Workshop on ODS Bank Management (OEWG-30) Geneva, Switzerland Monday 14 June 2010 Timing, Size and Cost of ODS Bank Management Opportunities Paul Ashford and Lambert Kuijpers (Co-chairs of Task Force on Decision XX/7)

The majority of ODS reaching the waste stream in the period between now and 2030 will be from other refrigerant sources (e.g. commercial refrigeration and SAC) Recovery and destruction of (bulk) refrigerants is the most cost-effective means of mitigating ODS bank emissions CFCs will be significantly more cost effective than HCFCs in climate terms (US$ per tonne of CO2-eq. saved) because of their greater GWP Key factors to consider………

How many CFCs reaching the waste stream varies by refrigeration sub-sector and by region, but will typically be exhausted in maximum 5-10 years HCFCs already represent a high percentage of waste flows in some sectors HCFCs (mainly HCFC-22) face additional barriers to recovery and destruction: HCFCs are still being produced in most regions There is parallel demand for recycling HCFCs are excluded from most ODS destruction protocols/ methodologies Key factors to consider……(2)

As with Decision XX/7 Report – the presentation focuses on low and medium effort measures Concentrated on ODS only and, in particular, Art. 5 analysis of ODS bank management opportunities Identifies key opportunities by sector, and particularly compares other refrigerants (e.g. commercial refrigeration) with appliances and foams Deals with aspects of time series, including annual tonnages arriving at waste stream by ODS type, climate impacts/mitigation opportunities, costs and cost effectiveness Information provided in this presentation

Decision XX/7:- A5 Other Refrigerant Flows remain Dominant for Low/Medium Effort ODS Commercial – 70% Stationary A/C – 27% Other – 3%

Potential for Recovery vs. Cost Effectiveness Other Refrigerants Article 5 Countries ( ) HCFC in Commercial Refrigeration Dense Sparse CFC in Commercial Refrigeration

Commercial Refrigeration Flows (Art.5) (metric tonnes)

Commercial Refrigeration Flows (Art.5) (CO 2 -eq. tonnes)

Commercial Refrigeration Costs (Art.5) (US$ million/yr)

Domestic Appliances Flows (Art.5) (metric tonnes/yr)

Domestic Appliances Flows (Art.5) (CO 2 -eq. tonnes)

Domestic Appliances Costs (Art.5) (US$ million/yr)

Potential for Recovery vs. Cost Effectiveness The Impact of Dealing with Appliances ( ) Refrigerant only Refrigerant & CFC Foam HCFC Foam in Appliances

CFC recovery of both refrigerant and blowing agent is cost-effective Estimated availability of CFCs in waste stream until 2020 Climate benefit of continuing to recover HCFCs is considerably lower than most other ODS banks Cost-effectiveness of HCFC recovery is also poor Likely that ODS recovery from appliances will only be profitable up until Main options are likely to focus on CFC refrigerants or low cost foam recovery facilities Co-funding for other purposes may make more holistic on-going recovery more plausible Key Messages relating to Appliances

In most sectors, it is clear that the ratio of CFC to HCFC - containing equipment varies with time Actual costs of recovery and destruction are assumed to stay constant irrespective of the refrigerant type However, the cost effectiveness in terms of climate (US$ per tonne of CO 2 -eq. saved) will be greater for CFCs because of their high GWP Although it would be possible to focus only on one type of refrigerant (e.g. CFCs), this would mean potentially ignoring large quantities of other ODS Treating the sector holistically involves a shift in cost effectiveness as the CFC component declines Implications of a sector-by sector approach

Costs Effectiveness Trends by Sector (US$ per tonne of CO 2 -saved)

For CFCs: Is it worth investing in infrastructure for 5-10 years of recovery? Would it be appropriate to focus on CFCs alone in areas other than appliances? What would be the cut-off point for funding based on cost per tonne of CO 2 -saved? and Questions to consider………

For HCFCs: On which basis would recovery/destruction be preferred to recovery/recycling? What kind of business model would be used to drive recovery for destruction? How would the barriers of produce-to-destroy and lack of methodologies be overcome? What are the future attitudes likely to be towards international destruction? Questions to consider………2

Questions of clarification?