinery for maize cultivation.... 146 Table 134: Emission factors per hectare of maize crop ............................................... 146 Table 135: Emission factors for wheat flour ................................................................... 147 Table 136: Annual livestock emissions (feed, digestion, excrement) ........................ 148 Table 137: Emission factors for livestock, per head and per year.............................. 149
Bilan Carbone
Table 138: Emission factors for nursing cows sent to slaughter................................. 149 Table 139: Emission factors for milk-fed calves ............................................................ 150 Table 140: Emission factors for whole milk.................................................................... 151 Table 141: Emission factors for steers (beef cattle) ..................................................... 151 Table 142: Average emission factors for beef ............................................................... 152 Table 143: Emission factor for boiled cheese................................................................ 152 Table 144: Emission factors for industrial swine ........................................................... 154 Table 145: Emission factors for industrial chicken........................................................ 154 Table 146: Emission factors for one egg ........................................................................ 155 Table 147: Emission factors for sheep............................................................................ 156 Table 148: Emission factors for milk-fed lambs............................................................. 156 Table 149: Emission factors for grass-fed lambs .......................................................... 157 Table 150: Average nitrogen units per hectare, by crop .............................................. 159 Table 151: Average N2O emission factor by crop ......................................................... 159 Table 152: Emission factors for fertilizer manufacture ................................................. 160 Table 153: Emission factors for farm machinery (consumption, upkeep, manufacture) per hectare of cropland............................................................................................... 160 Table 154: Methane emissions from livestock............................................................... 161 Table 155: Methane emissions from livestock in kg C eq............................................ 162 Table 156: Breakdown of inert waste disposal by branch of activity (ADEME, 2004) ........................................................................................................................................ 164 Table 157: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (USA) 166 Table 158: Emission factors for incineration of plastic with energy recovery (Europe) ........................................................................................................................................ 166 Table 159: Emission factors for incineration of plastics with energy recovery .......... 167 Table 160: Breakdown of plastic waste disposal by type of treatment (France)...... 167 Table 161: Emission factors for waste paper and cardboard landfilled without methane recovery (EPA, 1998) ................................................................................. 168 Table 162: Savings achieved by incineration of paper and cardboard with energy recovery, in the United States and in France.......................................................... 171 Table 163: Breakdown of food waste disposal by type of treatment (France) ......... 172 Table 164: Breakdown of paper and cardboard waste disposal by type of treatment (France)......................................................................................................................... 172 Table 165: Life cycle inventory data for the storage of one ton of hazardous waste, by life cycle stages (ADEME FNADE, 2003) ...................................................... 174 Table 166: Emission factors for wastewater treatment ................................................ 176 Table 167: Emission factors for disposal of packaging waste..................................... 177 Table 168: Emission factors for packaging production................................................. 178 Table 169: Energy expenditures for building construction by type of activity ........... 180 Table 170: Energy expenditures for building construction by material ...................... 180 Table 171: Emissions for building construction, by activity sector in France............ 181 Table 172: Emission factors per m2 by building type and activity............................... 182 Table 173: Emission factors for construction materials and products (INIES database) ...................................................................................................................... 183 Table 174: Emission factors for roadway and parking area construction materials 184 Table 175: Supplementary percentage for transport and application of roadway and parking area construction materials.......................................................................... 185
Bilan Carbone
Table 176: Traffic on different types of roadways ......................................................... 186 Table 177: Emission factors for roadway construction by type of structure.............. 186 Table 178: Emission factors for safety barriers by class of roadway ......................... 187 Table 179: Energy consumption for chip manufacture................................................. 188 Table 180: Energy consumption for manufacture of printed circuit boards............... 189 Table 181: Energy consumption for cathode ray tube manufacture .......................... 189 Table 182: Energy consumption for manufacture of flat screens ............................... 189 Table 183: Fossil fuels used for ancillary computer materials (kg) ............................ 190 Table 184: Emission factor for computer with cathode ray tube................................. 190 Table 185: Emission factor for computer with flat screen ............................................ 191 Table 186: Average weight of materials in a computer and printer............................ 191 Table 187: Emission factors for electricity production by type of production............ 205 Table 188: Monthly emission factors for EDF electricity in 2005................................ 206 Table 189: Emission coefficients for the main fuel types ............................................. 208 Table 190: Distribution of cultivated lands (France) ..................................................... 215 Table 191: Emission factor for industrial turkey............................................................. 216 Table 192: Emission factor for industrial duck and guinea fowl.................................. 216 Table 193: Emission factor for free-range chicken ....................................................... 217 Table 194: Emission factor for free-range guinea fowl................................................. 217 Table 195: Emission factors for 35 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 225 Table 196: Emission factors for 610 fiscal horsepower gasoline vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 226 Table 197: Emission factors for gasoline vehicles of over 11 fiscal horsepower, by type of itinerary............................................................................................................. 227 Table 198: Emission factors for 3-5 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 228 Table 199: Emission factors for 6-10 fiscal horsepower diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary.......................................................................................................................... 229 Table 200: Emission factors for 11 fiscal horsepower (and over) diesel vehicles, by type of itinerary............................................................................................................. 229 Table 201: ADEME Bilan Carbone Experts ............................................................... 249
Bilan Carbone
FIGURES
Figure 1: Correlation between life span and GVW for trucks and light utility vehicles .......................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 2: Correlation between GVW and emissions per vehicle.km............................ 91 Figure 3: Correlation between GVW and average emissions per vehicle.km for personal cars.................................................................................................................. 92 Figure 4: Radiative forcing by aircraft in 1992 ............................................................... 103 Figure 5: Correlation between daily emissions for a container ship at sea and its payload capacity .......................................................................................................... 115 Figure 6: Electricity production in Europe in 2001, by type of primary energy source (Observatoire de lEnergie) ........................................................................................ 203 Figure 7: Emission factors for some European electricity producers (2004) ............ 204 Figure 8: Distribution of light utility vehicles under 1,5 t GVW .................................... 219 Figure 9: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 1,5 t and 2,5 t GVW............... 219 Figure 10: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 2,5 t and 3,5 t GVW ............ 220 Figure 11: Distribution of light utility vehicles between 3,51 t and 5 t GVW.............. 221 Figure 12: Distribution of trucks between 5,1 t and 6 t GVW ...................................... 221 Figure 13: Distribution of trucks between 6.1 t and 10.9 t GVW................................. 222 Figure 14: Distribution of trucks between 11 t and 19 t GVW ..................................... 222 Figure 15: Distribution of trucks between 19.1 t and 21 t GVW .................................. 223 Figure 16: Distribution of trucks between 21.1 t and 32,6 t GVW............................... 224 Figure 17: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A300, cargo model ............................................................................................................................. 230 Figure 18: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A310 ..... 230 Figure 19: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A318 ..... 231 Figure 20: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A3109 ... 231 Figure 21: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A320 ..... 232 Figure 22: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A330-200 ........................................................................................................................................ 232 Figure 23: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A330-300 ........................................................................................................................................ 233 Figure 24: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A340-200 ........................................................................................................................................ 233 Figure 25: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A340-300 ........................................................................................................................................ 234 Figure 26: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A340-500 ........................................................................................................................................ 234 Figure 27: Maximum operating ranges by weight on board at take-off for A340-600 ........................................................................................................................................ 235 Figure 28: Seating chart by ticket class for A320.......................................................... 235 Figure 29: Seating chart for A330-200, two-cabin model............................................. 236 Figure 30: Seating chart for A330-200, three-cabin model.......................................... 236 Figure 31: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-200.................................................. 236 Figure 32: Seating chart by ticket class for A340-600.................................................. 237
Bilan Carbone
Bilan Carbone
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A ACV: Analyse du Cycle de Vie (LCA : Life Cycle Analysis) ADEME: Agence de lEnvironnement et de la Matrise de lEnergie (French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management) AIE: Agence Internationale de lEnvironnement APME: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe B BTU: British Thermal Unit C CET: Centre dEnfouissement Technique CITEPA: Centre Interprofessionnel Technique Atmosphrique CPCU: Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain CSDU: Centre de Stockage de Dchets Ultimes
dEtude
de
la
Pollution
D DASRI: Dchets dActivits de Soin Risques Infectieux DBO: Demande Biochimique en Oxygne DGEMP: Direction Gnrale de lEnergie et des Matires Premires DMA: Dchets Mnagers et Assimils (Household waste and assimilated) E ECCS: Electrolytic Chrome Coated Steel ECS: Eau Chaude Sanitaire EMHV: Ester Mthylique dHuile Vgtale (vegetable oil methyl ester, VME) EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (United States) ETBE: Ethyl Tertio Buthyl Ether F FDES: Fiche de Dclaration Environnementale et Sanitaire FNADE: Fdration Nationale des Activits de Dpollution et de lEnvironnement G-H GES: Gaz Effet de Serre (greenhouse gas, GHG) GIEC: Groupe dexperts Intergouvernemental sur lEvolution du Climat International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GVW: Gross Vehicle Weight I-J IFP Institut Franais du Ptrole INIES: Informations sur lImpact Environnemental et Sanitaire
Bilan Carbone
INRETS: Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Scurit INSEE: Institut National des Statistiques et des Etudes Economiques IPCC: International Panel on Climate Change IRSID: Institut de Recherche de la SIDrurgie K-L kep: kilo quivalent ptrole L LCPC: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses M-N MEDD: Ministre de lEcologie et du Dveloppement Durable MIES: Mission Interministrielle de lEffet de Serre (French Interministerial Commission on the Greenhouse Effect) O OE: Observatoire de lEnergie OM: Ordures Mnagres (Household waste) P-Q-R PCI: Pouvoir Calorifique Infrieur (nett heating value, NHV) PCS: Pouvoir Calorifique Suprieur (gross heating value, GHV) PET: PolyEthylne Terephtalate PNUE: Programme des Nations-Unies pour lEnvironnement (United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP) PRG: Potentiel de Rchauffement Global PTAC: Poids Total Autoris en Charge (Maximum Authorized Weight when Fully Loaded = Gross Vehicle Weight, GVW) PTRA: Poids Total Roulant Autoris PWC: Price Waterhouse Coopers S SETRA: Service dEtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes T TCR: Taillis Courtes Rotations tec: ton quivalent charbon toe: ton oil equivalent TER: Train Express Rgional TGV: Train Grande Vitesse TRN: Train Rapide National U UF: Unit Fonctionnelle UNFCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UTAC: Union Technique de lAutomobile, du motocycle et du Cycle
Bilan Carbone
V-W-X-Y-Z VNF: Voies Navigables de France
Bilan Carbone
ADEME EXPERTS
Nom BAJEAT BODINEAU BEWA DEPORTES DRESCH MOUSSET SCHUBETZER WENISCH CHENE-PEZOT VEUILLET CARBALLES CHABOT COTTIGNIES DESPRETZ VIDALENC LEFEBVRE LEONARDON TROTIGNON Prnom Philippe Luc Hilaire Isabelle Marlne Jrme Christine Sandrine Anne Dominique Sandrine Bernard Marc Hubert Eric Herv Philippe Rgine Domaines d'expertise Bilan environnementaux filire dchets Biocombustibles, biocarburants Bioproduits Retour au sol des matires organiques Efficacit nergtique procds industriels - froid Secteur agricole, N2O pandage Mthanisation djection animale, stockage du carbone dans les sols Valorisation nergtique - biogaz Statistiques nergies / Economie Eco-conception Transport Energies renouvelables Transport URE, lectricit btiment Transport Energies dans les btiments / Eclairage Matriaux et produits de construction Btiments
Table 201: ADEME Bilan Carbone Experts

Bilan Carbone Emission - Factors

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bilan Carbone Emission - Factors

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities

EMISSION FACTORS GUIDE

Emission Factors Calculation and Bibliographical Sources Used

French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management

Interministerial Mission on the Greenhouse Effect

The development of this Authorities Version received the support of :

Bilan Carbone Companies and Local Authorities Version

2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

1.5 Waste and wastewater/sewage ................................................................................................. 15 1.6 Capital assets ............................................................................................................................. 15

2 - Factors related to direct energy consumption ............................................... 17

2.2.4 Natural gas.............................................................................................................................. 24

2.2.5 Solid fuels................................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.6 Plastics used as fuel ................................................................................................................ 28

2.3 Bioenergy .......................................................................................................... 29

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

2.3.1.3.3 Biofuels from dedicated crops............................................................................................. 31

2.3.2 Liquid Biofuels ....................................................................................................................... 32

2.4.4 Intermittent and fatal renewable sources ............................................................................ 39

2.6 Space heating without corresponding meter readings........................................................... 47

2.6.2 Average residential consumption.......................................................................................... 50

3 - Accounting for non-energy emissions ............................................................ 54

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

3.3.3 Cooling in the service sector (air conditioning).................................................................................. 60

3.4 Other cases................................................................................................................................. 61

4 - Accounting for transport .................................................................................. 62

4.1.2 Buses and cars ........................................................................................................................ 77

4.1.3 Two-wheeled vehicles............................................................................................................. 82

4.1.4 Mass transit: suburban rail, metro and tramway............................................................... 84

4.2 Goods transport by road .......................................................................................................... 84

4.3 Air transport............................................................................................................................ 101

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

4.4 Rail transport .......................................................................................................................... 109

4.5 Sea and waterway freight ....................................................................................................... 112

4.6. River and waterway goods transport ................................................................................... 117

5 - Accounting for inputs: purchased materials and services.......................... 121

5.5 Glass ......................................................................................................................................... 131 5.6 Building materials ................................................................................................................... 133

5.6.2 Other materials .................................................................................................................... 134

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

5.9 Services..................................................................................................................................... 137

6.4 Grains, flour ............................................................................................................................ 143

6.7 Dairy products......................................................................................................................... 152

6.8 Industrial swine....................................................................................................................... 153

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

7 - Accounting for direct waste and sewage ...................................................... 163

7.2 Non-fermentable but combustible materials ........................................................................ 165

9.2 Roadways and parking areas ................................................................................................. 183

9.3 Machinery and vehicles ................................................................................. 187

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

10 - Bibliographical References .......................................................................... 193 10.1 - Sources ....................................................................................................... 193

10.2 General bibliography.................................................................................... 200

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

2. Passenger seats ............................................................................................... 235

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

ADEME EXPERTS................................................................................................. 249

2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

1.1 Energy 1.1.1 Fossil fuels

2001-2006 ADEME - Emission Factors Guide Version 5.0

Bilan CarboneTM Companies and Authorities Version

1.2 Greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2