CO2-Monitoring in the Ceramic Industry in the scope of EU ETS

Katharina Liepach, German Brick and Tile Association

Member of TBE ,

Member of Cerame UnieKöln, 12th May 05

Specifics of the ceramic industry

• rough estimation: across the EU Member States: ceramic installations cover 10% of all installations and emitt less then 1% of the CO2

• => many installations, only little emissions

• many SMEs

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

First, all possible sources are listed:• calcination of limestone/dolomite in the raw

material• limestone for reducing air pollutants• conventional fossil kiln fuels• alternative fossil-based kiln fuels and raw

materials• biomass kiln fuels (biomass wastes)

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

• other fuels

• organic material in the clay raw material

• additives used to induce porosity, e.g. sawdust or polystyrol

• waste gas scrubbing

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

• In the following paragraphs only the calcination process is covered in depths.

• The rest is missing.

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

How should the emissions coming form

• organic material in the clay raw material and

• pore forming agents

be determined is not dealt with.

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

The maximum permissible uncertainty

of 2.5 % when determining the CO2 emissions coming form the calcination process is is too low.

MRG, page 21, table 3: • Informative table with typical overall uncertainties

associated to the determination of CO2 emissions from an installation or activity in an installation for individual fuel or material streams of different magnitudes

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

MRG, page 21, table 3:

• process emissions from solid raw materials, (limestone, dolomite)

• Installations with less than 100 ktonns CO2 per year:

10%

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

Why 2,5% in Annex X?

• Most installations emitt less than 50 ktonns per year, so an overall uncertainty of 12,5% for the emissions coming from the raw material is resonable.

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

Conclusion:

1. In general the MRG focus on large installations.

2. Many information are missing for the ceramic industry.

3. The uncertainty is too low.

Ceramic Annex: Annex X

Thus:

• There is the risk that the monitoring will be highly expensive for the individual installations across the member states. Cost and effect could be absolutely disproportional.