No description available.

Approximately 136,000 refuse trucks were in operation in the United States in 2007. These trucks burn approximately 1.2 billion gallons of diesel fuel a year, releasing almost 27 billion pounds of greenhouse gases. In addition to contributing to global climate change, diesel-fueled refuse trucks are one of the most concentrated sources of health-threatening air pollution in most cities. The landfills that they ultimately place their waste in are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 23 percent of these emissions in 2007. At the same time, methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource. Many landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects are underway in an attempt to curb emissions and make better use of this energy. The methane that is extracted from these landfills can be converted into a transportation fuel, sold as a pipeline-quality natural gas, operate turbines for electricity, or be flared. The unique relationship that occurs between refuse trucks' constant visits to the landfill and the ability of the landfill itself to produce a transportation fuel creates an ability to accomplish emissions reduction in two sectors with the implementation of using landfill gas to fuel refuse trucks. Landfill owners and operators are very reluctant to invest in large capital LFGTE projects without knowing their long-term feasibility. The costs and benefits associated with each LFGTE project have been presented in such a way that owners/operators can make informed decisions based on economics while also implementing clean energy technology. Owners/operators benefit from larger economic returns, and the citizens of the surrounding cities benefit from better air quality. This research focused on six scenarios: converting landfill gas (LFG) to liquefied natural gas (LNG) for use as a transportation fuel, converting LFG to compressed natural gas (CNG) for use as a transportation fuel, converting LFG to pipeline-quality natural gas, converting LFG to electricity, flaring LFG, and doing nothing. For the test case of a 280-acre landfill, the option of converting LFG to CNG for use as a transportation fuel provided the best benefit-cost ratio at 5.63. Other significant benefit-cost findings involved the LFG-to-LNG option, providing a 5.51 benefit-cost ratio. Currently, the most commonly used LFGTE option of converting LFG to electricity provides only a 1.35 benefit-cost ratio while flaring which is the most common mitigation strategy provides a 1.21, further providing evidence that converting LFG to LNG/CNG for use as a transportation fuel provides greater economic benefits than the most common LFGTE option or mitigation strategy.

This study discusses the monitoring requirements of an effluent credit trading system that allows point source discharges to purchase effluent reductions by financing agricultural nonpoint source best management practices. It describes the results of a national survey of existing trading programs that assessed how each program determines nonpoint source baseline pollutant discharges, pollutant reductions attributable to best management practices, verification of best management practice(s) installation and maintenance activities, and how often this verification is performed. This study surveyed the nonpoint source discharge monitoring programs of several of the successful effluent credit trading systems in the U.S. It documents and discusses specific characteristics of nonpoint source pollutant discharge monitoring strategies. Finally, this thesis compares trading program discharge monitoring characteristics to the current Virginia Cost-Share nonpoint source monitoring program. The goal of this study is to recommend elements of a nonpoint source discharge monitoring strategy to the Commonwealth of Virginia that can be used in a trading program of its own. The study shows that the majority of existing effluent credit trading programs use watershed models and land use evaluation algorithms to indirectly monitor nonpoint source pollutant discharges on a watershed basis rather than relying on empirical sampling and analysis activities for individual farms of fields. Monitoring takes a variety of forms to provide the diverse information necessary to indirectly determine nonpoint source discharges. Most trading programs monitoring strategies are no more comprehensive than agricultural cost-share programs even though many stakeholders believe that a trading program's monitoring activities should be exact enough to determine contributions from individual nonpoint sources to support the payments for individual activities. This objection is a barrier to the acceptance of trading programs by the public. A Virginia trading program must enhance its agricultural best management practice cost-share program monitoring practices to track nonpoint source discharges from individual farms or fields to be accepted and successful. / Master of Engineering

Biodiversity loss is an important issue for New Zealand: for the domestic environment, economy and society, but also for New Zealand as a member of the international community. Biodiversity offset banking is making an important contribution to addressing such issues in a number of countries around the world. Developing the ability to participate and take advantage of possible benefits requires comprehensively understanding both the fundamental principles and varying concepts, and supports the analysis necessary for New Zealand to progress towards offset banking. New Zealand can learn much from observing and investigating overseas models and use them as valuable templates. California and New South Wales provide examples of potential policies and frameworks (both economic and social) to establish and operate successful offset banking systems. Discussions of offset banking, both in theory and practice, frequently concern the potential failings of the system. These issues can be conceptualised as various forms of risk. Considering offset banking as sustainable development, this thesis addresses such risks to reflect the tripartite biological, financial and social framework of sustainable development. Biologically, risk is in the potential biodiversity outcomes are inadequate, unexpected or undesirable. Scientific uncertainty underlies this, both inherently and from the limits of current scientific disciplines. Through expanding scientific knowledge and experience, measures for reducing or accommodating the risk of uncertainty are emerging. Financial risk represents concerns that individual banks may lack the monetary support to achieve the specific biodiversity conservation required for the site. Also the system of interacting banks, bankers and traders may fail to produce financial outcomes that support effective and efficient biodiversity conservation over the breath of the scheme. Social risk lies in the potential that societies’ individuals conduct themselves in ways that conflict with achieving biodiversity conservation through malfeasance or negligence. Additionally, there is social risk that an offset banking system fails to respond appropriately to broader society and human, such as equity and intergenerational justice. Here, deliberating these risks is primary to appreciating how design elements and emergent properties minimize risks. Given comprehensive understanding, components of a system can be designed and allow informed policy, regulations and rules to offer successful risk mitigation. For this reason policy, rules and regulations observed within California and New South Wales helps to discuss this and establish guidance for New Zealand offset banking design to draw upon. Californian systems are achieving promising conservation and continued growth; New South Wales’ Biobanking scheme is robustly designed and in its early stages. Each contrasts in design and carries varying criticisms. California has been observed as potentially shortcoming biologically, whereas New South Wales Biobanking has been questioned based on the strength and character of its economic underpinnings. In addition to these considerations, New Zealand has significant societal perspectives to incorporate given current popular, socio-democratic conservation modus operandi. Identifying the three forms of risk present highlights the importance of allocating appropriate consideration and expertise to the biological, economic and social components of offset banking. Successful sustainable development, biodiversity conservation and risk mitigation may be achieved through designing mechanisms, regulations and governing policy for offset banking. New Zealand may therefore expand the success and application of current offsetting by taking guidance from examples and analysis presented here.