international aluminium institute results of the 2009 ...€¦ · 15/1/2013 · international...

International Aluminium Institute

Results of the 2009 Anode Effect Survey Report on the Aluminium Industry’s Global Perfluorocarbon Gases Emissions Reduction Programme

5 July 2010

International Aluminium Institute | www.world‐aluminium.org

Published by:

INTERNATIONAL ALUMINIUM INSTITUTE New Zealand House

Haymarket London

SW1Y 4TE United Kingdom

Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7930 0528 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7321 0183

Email: Uiai@world‐aluminium.org U © International Aluminium Institute A company limited by guarantee. Registered in London no. 1052007


Contents

Summary & Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 1

Industry Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2009 Anode Effect Survey ....................................................................................................................... 6

Perfluorocarbon Emissions & Anode Effects ...................................................................................... 6

Survey Process .................................................................................................................................... 7

Participation Rate................................................................................................................................ 7

Data Requested ................................................................................................................................... 9

2009 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ 9

Global Emissions Estimations ................................................................................................................ 12

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Accounting for China ......................................................................................................................... 12

2009 Global Aluminium Industry PFC Emissions............................................................................... 13

CF4 & C2F6 (as CO2e) ....................................................................................................................... 13

CF4 .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Aluminium Industry PFC Emissions Reduction Performance ................................................................ 18

Benchmark Data .................................................................................................................................... 21

PFC Emissions per Tonne of Aluminium ........................................................................................ 22

Anode Effect Frequency ................................................................................................................ 25

Anode Effect Duration ................................................................................................................... 26

Anode Effect Minutes per Cell Day ............................................................................................... 27

Anode Effect Overvoltage ............................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A – Facility Emissions Calculation Methodologies ................................................................ 30

Slope Method .................................................................................................................................... 30

Overvoltage Method ......................................................................................................................... 31

Global Warming Potentials ............................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B – Quantification of non‐PFC Direct GHGs .......................................................................... 32


Bauxite Mining .................................................................................................................................. 32

Alumina Refining ............................................................................................................................... 32

Anode Production ............................................................................................................................. 32

Anode Consumption ......................................................................................................................... 32

Aluminium Casting ............................................................................................................................ 32

Appendix C – 2009 Anode Effect Survey Form ...................................................................................... 33

PFC001 Return Form ......................................................................................................................... 33

PFC001 Reporting Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 34

Appendix D – Performance Rankings by Technology ............................................................................ 35

CWPB Technology ............................................................................................................................. 35

PFPB Technology ............................................................................................................................... 36

SWPB Technology ............................................................................................................................. 41

VSS Technology ................................................................................................................................. 42

HSS Technology ................................................................................................................................. 46


Tables

Table 1 – Aluminium smelting technology categories ............................................................................ 5

Table 2 ‐ 2009 Anode Effect Survey participation by technology with respect to global aluminium

production ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Perfluorocarbon emission results from facility data reporting to the 2009 Anode Effect

Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4 – Production weighted mean PFC emissions per unit production of reporting entities, 2006‐

2009 .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 5 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from facilities reporting to 2009 Anode Effect Survey ..... 13

Table 6 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from facilities not reporting to 2009 Anode Effect Survey

that reported to 2008 Anode Effect Survey ................................................................................. 13

Table 7 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from non‐reporting facilities ............................................ 14

Table 8 – Total Global 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from the Aluminium Industry ....................... 14

Table 9 – Calculated sources of CF4 from global aluminium production, by technology, with

uncertainty range for non reporters, 2009 .................................................................................. 16

Table 10 ‐ Slope and overvoltage coefficients by technology, including uncertainty (Source: IPCC,

2006) ............................................................................................................................................. 30

Figures

Figure 1 – Percentage change in primary aluminium production and total direct greenhouse gas

emissions (including PFCs) from aluminium and upstream production processes, 1990‐2009,

relative to 1990 (SOURCE: see Appendix B) 2

Figure 2 – Geographical location of primary aluminium production, 1990 & 2007‐2009 (SOURCE: IAI)

4

Figure 3 – Primary aluminium smelting technology mix, 1990‐2009 (SOURCE: IAI & CRU) 5

Figure 4 – Schematic representation of anode effect voltage changes over time 6

Figure 5 – Primary aluminium production reporting in Anode Effect Survey and global reporting rate,

2000‐2009 7

Figure 6 – Median PFC emission rates (as CO2e) per tonne of production of reporting entities, per

technology, 2006‐2009 11


Figure 7 – Total global emissions of CF4 from the primary aluminium industry, 2009 15

Figure 8 – Total global emissions of CF4 from the primary aluminium industry, with non‐reporting

uncertainty ranges, 1990, 1996 & 2009 17

Figure 9 – PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of aluminium production, 2006‐2009 18

Figure 10 – PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of aluminium production, 1990‐2009 19

Figure 11 – Reduction in total PFC emissions (as CO2e) & growth in aluminium production, 1990‐2009

19

Figure 12 – Percentage change in primary aluminium production and total direct greenhouse gas

emissions (including PFCs) from all primary aluminium production processes (including mining,

alumina refining, aluminium smelting and casting), 1990‐2009, relative to 1990 20

Figure 13 – PFC emissions (as CO2e per tonne Al) performance of reporters, benchmarked as

cumulative fraction within technologies, 2009 22

Figure 14 –PFC emissions performance of reporters (t CO2e/t Al), benchmarked as cumulative

production within technologies, 2009 23

Figure 15 ‐ PFC emissions performance of reporters (t CO2e/t Al), benchmarked as cumulative

production within technologies, 1990 & 2009 24

Figure 16 ‐ Average anode effect frequency of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 1990 25

Figure 17 ‐ Average anode effect duration of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 2009 26

Figure 18 ‐ Average anode effect minutes per cell day of reporters benchmarked by technology type,

2009 27

Figure 19 ‐ Average anode effect minutes per cell day of reporters benchmarked as cumulative

production, 2009 28

Figure 20 ‐ Average anode effect overvoltage of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 2009 29


1

Summary & Conclusions The 2009 Anode Effect Survey results show a continuation of the trend for significant

reductions in perfluorocarbon (PFC) greenhouse gas emissions by the global aluminium

industry, on an absolute as well as per tonne of production basis.

The almost complete coverage (91%) of the IAI survey data outside China (with respect to

both metal production and emissions), combined with the fact that the IAI uses actual

measurements and secondary information to make an informed estimate of Chinese

industry performance, positions the global aluminium industry inventory very favourably

compared to the greenhouse gas inventories of other commodities.

Global aluminium industry 2009 PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of production were 29%

lower than those in 2006, well on course to meet the IAI voluntary objective of a 50%

reduction by 2020 on a 2006 baseline. 2009 saw an acceleration in the global industry’s

annual rate of emissions reduction, due to curbs in production in poorer performing

facilities.

There has been an 88% improvement in aluminium industry anode effect PFC emissions per tonne of production since 1990, with 2009 emissions per tonne the lowest since IAI

records began.

With PFC emissions per tonne slashed by almost 90% since 1990 and strong growth in

aluminium production over the same period, total annual emissions of PFCs to the

atmosphere by the industry have been reduced from 96 million tonnes of CO2e in 1990 to

22 million tonnes in 2009, a fall of over 75% despite a 90% increase in primary aluminium

production, from 19.5 to 37 million tonnes.

In fact, the reduction in absolute PFC emissions has offset the impact of rising production on

other direct GHG emissions sources from bauxite mining, alumina refining and aluminium

smelting processes, such as CO2 from carbon anode consumption and fuel combustion

emissions from furnaces and boilers.

Absolute direct greenhouse gas emissions from all primary aluminium and upstream

production processes (bauxite mining, alumina refining, aluminium smelting & casting)

remain at 1990 levels, even though production has doubled over the same period.


2

Figure 1 – Percentage change in primary aluminium production and total direct greenhouse gas emissions (including PFCs) from aluminium and upstream production processes, 1990‐2009, relative to 1990 (SOURCE: see Appendix B)

‐40%

‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

% change in total annual direct GHG emissions (as CO2e) from all primary aluminium production processes relative to 1990

% change in primary aluminium production relative to 1990


3

The International Aluminium Institute PFC Emissions

Reduction Voluntary Objective (2006‐2020)

The primary aluminium industry seeks to achieve the

long term elimination of perfluorocarbon (PFC)

emissions.

Following an 86% reduction in PFC emissions per

tonne of primary aluminium produced between 1990

and 2006, the global aluminium industry will further

reduce emissions of PFCs per tonne of aluminium by

at least 50% by 2020 as compared to 2006.

Coverage of the annual survey of PFC emissions from

IAI member and non‐member aluminium producers

has almost doubled from a global aluminium

production of 12 Mt in 1990 to 22 Mt (60% of the

industry's production) in 2009. The IAI is striving to

increase the global aluminium production coverage

of its annual Surveys to over 80%.

Based on IAI annual survey results, by 2020 IAI member companies commit to operate with PFC

emissions per tonne of production no higher than the

2006 global median level for their technology type.

Progress will be monitored and reported annually and

reviewed periodically by a recognised and

independent third party. There will be interim

reviews to ensure progress towards achievement of

the 2020 objective.


4

Industry Trends The year 2009 saw the first fall in global aluminium production for well over a decade, a function of

the global financial crisis causing decreased demand from the building & construction and transport

sectors, the two largest markets for primary aluminium products. Curtailments in production have

been experienced across the industry, with facility closures occurring among older technologies

which were already facing diminishing access to competitively priced power or pressure from other

external factors.

Figure 2 – Geographical location of primary aluminium production, 1990 & 2007‐2009 (SOURCE: IAI)

With newer, more cost competitive smelters located in emerging areas of production, such as the

Arabian Gulf and Iceland, and with Chinese smelters supplying a domestic (building) market that has

not felt the shock of the global financial crisis as keenly as other regions, the effect of curtailments in

production are not uniform across the globe. In fact, the pattern of recent years, of the industry

shifting away from traditional centres of production, through development of new, efficient, low

emitting capacity in new regions, was continued and accelerated in 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990 2007 2008 2009

Primary Aluminium Production (million tonnes)

Oceania

Other Asia

China

Middle East

Africa

Russia

Europe

South America

North America


5

BROAD TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY

TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY

ANODE CONFIGURATION

ALUMINA FEED CONFIGURATION

ACRONYM

Prebake

(anodes pre‐baked)

Centre Worked Vertical Bar broken centre feed CWPB

Vertical Point centre feed PFPB

Side Worked Vertical Manual side feed SWPB

Søderberg

(anodes baked in‐situ)

Vertical Stud Vertical Manual side feed

Point feed VSS

Horizontal Stud Horizontal Manual side feed

Bar broken feed

Point feed

HSS

Table 1 – Aluminium smelting technology categories

Figure 3 – Primary aluminium smelting technology mix, 1990‐2009 (SOURCE: IAI & CRU)

A shift in technology types, co‐incident with a regional shift, has necessarily had an impact on PFC

emissions, with modern and low PFC‐emitting Point Fed Prebake (PFPB) technology now dominating

the global technology mix. Along with improvements in existing assets, the addition of new smelting

capacity over the past two decades is one of the most important drivers behind the industry’s

improvement in its anode effect and thus its PFC emissions performance. The relative PFC emissions

performance of the technologies is such that, while PFPB makes up over three quarters of

production capacity worldwide, PFC emissions from its facilities represent around 60% of the global

industry’s PFC emissions inventory (as CO2e). Thus the relative increase in production share by PFPB

from 32% in 1990 to 83% in 2009 has seen emissions per unit production fall by almost 90% in the

same period and absolute emissions (total PFC emissions to the atmosphere from aluminium

smelters worldwide) driven down by over 75%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Annual Primary Aluminium Production (million tonnes)

HSS

VSS

SWPB

PFPB

CWPB


6

2009 Anode Effect Survey

Perfluorocarbon Emissions & Anode Effects Perfluorocarbons, or PFCs, are a group of potent greenhouse gases with long atmospheric lifetimes

(in the thousands of years), of which the greatest volume is emitted from industrial processes. PFCs

can be produced in the primary aluminium electrochemical smelting process, during events referred

to as anode effects.

An anode effect is a process upset condition, where an insufficient amount of alumina (Al2O3), the

raw material for primary aluminium production, is dissolved in the electrolyte bath, contained in the

electrolytic cells (or pots) within a smelter reduction line (potline). This causes the voltage in the pot

to be elevated above the normal operating range, resulting in the emission of gases containing the

PFCs tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6).

There is a direct relationship between the total amount of time over which a pot is on anode effect

(or, for some technologies, the time‐integrated elevated voltage above operating voltage) and

consequent emissions of CF4 and C2F6. Therefore, the anode effect data generated by process

monitoring systems allows one to calculate perfluorocarbon emissions, given that the constant of

proportionality is known. This constant can be specific to the potline, the smelter or to the generic

technology type, with varying degrees of certainty in the resultant calculation.

Figure 4 – Schematic representation of anode effect voltage changes over time


7

Survey Process The International Aluminium Institute has collected anode effect data directly from primary

aluminium producers for the purposes of calculating sectoral PFC emission inventories for over a

decade, with annual surveys carried out since 2000.

The IAI Anode Effect Survey requests data from all aluminium smelting facilities around the world,

via IAI member companies (http://www.world‐aluminium.org/About+IAI/Links), direct

correspondence with non‐member producers and regional industry associations1. Facilities are

requested, where possible, to report by potline, and to separate data from different technologies

within a single plant. As well as anode effect process data, reporters are also asked for information

that allows for quality control (by comparison against other facilities and within reporters’ data over

time) and for the IAI to take a snapshot and monitor over time the adoption of anode effect

mitigation technologies such as prediction and automatic termination software. The reporting form

and guidelines for reporters (PFC001) can be found in Appendix C.

Participation Rate Participants in the 2009 survey account for 60% of global primary metal production and 51% of

industry CF4 emissions (53% of total industry PFC emissions as CO2e). The missing data are primarily

related to low participation from Chinese producers. China is the single largest primary aluminium

producing country (and the largest consumer) and also one of the fastest growing, employing

modern PFPB technology in all of its 90+ smelters, equivalent to 13 million tonnes of annual

production by the end of 2009.

Figure 5 – Primary aluminium production reporting in Anode Effect Survey and global reporting rate, 2000‐2009

1 For Chinese facilities that are not owned or operated by IAI member companies, data is collected through the

China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association (http://www.chinania.org.cn)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Reporting Rate (%)

Primary Aluminium Production (million tonnes)

Reporting Production Non Reporting Rest of World

Non Reporting China Reporting Rate


8

While 2009 reporting by China is at 1.5% by production, recent surveys have seen a significant

increase in reporting by Chinese smelters (from <1% in 2006 to 8% in 2008) and an improved

understanding of the technological and emissions profile of the Chinese industry. However, the

critical issue for the global industry is even greater participation from Chinese facilities in the IAI’s

annual surveys, in order to build confidence in its reported PFC results.

Outside of China, participation has increased to over 90%; the inclusion of all Russian smelter data

from 2007 onwards means that today only 20 non‐China smelters, representing around 2 million

tonnes of production (equivalent to 6% of worldwide production), remain outside of the IAI survey

process. The almost complete coverage of the IAI survey data outside China (with respect to both

metal production and emissions), combined with the fact that the IAI uses actual measurements and

secondary information to make an informed estimate of Chinese industry performance, positions

the aluminium industry inventory (accounting for the total global industry) very favourably

compared to the greenhouse gas inventories of other commodities.

It is significant that the 2009 Survey results include data representing production from 100% of

SWPB, 99% of VSS and 90% of HSS technology categories. On average, these technologies produce

more emissions per tonne of aluminium production than the CWPB and PFPB categories (see Table

3).

TECHNOLOGY

2009 PRIMARY ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION (1,000 TONNES)

2009 PRODUCTION REPRESENTED IN

SURVEY (1,000 TONNES)

2009 PARTICIPATION RATE BY PRODUCTION

CWPB 1,637 998 61 %

PFPB (Rest of World)

17,644 16,293 92 %

54 % PFPB (China)

12,964 195 1.5 %

SWPB 550 550 100 %

VSS 3,653 3,603 99 %

HSS 605 545 90 %

All Technologies (excluding China)

24,090 21,990 91 %

All Technologies (Including China)

37,054 22,184 60 %

Table 2 ‐ 2009 Anode Effect Survey participation by technology with respect to global aluminium production

Note: any inconsistencies due to rounding


9

Data Requested Annual (1 January – 31 December 2009) data required to measure potline or facility anode effect

performance and thus calculate annual PFC emissions include:

Annual primary aluminium metal production (MP), the mass of molten metal (in metric

tonnes) tapped from pots in reporting period;

Anode effect frequency (AEF), the average number of anode effects occurring per cell day

over the reporting period;

Anode effect duration (AED), the average time (in minutes) of each anode effect over the

reporting period;

Anode Effect Overvoltage (AEO), the average cell voltage (in millivolts) above the target

operating voltage, when on anode effect, over the reporting period.

Overvoltage is specifically requested from operators employing Rio Tinto Alcan AP‐18 or AP‐3x PFPB

technologies and SWPB facilities using control technology that records overvoltage rather than

anode effect duration. These anode effect performance data allow for the calculation, by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2 or Tier 3 methodologyF

2F, of facilities’ total

annual tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6) emissions, and thence tonnes of CO2

equivalent (CO2e) emitted per tonne of aluminium produced.

It should be noted that the IPCC Tier 1 methodology of multiplying metal production by a

technology‐specific coefficient to estimate PFC emissions (i.e. estimation of emissions as a function

of production rather than as a function of anode effect performance) is not good practice, as the

results are not derived from process data and consequently have a very high uncertainty attached to

them. IAI does not use the Tier 1 methodology in any of its PFC emissions calculations.

2009 Survey Results Anode effect data was collected from 251 reporting entities (smelters & potlines) representing 108

unique facilities and 22 million tonnes of primary aluminium production. Of these, 108 reporting

entities, with a combined production of 10.5 million tonnes included PFC measurement data,

allowing Tier 3 calculation of CF4 and C2F6. The slope method was applied to 219 reporting entities,

producing 16.8 million tonnes of aluminium; the remaining 32 entities, producing 5.3 million tonnes,

employed the overvoltage method. Results are summarised in Table 3 below.

Facilities that have made PFC measurements by which Tier 3 calculation of PFC emissions is possible

account for 53% of the total reported CF4 emissions inventory. It should be noted that Tier 3

calculations typically carry an uncertainty of +/‐ 15%, with well controlled systems down to +/‐ 12%,

while uncertainty in Tier 2 calculations can be as high as +/‐ 50%."

2 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Primary Aluminium Production, Chapter 3,

Section 4.4, http://www.ipcc‐nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_4_Ch4_Metal_Industry.pdf.


10

TechnologyIPCC Tier

Reporting entities

Reported production

(1,000 tonnes Al)

Total CF4 emissions(Gg CF4)

Total C2F6 emissions (Gg C2F6)

Median CF4emission factor

(kg CF4/t Al)

Total PFC emissions

(1,000 t CO2e)

Median PFC emission factor (t CO2e/t Al)

Mean PFC emission factor

(t CO2e/t Al)

CWPB 2 4 530 0.0120 0.0015

0.058 341 0.49 0.34 3 5 467 0.0298 0.0061

PFPB

2 Slope 65 6,807 0.311 0.0376

0.034 4,507 0.26 0.27 3 Slope 29 4,462 0.144 0.0165

2 OV 21 3,179 0.102 0.0123

3 OV 10 2,040 0.0369 0.0040

SWPB 2 4 141 0.127 0.0219

0.525 2,386 4.63 4.33 3 3 409 0.148 0.0332

VSS 2 23 733 0.146 0.0077

0.118 3646 0.82 1.01 3 55 2,870 0.371 0.0235

HSS 2 26 312 0.0402 0.0034

0.126 725 0.92 1.33 3 6 233 0.0603 0.0044

ALL ‐ 251 22,184 1.53 0.182 ‐ 11,605 ‐ 0.52

Table 3 – Perfluorocarbon emission results from facility data reporting to the 2009 Anode Effect Survey Note: any inconsistencies due to rounding


11

The range of anode effect and perfluorocarbon emission performance within technologies is

explored further in the Benchmark Data section below. Changes in median emission performance

(in t CO2e/t Al) within technologies between 2006 and 2009 is shown in the following chart, which

demonstrates improvement in the higher‐emitting SWPB, VSS and HSS cohorts – a function of

improved coverage of these technologies in the annual survey, improved anode effect management

and curtailment of production in poorer performing facilities. The jump in percentage coverage of

production of the SWPB, VSS and HSS technologies between 2006 and 2007 reflects, to a large

extent, the inclusion of data from all Russian facilities from 2007 onwards.

Figure 6 – Median PFC emission rates (as CO2e) per tonne of production of reporting entities, per technology, 2006‐2009

Reported average (production weighted mean) PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of production

have been reduced by 40% between 2006 and 2009 (CF4 by 39%, C2F6 by 41%):

CF4 Emission Factor

(kg CF4/t Al) C2F6 Emission Factor

(kg C2F6/t Al) PFC Emission Factor

(t CO2e/t Al)

2009 0.0688 0.00821 0.52

2008 0.0891 0.0101 0.67

2007 0.107 0.0129 0.82

2006 0.112 0.0138 0.86

Table 4 – Production weighted mean PFC emissions per unit production of reporting entities, 2006‐2009

The changing reporting cohort, plus the fact that the anode effect survey respondents now only

constitute 60% of global production, means that a more realistic picture of the aluminium industry’s

PFC emissions inventory should include some estimate of the non‐reporting industry year on year.

In fact, the IAI voluntary objective is an objective for the industry as a whole, not just IAI

membership or reporting companies and so is based on such a global estimate.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2006 2007 2008 2009

Reporting rate (%)

Median PFC

Emissions (t CO

2e/t Al)

CWPB Median PFPB Median SWPB Median VSS Median HSS Median

CWPB Reporting PFPB Reporting SWPB Reporting VSS Reporting HSS Reporting


12

Global Emissions Estimations

Methodology A simple method for estimating global emissions could be to assume that the non‐reporting cohort

has the same average emission factor as the reporting group, but as we have seen there is significant

variability in performance between (as well as within) technologies and a more nuanced approach is

to look at average performance within technologies and to apply this to non reporting facilities on a

technology‐by‐technology basis. A production weighted average would ignore the range in

performance one sees between facilities of the same technology and therefore the ideal emission

factor to use is the median (as shown in Table 3 above). The IAI has employed this methodology, of

using median PFC emissions performance (as CO2e) per technology and applying this to non‐

reporting production by technology, since the inception of its global PFC reporting initiative. This is

the basis for calculation of the global PFC emissions inventory from aluminium production.

Also presented below is an evaluation of global CF4 emissions (as CF4 rather than as CO2e), that uses

median CF4 performance to estimate global emissions and quantifies uncertainty associated with

estimating non‐reporting performance. The uncertainty range is the product of the difference

between the upper and lower quartiles of performance and non‐reporting production, by

technology. Such an analysis was conducted in 2000 on year 1990 and 1996 data and a comparison

is shown here between 1990, 1996 and 2009 datasets. The uncertainty ranges presented here do

not take account of uncertainties in reported data and the differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3

derived emission factors.

Non‐reporting aluminium production tonnage data is taken from one of three sources. The majority

(Chinese production of 12,964,000 metric tonnes) is taken from the IAI Alternative Source Statistical

Report “China’s Primary Aluminium Production” (http://stats.world‐

aluminium.org/iai/stats_new/formServer.asp?form=11), published by the China Nonferrous Metals

Industry Association (CNIA). Around 1.5 million tonnes of production (n=13) is taken from other IAI

surveys (where a facility does not provide data to the Anode Effect Survey but does report in other

IAI surveys) – primarily IAI Form 150 “Primary Aluminium Production” (http://stats.world‐

aluminium.org/iai/stats_new/formServer.asp?form=1). Finally, just under 630,000 metric tonnes of

production is data kindly provided by the CRU Group (www.crugroup.com), for facilities where there

is no direct IAI data collection (n=8).

Four entities (production 320,000 tonnes) reported anode effect data in 2008, but did not report in

2009; for these facilities, their 2008 emission factor (as CO2e) was applied to their year 2009 metal

production, to develop estimate performance that is more accurate than application of a generic

technology median. For information, their total combined 2009 PFC emissions using 2008 emission

factors amounted to 674 t CO2e, while application of 2009 technology medians would have yielded a

figure of 140 t CO2e.

Accounting for China Until recently, application of a global median emission factor has been the best available method of

estimating Chinese aluminium industry emissions, given that China produces all of its primary

aluminium from PFPB facilities and that the performance of Chinese PFPB facilities was neither well

known nor well reported. However, recent (2008‐2010) PFC emissions measurements at a number


13

of facilities in China, undertaken as part of the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development &

Climate (www.asiapacificpartnership.org) and by the Chinese producer and IAI member company

Chinalco, give a median emission factor for the measured Chinese PFPB smelters of 0.69 tonnes

CO2e per tonne of aluminium produced, compared with a PFPB survey reporter median performance

of 0.26 tonnes CO2e per tonne of aluminium.

This China‐specific value (0.69 t CO2e/t Al) is applied to the 2009 Chinese non‐reporting PFPB cohort,

in place of the IAI PFPB survey median, and has also been applied to Chinese non‐reporting

production in 2006, 2007 and 2008, to derive a time series that more accurately reflects Chinese

smelter performance and global emissions than one based on rest‐of‐world averages.

2009 Global Aluminium Industry PFC Emissions

CF4 & C2F6 (as CO2e) Total PFC emissions calculated from reported anode effect data are given, expressed as CO2e by

technology, in Table 5 below:

Technology Reported Aluminium Production

(1,000 tonnes)

Total PFC Emissions from Reported Anode Effect Data

(1,000 t CO2e)

CWPB 600 341

PFPB 16,488 4,507

SWPB 550 2,386

VSS 3,603 3,646

HSS 545 725

TOTAL 22,184 11,605

Table 5 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from facilities reporting to 2009 Anode Effect Survey


Shown in Table 6 are the calculated PFC emissions for the four entities that reported anode effect

data in 2008 but not 2009 and for which their facility‐specific 2008 emission factor (t CO2e/t Al) was

applied to their 2009 aluminium production tonnage.

2009 Aluminium Production

(1,000 tonnes)

Total PFC Emissions derived from 2008 Emission Factor

(1,000 t CO2e)

2009 Non‐Reporters with 2008 Emission

Factor 319 674

Table 6 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from facilities not reporting to 2009 Anode Effect Survey that reported to 2008 Anode Effect Survey



14

The final elements of the global aluminium industry PFC inventory are the emissions from capacity

that did not report anode effect data in either 2008 or 2009. As outlined above, these emissions are

estimated by applying 2009 median technology performance (t CO2e/t Al) of the “known” (reporting

& measured) producers to non‐reporting aluminium production tonnages. These data are shown in

Table 7.

Technology Median PFC

emission factor (t CO2e/t Al)

Non‐reporting aluminium production

(1,000 tonnes)

Total PFC Emissions from non‐reporters

(1,000 t CO2e)

CWPB 0.49 423 207


0.26 1,265 329

PFPB (China)

0.69 12,769 8,811

SWPB 4.63 0 0

VSS 0.82 34 28

HSS 0.92 60 55

TOTAL ‐ 14,551 9,428

Table 7 – 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from non‐reporting facilities


Summing the emissions and production data from Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 and then dividing

total global PFC emissions (t CO2e) by total global production (t Al), gives a production weighted

average 2009 PFC emissions performance for the global aluminium industry of 0.59 tonnes of CO2e

per tonne of primary aluminium produced, as outlined in Table 8

Total PFC Emissions

(1,000 t CO2e)

Total aluminium Production

(1,000 tonnes)

PFC Emission Factor

(t CO2e/t Al)

Reported 11,605 22,184 0.52

2008 Reporters 674 319 2.11

Calculated from non‐reporters 9,428 14,551 0.65

TOTAL GLOBAL 21,707 37,054 0.59

Table 8 – Total Global 2009 Perfluorocarbon emissions from the Aluminium Industry



15

CF4 While expression of the industry’s PFC emissions in terms of absolute and per tonne carbon dioxide

equivalents is a useful tool in measuring climate impact over time and relative to other GHG

emission sources, it is worthwhile looking at the emission rates of the constituent PFC gases

themselves, particularly as the growing field of atmospheric measurement of such compounds is

demanding more and more such data to make meaningful comparison between bottom up sectoral

or national GHG inventories and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. There is also the

potential in the future for the IPCC to move away from expressing global warming potential in CO2

equivalents, and instead quantifying the radiative forcing of each greenhouse gas individually.

The analysis below focuses on CF4 only, given that this gas constitutes the majority (c.90% by mass)

of the aluminium industry’s PFC emissions. For information, the IPCC Tier 2 C2F6/CF4 weight fractions

by technology are given in Table 10, with the C2F6/CF4 weight fraction of 2009 anode effect data

calculated emissions from all technologies (a combination of Tier 2 and Tier 3) as 0.120.

The methodology used for estimating CF4 emissions from non‐reporters is the same as that

employed for estimating CO2e, except that the median emission factors are for CF4, expressed as kg

CF4/t Al, rather than for CF4 and C2F6, expressed as t CO2e/t Al. Here, the 2008 reporters that did not

report in 2009 are assumed to perform at the 2009 median for their technology; their 2008 emission

factors are NOT included in the cohort from which the 2009 technology medians are derived. As

seen above, this means that the CF4 emissions from these four entities is likely underestimated, but

their production volume is so low as not to have a significant effect on the global numbers. Results

are given in Table 9 and plotted in Figure 7, indicating the total mass of CF4 emitted from the global

aluminium industry in 2009 to be around 2.9 Gg (kilotonnes).

Figure 7 – Total global emissions of CF4 from the primary aluminium industry, 2009

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

CWPB PFPB(Rest of World)

PFPB(China)

SWPB VSS HSS ALL

Absolute CF 4

Emissions (Gg)


16

Estimated uncertainty in results from non‐reporting production is also included as ranges per technology. These are the product of non‐reporting

production and the difference between first and third quartile performance within reporting (or in the case of China, measured) performance. This

methodology was followed in a 2000 analysis of 1990 and 1996 data and a comparison with these results is made below. The uncertainty ranges in Table 9

say nothing about the uncertainty inherent in the calculated emissions from reporters, the most significant sources of which include the use of Tier 2 factors

for calculating PFC emissions for survey participants where suitable facility specific measurements are not available.

A B C D E F = B x D G = E + F H = (A – C) x D

CF4 Emission Factor (kg CF4/t Al)

Non‐reporting aluminium production

(1,000 tonnes)

CF4 Emissions Calculated from Reported Anode

Effect Data (Gg CF4)

CF4 Emissions Calculated from Non‐Reporters

(Gg CF4)

Total Global CF4 Emissions (Gg CF4)

Uncertainty Range (Gg CF4) First

quartile Median

Third quartile

CWPB 0.0227 0.0578 0.068 639 0.042 0.037 0.079 0.029


0.0190 0.0343 0.0735 1,351 0.585 0.046 0.632 0.074

PFPB (China)

0.0645 0.100 0.199 12,769 0.009 1.30 1.29 1.74

SWPB 0.274 0.525 0.676 0 0.275 0 0.275 0

VSS 0.0310 0.118 0.146 51 0.496 0.006 0.521 0.006

HSS 0.108 0.126 0.165 60 0.100 0.008 0.108 0.003

ALL n/a 14,870 1.51 1.39 2.90 1.823

Table 9 – Calculated sources of CF4 from global aluminium production, by technology, with uncertainty range for non reporters, 2009



17

Comparison of year 2009 data with CF4 emissions and uncertainties in non‐reporting facilities from

1990 and 1996, show a significant reduction in total emissions over this period. Even taking the

lowest point in the 1990 uncertainty range of 9.3 Gg CF4, and the highest in 2009 of 3.8 Gg CF4, total

annual emissions of the gas have been reduced by almost 60%, despite a doubling in aluminium

production over the same period:

Figure 8 – Total global emissions of CF4 from the primary aluminium industry, with non‐reporting uncertainty ranges, 1990, 1996 & 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 1996 2009

Global CF4 Emissions (Gg CF4)


18

Aluminium Industry PFC Emissions Reduction Performance The 2009 Anode Effect Survey results show a continuation of the trend for significant reductions in

PFC greenhouse gas emissions (as both CF4 and CO2e) by the global aluminium industry, on an

absolute as well as per tonne of production basis.

PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of production have been reduced by 29% since 2006, well on

course to meet the IAI voluntary objective of a 50% reduction by 2020 on a 2006 baseline. 2009 saw

an acceleration in the global industry’s annual rate of emissions reduction, due to curbs in

production in poorer performing facilities.

Figure 9 – PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of aluminium production, 2006‐2009

The 29% improvement since 2006 is equivalent to an 88% improvement since 1990, with emissions

per tonne the lowest since IAI records began. Figure 10 shows the PFC emission rate (as CO2e) for

the global industry since 1990. Prior to 2006, Chinese industry performance was presumed to be

operating at the global median within technology classes in any given year (the standard IAI

methodology for estimating emissions from non‐reporters). Since 2006, with China operating only

PFPB technology facilities, and through a better understanding of Chinese industry performance

based on PFC measurements at facilities within China, an average performance of 0.69 t CO2e/t Al

produced is assumed. Figure 10 shows both methodologies plotted on a single chart – it should be

noted that the 1990 baseline would not change that much between either methodology, as Chinese

aluminium production was only around 4% of the global total at that time (see Figure 2), compared

to 35% in 2009.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

PFC

Emissions (t CO

2‐e/t Al)

2020 Voluntary Objective:50% reduction on 2006 Baseline


19

Figure 10 – PFC emissions (as CO2e) per tonne of aluminium production, 1990‐2009

With PFC emissions per tonne slashed by almost 90% since 1990 and primary aluminium production

having doubled over the same period, it is clear that absolute emissions of PFCs, that is the total

mass of gases entering the atmosphere from aluminium smelters worldwide, will also have fallen. In

fact, absolute emissions of PFCs have been reduced from 96 million tonnes of CO2e in 1990 to 22

million tonnes in 2009, a fall of 77% despite a 90% increase in aluminium production.

Figure 11 – Reduction in total PFC emissions (as CO2e) & growth in aluminium production, 1990‐2009

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0PFC

Emissions (t CO

2e/t Al)

Non‐reporting Chinese performance = global median by technology

Non‐reporting Chinese performance = median measured Chinese PFPB emissions (0.69 t CO2e/t Al)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Million tonnes

PFC Emissions (Mt CO2e)

Primary Aluminium Production (Mt Al)


20

In fact, the reduction in absolute PFC emissions since 1990 is such that it has offset the rise in other

direct GHG emissions sources from primary aluminium production processes, such as CO2 from

anode consumption and fuel combustion emissions from furnaces and boilers, which are more

closely linked to the rise in production. Figure 12 shows that total direct emissions from all primary

aluminium production processes (bauxite mining, alumina refining, anode production and aluminium

smelting & casting) remain at 1990 levels, driven primarily by the reduction in PFCs, even though

aluminium production has doubled over this same period. Appendix B describes the methodologies

and data sources used to derive non‐PFC greenhouse gas inventories.

Figure 12 – Percentage change in primary aluminium production and total direct greenhouse gas emissions (including PFCs) from all primary aluminium production processes (including mining, alumina refining, aluminium smelting and

casting), 1990‐2009, relative to 1990

‐40%

‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

% change in total annual direct GHG emissions (as CO2e) from all primary aluminium production processes relative to 1990

% change in primary aluminium production relative to 1990


21

Benchmark Data The IAI Anode Effect Survey provides respondents with valuable benchmark information, allowing

producers to judge their performance relative to others operating with similar technology. The

benchmark data are presented in this section in the form of cumulative probability graphs and

calculated PFC emissions benchmark data as both cumulative probability and cumulative production

graphs. The detailed supporting data are tabulated in Appendix D so that individual operators can

identify their facilities from the data submitted in response to the Survey.

The cumulative probability graphs show, on the horizontal axis, the benchmark parameter:

PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium;

Anode effect frequency (AEF);

Anode effect duration (AED);

Anode effect minutes per cell day (AEM) and

Anode effect overvoltage (AEO).

The vertical axes show the cumulative fraction of reporting facilities that perform at or below the

level chosen on the vertical axis. For instance, data points located at 0.5 (50th percentile) on the y‐

axis are the median value for that technology/dataset. For facilities reporting data from multiple

potlines a data point is shown for each potline. Figure 13 shows the 2009 benchmark data for PFC

emissions per tonne of aluminium produced, grouped by technology type.

To illustrate how the graph in Figure 13 is interpreted consider, for example, the 0.5 point on the

vertical axis, at which the CWPB data point is 0.49 t CO2e/t Al. The interpretation is that 50% of all

potlines/facilities reporting CWPB anode effect data operate at or below 0.49t CO2e/t Al. At 1.0 on

the vertical axis the CWPB point is 0.64 t CO2e/t Al. The interpretation is that all CWPB facilities

reported anode effect data that reflected PFC emissions performance at or below 0.64 t CO2e/t Al or,

in other words, the maximum value calculated for CWPB operators in 2009 was 0.64 t CO2e/t Al.


22

PFC Emissions per Tonne of Aluminium The lowest PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium produced are emitted from PFPB facilities. The

VSS and HSS facilities show a distribution of values for PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium

somewhat higher than the PFPB and top 50th percentile CWPB facilities (although the top 30% of VSS

potlines are performing similarly to high performing PFPB lines) and the highest PFC emissions per

tonne of aluminium produced result from SWPB cells.

Figure 13 – PFC emissions (as CO2e per tonne Al) performance of reporters, benchmarked as cumulative fraction within technologies, 2009

Note: SWPB 100th percentile outlier at 23.5 t CO2e/t Al

PFC emissions performance can also be plotted against cumulative aluminium production, as in

Figure 14. In this case, PFPB and CWPB reporters have been combined into a single cohort in order

avoid potential identification of the few CWPB facilities from production data.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Cumulative Fraction of Reporting Facilities/Potlines

PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)

SWPB ‐ 4.63

HSS ‐ 0.92

VSS ‐ 0.82

CWPB ‐ 0.49

PFPB ‐ 0.26

Median


23

Figure 14 –PFC emissions performance of reporters (t CO2e/t Al), benchmarked as cumulative production within technologies, 2009

Note: SWPB 100th percentile outlier at 23.5 t CO2e/t Al and cumulative production of 22.2 Mt Al

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PFC

Emissions (t CO

2e/t Al)

Cumulative Aluminium Production of Reporting Facilities (million tonnes)

PFPB & CWPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS


24

Taking the 1990 reporting cohort and plotting it against 2009 data shows improvement not only within existing technologies over this time but also, more

importantly, the positive contribution of new (predominantly PFPB) capacity added since 1990.

Figure 15 ‐ PFC emissions performance of reporters (t CO2e/t Al), benchmarked as cumulative production within technologies, 1990 & 2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PFC

Emissions (t CO

2e/t Al)


PFPB & CWPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS

1990

2009


25

Anode Effect Frequency Figure 16 shows the distribution of anode effect frequency data for reporting facilities in 20093. As

can be expected from the greater degree of control capability of PFPB cells, this technology has the

lowest AEF distribution of the five groups. VSS cells have a wide distribution of anode effect

frequency, although poorest performing are the SWPB potlines.

Figure 16 ‐ Average anode effect frequency of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 1990

3 Some of the benchmark data points for anode effect frequency, duration and anode effect minutes per cell

day are from facilities that employ the Overvoltage Method, but which also report AEF and AED to IAI

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0


Anode Effect Frequency (number of anode effects per day of cell operation)

CWPB

PFPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS


26

Anode Effect Duration Figure 17 shows comparative performance for anode effect duration performance for all reporting

facilities.

Historically, a number of CWPB and PFPB facilities reported average AED of less than 30 seconds,

although in the 2009 data there are relatively few, signalling that better and more comparable

definitions of AED are likely being used across the reporting cohort. Some care should be exercised

in making comparisons of AED because different definitions can be used for duration, specifically

relating to the voltage at which anode effects are declared and in the time interval over which, if

another voltage excursion occurs, it is noted as a new anode effect. The differences in definition of

whether a voltage increase is part of a prior anode effect or is a new anode effect does not impact

the AEM, the important parameter relating to PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium produced.

Differences in the voltage point at which cells are declared on anode effect can, however, impact

recorded AED.

Figure 17 ‐ Average anode effect duration of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 2009

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0


Anode Effect Duration (minutes)

CWPB

PFPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS


27

Anode Effect Minutes per Cell Day Anode Effect Minutes per Cell Day (AEM) are the product of anode effect frequency and duration

and, for facilities employing the Slope Method, are directly proportional to CF4 (and thus C2F6)

emission rates:

⁄

where

⁄

⁄

AEM relate directly to PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium produced through a slope factor that is

either technology specific (IPCC Tier 2 methodology) or facility specific (Tier 3 methodology). Figure

18 indicates that AEM form two broad families of data. There is similarity between the data for PFPB

and CWPB technologies and both have the same Tier 2 value for slope: 0.141 kg CF4/t Al per AEM.

Similarly, there is comparability in the AEM data for the SWPB, VSS and HSS cell technology groups.

However, there are considerable differences in the IPCC Tier 2 slope parameter for these three

technology groups. The slope value is highest for the SWPB technology group, 0.272 kg CF4/t Al per

AEM. The comparable slope values for VSS and HSS are 0.092 and 0.099, respectively.

Figure 18 ‐ Average anode effect minutes per cell day of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 2009

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Anode Effect Minutes per Cell Day

CWPB

PFPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS


28

Figure 19 ‐ Average anode effect minutes per cell day of reporters benchmarked as cumulative production, 2009

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Anode Effect M

inutes per Cell Day


PFPB & CWPB

SWPB

VSS

HSS


29

Anode Effect Overvoltage Figure 20 shows the benchmarking graph for anode effect overvoltage for PFPB cells operating with

Rio Tinto Alcan AP technologies and which calculate PFC emissions from overvoltage process data4.

For these operators the AEO parameter relates directly to PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium

produced.

Positive overvoltage reporting now predominates over algebraic overvoltage reporting. The positive

overvoltage should give a better correlation with PFC emissions per tonne of aluminium than

algebraic overvoltage since algebraic overvoltage recording can result in subtractions of voltage

during the anode effect treatment period that do not relate to PFC emissions.

Figure 20 ‐ Average anode effect overvoltage of reporters benchmarked by technology type, 2009

4 Some of the data points shown in this graph are from PFPB facilities that calculate emissions using the Slope

Method, but which report an overvoltage number as well as anode effect frequency and duration.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Average Anode Effect Overvoltage (mV)

Positive

Algebraic


30

Appendix A – Facility Emissions Calculation Methodologies

Slope Method The basic equations for calculation of PFC emission rates from facilities reporting anode effect

frequency and duration are:

and

/

where

kilograms of emitted


slope coefficient for

/ weight fraction of to

While AEF and AED are reported data, the slope coefficient for CF4 can be either “facility specific”

(IPCC Tier 3 methodology), or “technology specific” (IPCC Tier 2 methodology). The first of these

options, Tier 3, is the more certain method for calculating emissions and involves use of a slope

coefficient (and weight fraction) derived from direct measurement of PFC emissions at the facility.

The Tier 2 method involves the use of slope coefficients that are an average of measurements taken

from facilities around the world within technology classes.

Table 10 ‐ Slope and overvoltage coefficients by technology, including uncertainty (Source: IPCC, 2006)


31

Participants in the Anode Effect Survey are asked to report if a facility‐specific direct measurement

of PFC emissions had been made and if a Tier 3 slope coefficient and weight fraction are available for

calculating PFC emissions from the smelter. The remainder of the PFC emissions data are calculated

using IPCC Tier 2 methodology with industry average coefficients.

Overvoltage Method For smelters that report overvoltage data, the following equations are employed:

100

and

/

where



overvoltage coefficient for

current efficiency, expressed as %

/ weight fraction of to

Again, a Tier 3 methodology applies a facility specific overvoltage coefficient and weight fraction,

derived from on site PFC measurements and anode effect data and reported as part of the Survey

return. Tier 2 calculations apply technology specific, average coefficients, which are outlined in the

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Global Warming Potentials Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for survey participants are calculated by multiplying the

total tonnes of each PFC component gas by the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values reported in

the IPCC Second Assessment ReportF

5F (i.e. 6,500 for CF4 and 9,200 for C2F6):

6500 9200

For benchmarking purposes (that is to say, comparing emissions performance between facilities of

the same technology but with different levels of production), total (or “absolute”) CO2e emissions

are divided by relevant aluminium production, to give an emission factor in tonnes of CO2e per

tonne of aluminium produced:

5 The IPCC Second Assessment Report GWP values are employed to maintain consistency with Kyoto Protocol

conventions and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) accounting.


32

Appendix B – Quantification of nonPFC Direct GHGs The inventory of direct greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2009 included in this report is generated

from process data from a number of sources, detailed below:

Bauxite Mining 1990 – 1999, Assumed performance from 1999 Lifecycle Inventory (IAI, 2002) – 0.08 t CO2e /t Al

2000 – 2009, Assumed performance from 2005 Lifecycle Inventory (IAI, 2006 http://world‐

aluminium.org/cache/fl0000166.pdf) – 0.02 t CO2e /t Al

Alumina Refining China 2003‐2009, Annual energy consumption per tonne production from CRU Group data, alumina

production from IAI Alternative Source Statistics (https://stats.world‐

aluminium.org/iai/stats_new/index.asp). Assumed 100% coal fuel mix, with CO2e emission factor

from GHG Protocol tool for stationary combustion (http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation‐

tools/all‐tools.

China 1990‐2002, Annual energy consumption per tonne production based on following year with

assumed 10% improvement year on year (e.g. 2002 performance at 1.01x 2003 performance).

Alumina production based on following year with assumed 10% growth year on year (e.g. 2002

production at 0.90x 2003 production). Assumed 100% coal fuel mix, with CO2e emission factor from

GHG Protocol tool for stationary combustion (http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation‐tools/all‐

tools.

Rest of world 1990‐2009, Annual fuel consumption (total energy and fuel mix) data from IAI Energy

Statistics (https://stats.world‐aluminium.org/iai/stats_new/index.asp) multiplied by CO2e emission

factors per fuel from GHG Protocol tool for stationary combustion

(http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation‐tools/all‐tools).

Anode Production 1990 – 1999, Assumed performance from 1999 Lifecycle Inventory (IAI, 2002) – 0.23 t CO2e /t Al



Anode Consumption 1990 – 1999, Assumed performance from 1999 Lifecycle Inventory (IAI, 2002) – 1.63 t CO2e /t Al



Aluminium Casting 1990 – 1999, Assumed performance from 1999 Lifecycle Inventory (IAI, 2002) – 0.16 t CO2e /t Al




33

Appendix C – 2009 Anode Effect Survey Form

PFC001 Return Form

International Aluminium Institute Confidential Return IAI

PFC EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY ALUMINIUM SMELTING IAI FORM PFC001 Annual Report for: Due Date:

Please read the Reporting Guidelines on page 2 very carefully before completing this form.

1.Smelter Name or Location of Smelter

2. Anode Effect Data Potline Technology Cell Feed Primary Number Number of Average Averaged Anode Effect

Number Category Technology Type Aluminium of Cells Anode Anode Over-voltage Production Operating Effects per Effect per Cell Day* per Day Cell Day Duration Over-voltage Algebraic

(Tonnes) (Average) (Average) (Minutes) (mV) or Positive

* See Guideline 9

3. Anode Effect Control Procedures (Write “All”, “None” or list which potlines have the computer-based procedures)

a. Which potlines, if any, have computer-based procedures in place to predict the beginning of an anode effect? b. Which potlines, if any, have automated procedures in place to terminate anode effects once they have begun? (For example: lowering and raising of anodes, tilting of anodes, automated alumina feed or blowing compressed air under anodes)

4. PFC Emission Measurements (Only complete this Section if actual PFC Emissions have been directly measured and the resulting Tier 3 CF4 coefficient and C2F6/CF4 weight fraction used to calculate PFC Emissions per tonne of aluminium – see Guideline 10)

Year Potline Calculated Tier 3 Data of Number Slope Method Over-voltage Method

Measurement CF4 Emissions Coefficient

C2F6/CF4 weight fraction

CF4 Emissions Coefficient

C2F6/CF4 weight fraction

5. Verified by: (Please complete – see Guideline 11)

a. Name: c. Third Party: b. Appointment: d. Date of verification:

Reported by: (Please complete) Name: Tel No: Appointment: Fax No: Company: E-Mail: Please return completed form by email or fax to: Chris Bayliss Tel No: + 44 20 7930 0528 International Aluminium Institute Fax No: + 44 20 7321 0183 London SW1Y 4TE, United Kingdom E-Mail: [email protected]


34

PFC001 Reporting Guidelines

PFC EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY ALUMINIUM SMELTING IAI FORM PFC001 Reporting Guidelines 1. Data are reported by technology category and, preferably, by potline. Data for different technology categories should

not be mixed. 2. If anode effect data are not available then data for technology category, cell technology, feed type, primary

aluminium production and average number of cells operating per day are still reported. Anode effect frequency datashould be reported, if available, even though anode effect duration or overvoltage data are not available.

3. Technology category is reported as:

a. PFPB - where cell technology is Centre Worked Prebake with a Point Feed System. b. CWPB - where cell technology is Centre Worked Prebake with a Bar Break Feed System. c. SWPB - where cell technology is Side Worked Prebake. d. HSS - where cell technology is Horizontal Stud Søderberg. e. VSS - where cell technology is Vertical Stud Søderberg.

4. Cell technology is the particular cell technology used (RA-300, SY300, AP18, Reynolds P19 etc.) 5. Potline number is the reference number or letter used to identify the potline. If data from two or more potlines are

combined, then all relevant reference numbers or letters relating to the combined data are shown. 6. Feed type is reported as:

a. PF - where a Point Feed System is applied to Prebake or Søderberg technologies. b. BF - where a Bar Break Feed System is used. c. SF - where a manual Side Feed System is used.

7. Primary aluminium production is molten (liquid) aluminium as tapped from the pots. It is reported in tonnes (metric

tons) and is that production relevant to the anode effect and cell technology type data being reported. 8. Anode effect measurements are reported to two decimal places if possible. If the reported average anode effect

duration is estimated, then this is indicated by adding the letter “E” against the reported figure. When data from twoor more potlines are combined, the reported average anode effect frequency, average anode effect duration andaveraged anode effect over-voltage are production-weighted averages.

9. Averaged anode effect over-voltage in millivolts is only reported for Alcan Pechiney cell technology types AP18,

AP30, growth versions of these two cell technologies (e.g. AP33, AP35) and applicable Alcan Pechiney technologySWPB (Side Worked Prebake) potlines. Over-voltage can also be reported as integrated anode effect over-voltage inunits of mv.day per cell day. Over-voltage is reported as either positive or algebraic according to the followingdefinitions: a. Positive Anode Effect Over-voltage is the sum of the product of time and voltage above the pot target operating

voltage (corresponding to the target resistance), divided by the time over which the data are collected (hour, shift,day, month etc.).

b. Algebraic Anode Effect Over-voltage is the sum of the product of time and voltage above and below the pottarget operating voltage (corresponding to the target resistance), divided by the time over which the data arecollected (hour, shift , day, month etc.).

10. Section 3 is completed only if PFC emissions have been directly measured and the resulting CF4 emissions coefficient

and C2F6/CF4 weight fraction are applicable for production for the year being reported (in accordance with the USEPA/IAI Protocol for Measurement of Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production - http://www.epa.gov/aluminum-pfc/documents/measureprotocol.pdf. The directly measured emissions, and hence also the calculated emission coefficients, are to take account of both duct and fugitive emissions. Emission rates and emission coefficients are reported to two decimal places.

11. If Anode Effect and PFC Emissions Measurement data (where appropriate) has been verified by a Third Party (e.g.

auditor, regulatory authority) then please fill in details of the verifying body (fields a-d). If third party verification of the data has not occurred then please request internal verification of the data submitted by a senior manager and fill in their details in fields (a, b & d).

PFC001.09/26.11.08


35

Appendix D – Performance Rankings by Technology

CWPB Technology

CWPB AEF

AEF Percent Rank

Rank

0.13 0.0% 1 0.15 12.5% 2 0.16 25.0% 3 0.34 37.5% 4 0.42 50.0% 5 0.75 62.5% 6 0.77 75.0% 7 0.78 87.5% 8 0.81 100.0% 9

CWPB AED

AED Percent Rank

Rank

0.45 0.0% 1 0.62 12.5% 2 0.65 25.0% 3 0.68 37.5% 4 0.71 50.0% 4 0.72 62.5% 6 1.00 75.0% 7 1.06 87.5% 8 1.28 100.0% 9

CWPB AEM

AEM Percent Rank

Rank

0.13 0.0% 1 0.15 12.5% 2 0.16 25.0% 3 0.20 37.5% 4 0.30 50.0% 5 0.48 62.5% 6 0.49 75.0% 7 0.55 87.5% 8 0.55 100.0% 9

CWPB PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)


Percent Rank Rank

0.14 0.0% 1 0.17 12.5% 2 0.17 25.0% 3 0.22 37.5% 4 0.49 50.0% 5 0.55 62.5% 6 0.56 75.0% 7 0.63 87.5% 8 0.64 100.0% 9


36

PFPB Technology

PFPB AEF

AEF Percent Rank

Rank

0.01 0.0% 1 0.01 0.8% 2 0.02 1.6% 3 0.03 2.4% 4 0.03 3.3% 5 0.03 4.1% 6 0.04 4.9% 7 0.04 5.7% 8 0.05 6.5% 9 0.05 7.3% 10 0.05 8.1% 11 0.06 8.9% 12 0.06 9.8% 13 0.06 10.6% 14 0.07 11.4% 15 0.07 12.2% 16 0.07 13.0% 17 0.07 13.8% 18 0.07 14.6% 19 0.08 15.4% 20 0.08 16.3% 21 0.08 17.1% 22 0.08 17.9% 23 0.08 18.7% 24 0.08 19.5% 25 0.09 20.3% 26 0.10 21.1% 27 0.10 22.0% 28 0.10 22.8% 29 0.10 23.6% 30 0.10 24.4% 31 0.10 25.2% 32 0.11 26.0% 33 0.11 26.8% 34 0.11 27.6% 35 0.11 28.5% 36 0.12 29.3% 37 0.12 30.1% 38 0.12 30.9% 39 0.12 31.7% 40 0.12 32.5% 41 0.13 33.3% 42

AEF PercentRank

Rank

0.13 34.1% 430.13 35.0% 440.13 35.8% 450.13 36.6% 460.13 37.4% 470.14 38.2% 480.14 39.0% 490.14 39.8% 500.14 40.7% 510.14 41.5% 520.15 42.3% 530.15 43.1% 540.15 43.9% 550.15 44.7% 560.16 45.5% 570.16 46.3% 580.17 47.2% 590.17 48.0% 600.17 48.8% 610.17 49.6% 620.17 50.4% 630.18 51.2% 640.18 52.0% 650.18 52.8% 660.19 53.7% 670.19 54.5% 680.19 55.3% 690.20 56.1% 700.20 56.9% 710.20 57.7% 720.21 58.5% 730.21 59.3% 740.21 60.2% 750.21 61.0% 760.22 61.8% 770.22 62.6% 780.22 63.4% 790.22 64.2% 800.22 65.0% 810.23 65.9% 820.23 66.7% 830.23 67.5% 84

AEF Percent Rank

Rank

0.24 68.3% 850.25 69.1% 860.25 69.9% 870.26 70.7% 880.26 71.5% 890.27 72.4% 900.28 73.2% 910.28 74.0% 920.28 74.8% 930.28 75.6% 940.29 76.4% 950.32 77.2% 960.32 78.0% 970.32 78.9% 980.33 79.7% 990.33 80.5% 1000.33 81.3% 1010.34 82.1% 1020.35 82.9% 1030.35 83.7% 1040.36 84.6% 1050.40 85.4% 1060.41 86.2% 1070.42 87.0% 1080.43 87.8% 1090.46 88.6% 1100.47 89.4% 1110.49 90.2% 1120.51 91.1% 1130.51 91.9% 1140.52 92.7% 1150.53 93.5% 1160.55 94.3% 1170.58 95.1% 1180.60 95.9% 1190.75 96.7% 1200.76 97.6% 1210.81 98.4% 1221.51 99.2% 1231.85 100.0% 124


37

PFPB AED

AED Percent Rank

Rank

0.39 0.0% 1 0.44 1.0% 2 0.47 2.0% 3 0.54 3.1% 4 0.55 4.1% 5 0.57 5.1% 6 0.63 6.1% 7 0.63 7.1% 8 0.68 8.2% 9 0.74 9.2% 10 0.76 10.2% 11 0.76 11.2% 12 0.77 12.2% 13 0.77 13.3% 14 0.78 14.3% 15 0.82 15.3% 16 0.91 16.3% 17 0.99 17.3% 18 1.02 18.4% 19 1.03 19.4% 20 1.03 20.4% 21 1.04 21.4% 22 1.04 22.4% 23 1.05 23.5% 24 1.06 24.5% 25 1.08 25.5% 26 1.11 26.5% 27 1.14 27.6% 28 1.20 28.6% 29 1.20 29.6% 30 1.21 30.6% 31 1.22 31.6% 32 1.22 32.7% 33 1.35 33.7% 34 1.35 34.7% 35

AED Percent Rank

Rank

1.37 35.7% 361.38 36.7% 371.40 37.8% 381.45 38.8% 391.47 39.8% 401.50 40.8% 411.55 41.8% 421.57 42.9% 431.61 43.9% 441.62 44.9% 451.62 45.9% 461.70 46.9% 471.75 48.0% 481.79 49.0% 491.85 50.0% 501.85 51.0% 511.88 52.0% 521.88 53.1% 531.88 54.1% 541.90 55.1% 551.90 56.1% 561.90 57.1% 571.90 58.2% 581.92 59.2% 591.95 60.2% 601.98 61.2% 612.00 62.2% 622.00 63.3% 632.01 64.3% 642.10 65.3% 652.13 66.3% 662.25 67.3% 672.32 68.4% 682.37 69.4% 692.38 70.4% 70

AED Percent Rank

Rank

2.38 71.4% 712.39 72.4% 722.50 73.5% 732.55 74.5% 742.55 75.5% 752.60 76.5% 762.60 77.6% 772.65 78.6% 782.66 79.6% 792.91 80.6% 803.02 81.6% 813.05 82.7% 823.22 83.7% 833.40 84.7% 843.57 85.7% 853.61 86.7% 863.71 87.8% 873.91 88.8% 883.94 89.8% 893.96 90.8% 904.16 91.8% 914.36 92.9% 924.40 93.9% 934.46 94.9% 944.86 95.9% 954.94 96.9% 965.15 98.0% 975.24 99.0% 985.26 100.0% 99


38

PFPB AEM

AEM/ CD

Percent Rank

Rank

0.02 0.0% 1 0.02 1.0% 2 0.03 2.0% 3 0.04 3.1% 4 0.04 4.1% 5 0.05 5.1% 6 0.05 6.1% 7 0.05 7.1% 8 0.05 8.2% 9 0.07 9.2% 10 0.08 10.2% 11 0.08 11.2% 12 0.08 12.2% 13 0.08 13.3% 14 0.08 14.3% 15 0.10 15.3% 16 0.10 16.3% 17 0.10 17.3% 18 0.11 18.4% 19 0.12 19.4% 20 0.12 20.4% 21 0.13 21.4% 22 0.13 22.4% 23 0.13 23.5% 24 0.13 24.5% 25 0.14 25.5% 26 0.15 26.5% 27 0.15 27.6% 28 0.15 28.6% 29 0.15 29.6% 30 0.16 30.6% 31 0.18 31.6% 32 0.18 32.7% 33 0.18 33.7% 34 0.18 34.7% 35

AEM/CD

Percent Rank

Rank

0.18 35.7% 360.20 36.7% 370.21 37.8% 380.22 38.8% 390.22 39.8% 400.22 40.8% 410.24 41.8% 420.24 42.9% 430.24 43.9% 440.24 44.9% 450.24 45.9% 460.24 46.9% 470.26 48.0% 480.26 49.0% 490.26 50.0% 500.27 51.0% 510.28 52.0% 520.30 53.1% 530.31 54.1% 540.31 55.1% 550.31 56.1% 560.31 57.1% 570.31 58.2% 580.31 59.2% 590.32 60.2% 600.32 61.2% 610.32 62.2% 620.32 63.3% 630.35 64.3% 640.36 65.3% 650.40 66.3% 660.40 67.3% 670.41 68.4% 680.43 69.4% 690.53 70.4% 70

AEM/ CD

Percent Rank

Rank

0.55 71.4% 710.57 72.4% 720.57 73.5% 730.63 74.5% 740.64 75.5% 750.69 76.5% 760.73 77.6% 770.75 78.6% 780.77 79.6% 790.91 80.6% 800.93 81.6% 810.94 82.7% 821.00 83.7% 831.08 84.7% 841.08 85.7% 851.09 86.7% 861.18 87.8% 871.20 88.8% 881.23 89.8% 891.27 90.8% 901.29 91.8% 911.30 92.9% 921.35 93.9% 931.37 94.9% 941.63 95.9% 951.88 96.9% 962.12 98.0% 972.56 99.0% 984.72 100.0% 99


39

PFPB AEO (mV)

AEO (mV) Algebraic/Positive Percent Rank Rank

0.17 A 0.0% 1 0.22 A 2.9% 2 0.22 A 5.7% 3 0.36 A 8.6% 4 1.52 A 28.6% 5 1.74 A 40.0% 6 0.85 P 11.4% 7 1.15 P 14.3% 8 1.29 P 17.1% 9 1.33 P 20.0% 10 1.41 P 22.9% 11 1.44 P 25.7% 12 1.55 P 31.4% 13 1.56 P 34.3% 14 1.60 P 37.1% 15 1.82 P 42.9% 16 1.85 P 45.7% 17 1.85 P 48.6% 18 1.87 P 51.4% 19 1.90 P 54.3% 20 2.00 P 57.1% 21 2.08 P 60.0% 22 2.70 P 62.9% 23 2.70 P 65.7% 24 3.00 P 68.6% 25 3.00 P 71.4% 26 3.50 P 74.3% 27 4.10 P 77.1% 28 4.30 P 80.0% 29 5.00 P 82.9% 30 5.45 P 85.7% 31 8.30 P 88.6% 32 9.30 P 91.4% 33 10.40 P 94.3% 34 10.60 P 97.1% 35 10.80 P 100.0% 36


40

PFPB PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)

PFC Emissions (t CO2e/ t Al)

Percent Rank

Rank

0.01 0.0% 1 0.02 0.8% 2 0.02 1.6% 3 0.02 2.4% 4 0.02 3.2% 5 0.03 4.0% 6 0.03 4.8% 7 0.04 5.6% 8 0.04 6.5% 9 0.04 7.3% 10 0.04 8.1% 11 0.04 8.9% 12 0.05 9.7% 13 0.05 10.5% 14 0.05 11.3% 15 0.06 12.1% 16 0.06 12.9% 17 0.07 13.7% 18 0.08 14.5% 19 0.09 15.3% 20 0.10 16.1% 21 0.11 16.9% 22 0.11 17.7% 23 0.11 18.5% 24 0.12 19.4% 25 0.12 20.2% 26 0.12 21.0% 27 0.13 21.8% 28 0.13 22.6% 29 0.14 23.4% 30 0.14 24.2% 31 0.14 25.0% 32 0.14 25.8% 33 0.15 26.6% 34 0.15 27.4% 35 0.15 28.2% 36 0.16 29.0% 37 0.16 29.8% 38 0.16 30.6% 39 0.16 31.5% 40 0.17 32.3% 41 0.17 33.1% 42 0.17 33.9% 43 0.17 34.7% 44


PercentRank

Rank

0.18 35.5% 450.18 36.3% 460.19 37.1% 470.19 37.9% 480.19 38.7% 490.20 39.5% 500.21 40.3% 510.23 41.1% 520.23 41.9% 530.23 42.7% 540.24 43.5% 550.24 44.4% 560.24 45.2% 570.24 46.0% 580.24 46.8% 590.25 47.6% 600.26 48.4% 610.26 49.2% 620.26 50.0% 630.26 50.8% 640.26 51.6% 650.27 52.4% 660.28 53.2% 670.28 54.0% 680.28 54.8% 690.28 55.6% 700.29 56.5% 710.29 57.3% 720.30 58.1% 730.30 58.9% 740.31 59.7% 750.31 60.5% 760.33 61.3% 770.33 62.1% 780.33 62.9% 790.33 63.7% 800.33 64.5% 810.34 65.3% 820.34 66.1% 830.34 66.9% 840.34 67.7% 850.38 68.5% 860.38 69.4% 870.40 70.2% 88


Percent Rank

Rank

0.42 71.0% 890.43 71.8% 900.44 72.6% 910.44 73.4% 920.44 74.2% 930.51 75.0% 940.52 75.8% 950.58 76.6% 960.59 77.4% 970.62 78.2% 980.63 79.0% 990.68 79.8% 1000.77 80.6% 1010.83 81.5% 1020.86 82.3% 1030.97 83.1% 1040.99 83.9% 1050.99 84.7% 1061.00 85.5% 1071.00 86.3% 1081.09 87.1% 1091.17 87.9% 1101.18 88.7% 1111.19 89.5% 1121.29 90.3% 1131.31 91.1% 1141.34 91.9% 1151.38 92.7% 1161.41 93.5% 1171.42 94.4% 1181.47 95.2% 1191.49 96.0% 1201.66 96.8% 1212.05 97.6% 1222.31 98.4% 1232.79 99.2% 1245.14 100.0% 125


41

SWPB Technology

SWPB AEF

AEF Percent Rank

Rank

0.56 0.0% 1 0.60 16.7% 2 1.00 33.3% 3 1.36 50.0% 4 1.45 66.7% 5 2.00 83.3% 6 3.80 100.0% 7

SWPB AED

AED Percent Rank

Rank

0.99 0.0% 11.50 20.0% 21.60 40.0% 31.93 60.0% 42.12 80.0% 54.90 100.0% 6

SWPB AEM

AEM /CD

Percent Rank

Rank

0.90 0.0% 11.28 20.0% 21.34 40.0% 31.93 60.0% 42.17 80.0% 59.80 100.0% 6

SWPB PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)


Percent Rank Rank

2.15 0.0% 1 2.24 16.7% 2 2.67 33.3% 3 4.63 50.0% 4 5.20 66.7% 5 5.93 83.3% 6 23.51 100.0% 7


42

VSS Technology

VSS AEF

AEF Percent Rank Rank

0.06 0.0% 10.11 1.3% 20.13 2.6% 30.25 3.9% 40.26 5.2% 50.28 6.5% 60.28 7.8% 70.29 9.1% 80.30 10.4% 90.30 11.7% 100.31 13.0% 110.31 14.3% 120.32 15.6% 130.32 16.9% 140.33 18.2% 150.36 19.5% 160.38 20.8% 170.38 22.1% 180.40 23.4% 190.43 24.7% 200.44 26.0% 210.45 27.3% 220.46 28.6% 230.48 29.9% 240.50 31.2% 250.50 32.5% 260.50 33.8% 270.56 35.1% 280.57 36.4% 290.59 37.7% 300.61 39.0% 310.67 40.3% 320.68 41.6% 330.69 42.9% 340.70 44.2% 350.70 45.5% 360.71 46.8% 370.73 48.1% 380.74 49.4% 390.75 50.6% 400.76 51.9% 41

AEF Percent Rank Rank

0.76 53.2% 420.78 54.5% 430.80 55.8% 440.80 57.1% 450.82 58.4% 460.83 59.7% 470.83 61.0% 480.84 62.3% 490.85 63.6% 500.85 64.9% 510.86 66.2% 520.87 67.5% 530.89 68.8% 540.92 70.1% 550.92 71.4% 560.94 72.7% 570.95 74.0% 580.96 75.3% 590.96 76.6% 600.98 77.9% 611.02 79.2% 621.09 80.5% 631.09 81.8% 641.10 83.1% 651.13 84.4% 661.14 85.7% 671.17 87.0% 681.18 88.3% 691.24 89.6% 701.27 90.9% 711.49 92.2% 721.54 93.5% 731.85 94.8% 742.17 96.1% 752.38 97.4% 762.50 98.7% 772.51 100.0% 78


43

VSS AED

AED Percent Rank Rank

1.42 0.0% 11.47 1.3% 21.47 2.6% 31.49 3.9% 41.50 5.2% 51.58 6.5% 61.60 7.8% 71.62 9.1% 81.62 10.4% 91.64 11.7% 101.71 13.0% 111.73 14.3% 121.73 15.6% 131.73 16.9% 141.75 18.2% 151.75 19.5% 161.76 20.8% 171.77 22.1% 181.78 23.4% 191.80 24.7% 201.80 26.0% 211.80 27.3% 221.81 28.6% 231.81 29.9% 241.82 31.2% 251.82 32.5% 261.83 33.8% 271.83 35.1% 281.84 36.4% 291.84 37.7% 301.84 39.0% 311.85 40.3% 321.85 41.6% 331.86 42.9% 341.86 44.2% 351.86 45.5% 361.87 46.8% 371.87 48.1% 381.88 49.4% 391.90 50.6% 401.90 51.9% 41

AED Percent Rank Rank

1.90 53.2% 421.91 54.5% 431.91 55.8% 441.91 57.1% 451.91 58.4% 461.92 59.7% 471.92 61.0% 481.93 62.3% 491.93 63.6% 501.93 64.9% 511.94 66.2% 521.95 67.5% 531.95 68.8% 541.95 70.1% 551.95 71.4% 561.96 72.7% 571.97 74.0% 581.97 75.3% 591.98 76.6% 601.99 77.9% 612.01 79.2% 622.02 80.5% 632.02 81.8% 642.02 83.1% 652.04 84.4% 662.25 85.7% 672.25 87.0% 682.55 88.3% 692.64 89.6% 702.66 90.9% 712.71 92.2% 722.80 93.5% 732.96 94.8% 742.98 96.1% 753.00 97.4% 764.83 98.7% 775.73 100.0% 78


44

VSS AEM

AEM Percent Rank Rank

0.31 0.0% 10.33 1.3% 20.34 2.6% 30.41 3.9% 40.50 5.2% 50.51 6.5% 60.53 7.8% 70.55 9.1% 80.55 10.4% 90.57 11.7% 100.57 13.0% 110.59 14.3% 120.59 15.6% 130.63 16.9% 140.68 18.2% 150.69 19.5% 160.71 20.8% 170.73 22.1% 180.75 23.4% 190.80 24.7% 200.81 26.0% 210.83 27.3% 220.88 28.6% 230.96 29.9% 240.98 31.2% 251.03 32.5% 261.07 33.8% 271.12 35.1% 281.14 36.4% 291.16 37.7% 301.20 39.0% 311.22 40.3% 321.31 41.6% 331.31 42.9% 341.33 44.2% 351.34 45.5% 361.37 46.8% 371.38 48.1% 381.40 49.4% 391.40 50.6% 401.40 51.9% 41

AEM Percent Rank Rank

1.43 53.2% 421.43 54.5% 431.45 55.8% 441.47 57.1% 451.48 58.4% 461.49 59.7% 471.50 61.0% 481.50 62.3% 491.50 63.6% 501.51 64.9% 511.54 66.2% 521.55 67.5% 531.56 68.8% 541.58 70.1% 551.58 71.4% 561.61 72.7% 571.62 74.0% 581.64 75.3% 591.70 76.6% 601.74 77.9% 611.76 79.2% 621.81 80.5% 631.88 81.8% 642.00 83.1% 652.01 84.4% 662.16 85.7% 672.31 87.0% 682.37 88.3% 692.95 89.6% 703.00 90.9% 713.14 92.2% 724.21 93.5% 734.63 94.8% 744.72 96.1% 755.36 97.4% 767.42 98.7% 777.50 100.0% 78


45

VSS PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)

PFC Emissions

(t CO2e/t Al) Percent Rank Rank

0.09 0.0% 10.11 1.3% 20.11 2.6% 30.12 3.9% 40.12 5.2% 50.12 6.5% 60.13 7.8% 70.13 9.1% 80.13 10.4% 90.13 11.7% 100.15 13.0% 110.16 14.3% 120.16 15.6% 130.18 16.9% 140.18 18.2% 150.18 19.5% 160.19 20.8% 170.20 22.1% 180.21 23.4% 190.22 24.7% 200.22 26.0% 210.22 27.3% 220.23 28.6% 230.24 29.9% 240.25 31.2% 250.25 32.5% 260.27 33.8% 270.29 35.1% 280.48 36.4% 290.48 37.7% 300.59 39.0% 310.60 40.3% 320.62 41.6% 330.68 42.9% 340.72 44.2% 350.77 45.5% 360.77 46.8% 370.78 48.1% 380.82 49.4% 390.82 50.6% 400.84 51.9% 41

PFCEmissions

(t CO2e/t Al) Percent Rank Rank

0.87 53.2% 420.87 54.5% 430.88 55.8% 440.88 57.1% 450.88 58.4% 460.88 59.7% 470.89 61.0% 480.90 62.3% 490.91 63.6% 500.92 64.9% 510.92 66.2% 520.93 67.5% 530.93 68.8% 540.95 70.1% 550.95 71.4% 560.96 72.7% 571.01 74.0% 581.02 75.3% 591.04 76.6% 601.06 77.9% 611.10 79.2% 621.10 80.5% 631.13 81.8% 641.26 83.1% 651.29 84.4% 661.29 85.7% 671.48 87.0% 681.52 88.3% 691.90 89.6% 701.93 90.9% 712.02 92.2% 722.82 93.5% 732.99 94.8% 743.03 96.1% 753.44 97.4% 764.82 98.7% 775.35 100.0% 78


46

HSS Technology

HSS AEF

AEF Percent Rank

Rank

0.43 0.0% 1 0.44 3.2% 2 0.44 6.5% 3 0.44 9.7% 4 0.46 12.9% 5 0.48 16.1% 6 0.50 19.4% 7 0.56 22.6% 8 0.59 25.8% 9 0.60 29.0% 10 0.62 32.3% 11 0.63 35.5% 12 0.63 38.7% 13 0.65 41.9% 14 0.65 45.2% 15 0.66 48.4% 16 0.67 51.6% 17 0.68 54.8% 18 0.71 58.1% 19 0.71 61.3% 20 0.73 64.5% 21 0.79 67.7% 22 0.82 71.0% 23 0.83 74.2% 24 0.85 77.4% 25 0.94 80.6% 26 1.00 83.9% 27 1.01 87.1% 28 1.02 90.3% 29 1.04 93.5% 30 1.17 96.8% 31 1.54 100.0% 32

HSS AED

AED Percent Rank

Rank

1.61 0.0% 11.63 3.2% 21.64 6.5% 31.64 9.7% 41.67 12.9% 51.72 16.1% 61.75 19.4% 71.75 22.6% 81.75 25.8% 91.75 29.0% 101.75 32.3% 111.75 35.5% 121.76 38.7% 131.78 41.9% 141.78 45.2% 151.80 48.4% 161.83 51.6% 171.85 54.8% 181.87 58.1% 191.89 61.3% 201.92 64.5% 211.95 67.7% 222.00 71.0% 232.07 74.2% 242.18 77.4% 252.20 80.6% 262.27 83.9% 272.39 87.1% 282.43 90.3% 292.45 93.5% 303.79 96.8% 314.64 100.0% 32

HSS AEM

AEM/CD

Percent Rank

Rank

0.83 0.0% 10.84 3.2% 20.85 6.5% 30.99 9.7% 40.99 12.9% 51.02 16.1% 61.03 19.4% 71.03 22.6% 81.05 25.8% 91.07 29.0% 101.10 32.3% 111.10 35.5% 121.11 38.7% 131.13 41.9% 141.16 45.2% 151.17 48.4% 161.21 51.6% 171.27 54.8% 181.28 58.1% 191.34 61.3% 201.45 64.5% 211.52 67.7% 221.56 71.0% 231.66 74.2% 241.68 77.4% 251.74 80.6% 261.75 83.9% 272.22 87.1% 282.70 90.3% 292.80 93.5% 303.00 96.8% 313.94 100.0% 32


47

HSS PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al)

PFC Emissions (t CO2e/t Al) Percent Rank Rank

0.60 0.0% 1 0.62 3.2% 2 0.71 6.5% 3 0.74 9.7% 4 0.74 12.9% 5 0.74 16.1% 6 0.76 19.4% 7 0.77 22.6% 8 0.79 25.8% 9 0.79 29.0% 10 0.80 32.3% 11 0.81 35.5% 12 0.84 38.7% 13 0.84 41.9% 14 0.87 45.2% 15 0.91 48.4% 16 0.92 51.6% 17 0.97 54.8% 18 1.02 58.1% 19 1.05 61.3% 20 1.09 64.5% 21 1.12 67.7% 22 1.13 71.0% 23 1.19 74.2% 24 1.21 77.4% 25 1.25 80.6% 26 1.26 83.9% 27 1.60 87.1% 28 1.94 90.3% 29 2.02 93.5% 30 2.84 96.8% 31 4.05 100.0% 32

international aluminium institute results of the 2009 ...€¦ · 15/1/2013 · international...

Documents