CARBON FOOTPRINT OF GLASS

INDUSTRIES

CAPSTONE PROJECT I-PROPOSAL

AVINASH SINGH
(Enrolment No: R080223038)
AADIL BARI
(Enrolment No: R080223001)
HASIB SANGE
(Enrolment No: R080223003)
MUHAMMAD IRFAN
(Enrolment No: R080223011)

Supervisor
DR. ABHISHEK NANDAN
Designation
Sustainability Cluster,
School of Advanced Engineering, UPES
 Approval form

The Capstone project -I is being done by the following students listed below under my supervision and the
progress of the project is satisfactory.

Signature of the Student Signature of the Student

AVINASH SINGH AADIL BARI
Name of the student Name of the student
M.Tech-HSE M.Tech-HSE
Sustainability Cluster Sustainability Cluster
School Of Advanced Engineering, UPES School Of Advanced Engineering, UPES

Signature of the Student Signature of the Student

HASIB SANGE MUHAMMAD IRFAN
Name of the student Name of the student
I-M.Tech-HSE M.Tech-HSE
Sustainability Cluster Sustainability Cluster
School of Advanced Engineering, UPES School of Advanced Engineering, UPES

Signature of the Guide

DR. ABHISHEK NANDAN
Name of the guide
Designation
Sustainability Cluster
School of Advanced Engineering
UPES
ii | P a g e
 INDEX

SERIAL NO TOPIC PAGE NO

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8

3. OBJECTIVES 10

4. METHODOLOGY 12

5. CALCUALTION 17

6. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION 21

7. RESULT 23

8. MITIGATION MEASURES 24

9. FUTURE SCOPE 25

10. REFERENCE 26

iii | P a g e
 1. INTRODUCTION

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment report has
strongly recommended to limit the increase in global temperature below 2◦C as compared to
preindustrial level (i.e., measured from 1750) to avoid serious ecological and economic
threats. A rise in temperature by 0.74◦C has already been recorded and hence climate scientists
are focusing on an urgent action to curb global warming (IPCC 2007). The imbalances caused
in natural systems due to warming are already being signaled in the form of extreme weather
events and climate change. On social forefront, developing and poor countries are at
immediate and disproportionately high risk of being adversely affected by global warming and
thus the “Millenium development goal” of eradicating poverty may be compromised (UNDP
2007).
According to a special Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (IPCC,
2018) global warming is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052, and by 2030, a 45%
reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (from the 2010 level) is necessary for limiting
global warming to 1.5 °C. To achieve this urgent target, each enterprise faces the responsibility
of reporting and reducing ‘indirect’ CO2 emissions from their supply chains as well as ‘direct’
CO2 emissions from its own production activity (WRI and WBCSD, 2011). In emerging and
developing countries, which emit two-thirds of the global CO2 emissions (IEA, 2021), it is
difficult to accurately determine the CO2 emission hotspots because unofficial economic
activities occurring in the informal sector are an important part of supply chains.

Strong and immediate local to international actions are thus needed to stabilize emissions in a
justified manner. As the understanding of the science and consequences of global warming
grew, the concern for preventing disastrous climate change led to a substantive action
in the form of endorsement of “Kyoto protocol” in 1997 which requires developed economies
or economies in transition reduce their collective emissions of six important greenhouse gases
(GHGs) namely carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), set of
perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons by at least 5.2% as compared to 1990 level during
the period 2008–2012 (UN 1998).

Greenhouse Gas Sources

Rapid rise in global temperature is due to the “enhanced greenhouse effect” (i.e., the
greenhouse effect additional to the natural) due to human induced release of GHGs into the
atmosphere. Not all GHGs have equal capacity to cause warming but their strengths depend
on radiative forcing it causes and the average time for which that gas molecule stays in the
iv | P a g e
atmosphere. Considering these two together, the average warming it can cause, known as
‘global warming potential’ (GWP), is calculated mathematically and is expressed relative to
that of CO2. Therefore, unit of GWP is carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e).

Important contributors to global warming are Kyoto gases, whose emissions increased by 70%
during 1970–2004 (IPCC 2007). In addition to these six gases, the members of
chlorofluorocarbons family bear very high GWP, but since their emissions have been
controlled successfully under Montreal protocol, they are no longer a problem. Tropospheric
ozone and black carbon have also been found to warm the troposphere.

The biggest share of these GHGs comes from fossil fuel combustions in the form of CO2
(58.6%). Next come CH4 and N2O contributing to 14.3% and 7.9%, respectively, to total
collective CO2-e. Major sources of these two gases are the agricultural systems (IPCC 2007).

Concept of Carbon Footprint

Origin of carbon footprint can be traced back to as a subset of “ecological footprint” proposed
by Wackernagel and Rees (1996). Ecological footprint refers to the biologically productive
land and sea area required to sustain a given human population expressed as global hectares.
The concept of carbon foot printing has been in use since several decades but known
differently as life cycle impact category indicator global warming potential. Therefore, the
present form of carbon footprint may be viewed as a hybrid, deriving its name from
“ecological footprint”, and conceptually being a global warming potential indicator.

Carbon footprint, amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with all the activities
of a person or other entity (e.g., building, corporation, country, etc.). It includes direct
v|Page
emissions, such as those that result from fossil-fuel combustion in manufacturing, heating, and
transportation, as well as emissions required to produce the electricity associated with goods
and services consumed. In addition, the carbon footprint concept also often includes the
emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, or chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs).

The carbon footprint concept is related to and grew out of the older idea of ecological footprint,
a concept invented in the early 1990s by Canadian ecologist William Rees and Swiss-born
regional planner Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia. An ecological
footprint is the total area of land required to sustain an activity or population. It includes
environmental impacts, such as water use and the amount of land used for food production. In
contrast, a carbon footprint is usually expressed as a measure of weight, as in tons of CO2 or
CO2 equivalent per year.

What Is the Difference Between Direct and Indirect Emissions?

The GHG Protocol defines direct and indirect emissions as follows:

• Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the
reporting entity.
• Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the
reporting entity, but occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity.

vi | P a g e
The GHG Protocol further categorizes these direct and indirect emissions into three broad
scopes:

• Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions.

• Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or
steam.
• Scope 3: Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased
materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by
the reporting entity, electricity-related activities (e.g., T&D losses) not covered in Scope
2, outsourced activities, waste disposal, etc.

vii | P a g e
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Numerous studies on the glass industry's carbon impact have been conducted. The average
carbon footprint of a glass container was estimated to be 1.1 kg CO2 equivalent per
kilogramme of glass, according to a 2012 European Commission research. Approximately 7%
of all industrial emissions worldwide come from the glass sector, making it a significant
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The high energy needs of the melting process, the
usage of fossil fuels, and the emissions from the extraction and transportation of raw materials
are some of the elements that contribute to the carbon footprint of the glass production
industry.
According to a 2014 research by the World Resources Institute, 725 million tonnes of CO2
were released in 2012 by the glass sector worldwide. According to the report, the glass
industry's carbon footprint is predicted to increase by 2.3% year between 2012 and 2030.The
glass sector may lessen its carbon impact in a variety of ways. Among them are Recycling
glass The carbon footprint of recycled glass is much less than that of virgin glass. It is indeed
possible to lower the carbon footprint of a glass container by 5% by utilising 10% recycled
glass in it.Increasing the effectiveness of energy use Energy consumption in the glass sector
is significant. The carbon footprint of glass manufacturing may be decreased by increasing
energy efficiency. For instance, using furnaces with higher efficiency may save energy use by
as much as 20%.Making the move to renewable energy By using renewable energy sources
like solar and wind power, the glass sector may lessen its carbon impact.creating novel
technologies To lessen the glass industry's carbon impact, many innovative technologies are
being explored. These include innovative furnace designs, novel melting techniques, and
inventive applications for recycled glass.
COUN
AUTHOR TITTLE YEAR CRUX REFERENCE
TRY
Carbon footprints evaluation
for sustainable food Examines the carbon footprint of food
Irtiqa Shabir a , Kshirod
processing system India 2023 processing such refrigeration, freezing, (Shabir et al., 2023)
Kumar Dashb
development: A processing, and packing
comprehensive review
New insights into the green
a cement composites with low BC(bio char) may reduce cement products'
Jiehuizi Wen , Bangda
bc carbon footprint: The role of China 2023 carbon footprint and increase hydration and (Wen et al., 2023)
Wang biochar as cement durability as additive/alternative.
additive/alternative
Hydration characteristics,
structure evolution of marine
a b This article made HSRPC-CNS composite
Jun Xu , Bo Liu , Qiy cement composites with high
c Australia 2023 by partly replacing high sulfate resistance (Xu et al., 2023)
ong Zhang , durability modified by
Portland cement (HSRPC).
colloidal nano-silica for low
carbon footprints
a Effect of waste colemanite and This study investigated the effects of
Ali Öz , Barış Bayrak
b PVA fibers on GBFS- Turkey 2023 polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber and (Öz et al., 2023a)
, Metakaolin based high early colemanite on the physical, mechanical and

viii | P a g e
 strength geopolymer transport characteristics of GBFS-
composites (HESGC): metakaolin
Mechanical, microstructure
and carbon footprint
characteristics
Evaluation of the carbon Evaluates the yearly performance of a
Francesco Fabris, Moni footprint of HFC and natural standard HFC transport refrigeration unit
ca Fabrizio, Sergio Mar refrigerant transport Italy 2023 and a newly created natural refrigerant one (Fabris et al., 2023)
inetti refrigeration units from a life- in an urban multi-drop delivery mission
cycle perspective using dynamic numerical simulations
Life cycle carbon footprint
accounting of an offshore
a Study show that typhoons may be the
Zhen Sun , Xianhui Y wind farm in Southeast
b China 2023 biggest carbon footprint producer, and their (Sun & You, 2023)
ou China—Simplified models
maximum wind speed is most important
and carbon benchmarks for
typhoons
The spatial distribution of
Henna Anttonen , Antt carbon footprints and
a
Study about (GHG) emissions, and
ab engagement in pro-climate
i Kinnunen , Jukka H behaviors – Trends across Iceland 2023 behavioral adjustments have been proposed (Anttonen et al., 2023)
einonen
a to lower carbon footprints.
urban-rural gradients in the
nordics

Gregorio Salcedo Assessing the carbon footprint

This study calculated the partial (PCF) and
a in dairy cattle farms in the (Salcedo Díaz et al.,
Díaz , Pilar Merino Spain 2023 total carbon (TCF) footprints of 212 dairy
b northern temperate region of 2023)
Pereda farms
Spain

Evaluation of the carbon This paper reviews and evaluates wine

Luís Pinto da footprint of the life cycle of production life cycle carbon footprint (Pinto da Silva &
ab
Silva , Joaquim wine production: A review Portugal 2022 literature. This study tries to enhance this Esteves da Silva,
C.G. Esteves da Silva sector's greenhouse gas emissions 2022)
performance using this information

The carbon footprint balance This innovative Carbon Dioxide Utilization

A. Gueddari- of a real-case wine technique uses biogenic CO2 generated by
a (Gueddari-Aourir et
Aourir , A. García- fermentation CO2 capture and Spain 2022 fermentation processes to make sodium
b al., 2022)
Alaminos , utilization strategy carbonate, a worldwide marketable and
ecologically beneficial chemical product

Environmental footprint This research uses life cycle assessment and

a assessment of China's ceramic
Xiaotian Ma , Tianz
b tile production from energy-
uo Zhang
carbon-water nexus insight
energy-carbon-water nexus understanding to
China 2022 (Ma et al., 2022)
estimate the impact-oriented environmental
footprint of ceramic tile production

Industrial decarbonization To evaluate the emissions of chosen

ab
Michael Zier , Noa pathways: The example of the Germany 2022
industrial decarbonization solutions to
(Zier et al., 2023)
h Pflugradt German glass industry traditional technologies, a bottom-up model
was created.

Decarbonizing the glass

Dylan D. Furszyfer industry: A critical and Decarbonizing the glass industry. . Glass
Del systematic review of production requires 75%–85% of energy (Furszyfer Del Rio et
abf UK 2022
Rio , Benjamin developments, sociotechnical when raw materials are heated to above 1500 al., 2022)
K. Sovacool
ac systems and policy options °C in a furnace.

ix | P a g e
 3. OBJECTIVES

Measure and Understand Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon footprint calculation

quantifies the total amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by a manufacturing
company's operations. This provides a baseline understanding of the company's environmental
impact and helps identify areas for improvement.

Identify Emissions Hotspots: By analyzing the carbon footprint breakdown across different
scopes (scope 1, 2, and 3), companies can pinpoint specific activities or processes that
contribute most significantly to their GHG emissions. This information is crucial for
developing targeted emission reduction strategies.

Track Progress and Set Reduction Targets: Measuring carbon footprints over time allows
companies to track their progress in reducing GHG emissions. This data can be used to set
ambitious yet achievable emission reduction targets and monitor performance against those
targets.

Enhance Brand Reputation and Sustainability Reporting: Demonstrating commitment to

sustainability and taking action to reduce GHG emissions can enhance a company's brand
reputation and attract environmentally conscious customers and investors. Carbon footprint
calculation supports sustainability reporting and transparency.

Compliance with Regulations and Investor Expectations: Governments and regulatory

bodies are increasingly implementing carbon pricing mechanisms and emission reduction
requirements. Measuring and reporting carbon footprints can help companies comply with
these regulations and meet the expectations of environmentally conscious investors.

Cost Savings and Improved Efficiency: Reducing GHG emissions often leads to operational
cost savings, such as energy efficiency measures and waste reduction. By optimizing
processes and adopting sustainable practices, companies can improve their environmental
performance and financial bottom line.

Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change: Understanding the company's

carbon footprint helps assess its vulnerability to climate change risks, such as extreme weather
events and resource scarcity. This information can inform adaptation strategies and risk
management plans.

Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration: Carbon footprint calculation can be a tool for

x|Page
engaging with stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, customers, and communities. It
can foster collaboration and partnerships to address shared environmental challenges.

Sustainability Leadership and Competitive Advantage: Companies that lead the way in
reducing their carbon footprint and adopting sustainable practices gain a competitive
advantage in the market. They can attract top talent, establish themselves as industry leaders,
and differentiate themselves from less environmentally conscious competitors.

Contribution to Environmental Goals and Sustainable Development: By reducing their

carbon footprint, manufacturing companies contribute to broader environmental goals, such
as mitigating climate change, conserving natural resources, and protecting ecosystems. This
aligns with the principles of sustainable development and corporate responsibility.

xi | P a g e
 4. METHODOLOGY

Introducing the concept of “scope”

✓ Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the
company.
✓ Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the
company but occur at sources owned or controlled by another company.

To help delineate direct and indirect emission sources, improve transparency, and provide
utility for different types of organizations and different types of climate policies and business
goals, three “scopes” (scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3) are defined for GHG accounting and

xii | P a g e
reporting purposes. Scopes 1 and 2 are carefully defined in this standard to ensure that two or
more companies will not account for emissions in the same scope.

Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions

Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, for
example, emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles, etc.;
emissions from chemical production in owned or controlled process equipment. Direct CO2
emissions from the combustion of biomass shall not be included in scope 1 but reported
separately. GHG emissions not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, e.g., CFCs, NOx, etc. shall not
be included in scope 1 but may be reported separately.

Companies report GHG emissions from sources they own or control as scope 1.

Direct GHG emissions are principally the result of the following types of activities undertaken
by the company:
• Generation of electricity, heat, or steam. These emissions result from combustion of fuels in
stationary sources, e.g., boilers, furnaces, turbines.
• Physical or chemical processing.

3 Most of these emissions result from manufacture or processing of chemicals and materials,
e.g., cement, aluminium, adipic acid, ammonia manufacture, and waste processing.

• Transportation of materials, products, waste, and employees. These emissions result from
the combustion of fuels in company owned/controlled mobile combustion sources (e.g.,
trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, buses, and cars)

• Fugitive emissions. These emissions result from intentional or unintentional releases, e.g.,
equipment leaks from joints, seals, packing, and gaskets; methane emissions from coal mines
and venting; hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions during the use of refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment; and methane leakages from gas transport.

Scope 2: Electricity indirect GHG emissions

Scope 2 accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity2 consumed
by the company. Purchased electricity is defined as electricity that is purchased or otherwise
brought into the organizational boundary of the company. Scope 2 emissions physically occur
at the facility where electricity is generated.
xiii | P a g e
Companies report the emissions from the generation of purchased electricity that is
consumed in its owned or controlled equipment or operations as scope 2.

Scope 2 emissions are a special category of indirect emissions. For many companies,
purchased electricity represents one of the largest sources of GHG emissions and the most
significant opportunity to reduce these emissions. Accounting for scope 2 emissions allows
companies to assess the risks and opportunities associated with changing electricity and GHG
emissions costs. Another important reason for companies to track these emissions is that the
information may be needed for some GHG programs. Companies can reduce their use of
electricity by investing in energy efficient technologies and energy conservation. Additionally,
emerging green power markets4 provide opportunities for some companies to switch to less
GHG intensive sources of electricity. Companies can also install an efficient on-site co-
generation plant, particularly if it replaces the purchase of more GHG intensive electricity
from the grid or electricity supplier. Reporting of scope 2 emissions allows transparent
accounting of GHG emissions and reductions associated with such opportunities

Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions

Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect
emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur
from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Some examples of scope 3 activities
are extraction and production of purchased materials; transportation of purchased fuels; and
use of sold products and services.

Scope 3 is optional, but it provides an opportunity to be innovative in GHG management.

Companies may want to focus on accounting for and reporting those activities that are relevant
to their business and goals, and for which they have reliable information. Since companies
have discretion over which categories they choose to report, scope 3 may not lend itself well
to comparisons across companies. This section provides an indicative list of scope 3 categories
and includes case studies on some of the categories.

• Transport-related activities
• Transportation of purchased materials or goods
• Transportation of purchased fuels
• Employee business travel
• Employees commuting to and from work
• Transportation of sold products
xiv | P a g e
Identify GHG emissions sources

The first of the five steps in identifying and calculating a company’s emissions is to categorize
the GHG sources within that company’s boundaries. GHG emissions typically occur from the
following source categories:

• Stationary combustion: combustion of fuels in stationary equipment such as boilers,

furnaces, burners, turbines, heaters, incinerators, engines, flares, etc.
• Mobile combustion: combustion of fuels in transportation devices such as automobiles,
trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, boats, ships, barges, vessels, etc.
• Process emissions: emissions from physical or chemical processes such as CO2 from the
calcination step in cement manufacturing, CO2 from catalytic cracking in petrochemical
processing, PFC emissions from aluminum smelting, etc.
• Fugitive emissions: intentional and unintentional releases such as equipment leaks from
joints, seals, packing, gaskets, as well as fugitive emissions from coal piles, wastewater
treatment, pits, cooling towers, gas processing facilities, etc.

For Scope 1, As a first step, a company should undertake an exercise to identify its direct
emission sources in each of the four source categories listed above. Process emissions are
usually only relevant to certain industry sectors like oil and gas, aluminium, cement, etc.
Manufacturing companies that generate process emissions and own or control a power
production facility will likely have direct emissions from all the main source categories.
Office-based organizations may not have any direct GHG emissions except in cases where
they own or operate a vehicle, combustion device, or refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment.

For Scope 2 Emission, the next step is to identify indirect emission sources from the
consumption of purchased electricity, heat, or steam. Almost all businesses generate indirect
emissions due to the purchase of electricity for use in their processes or services.

For Scope 3 Emission, this optional step involves identification of other indirect emissions
from a company’s upstream and downstream activities as well as emissions associated with
outsourced/contract manufacturing, leases, or franchises not included in scope 1 or scope 2.
The inclusion of scope 3 emissions allows businesses to expand their inventory boundary
along their value chain and to identify all relevant GHG emissions.

xv | P a g e
Select a calculation approach

Direct measurement of GHG emissions by monitoring concentration and flow rate is not
common. More often, emissions may be calculated based on a mass balance or stoichiometric
basis specific to a facility or process. However, the most common approach for calculating
GHG emissions is through the application of documented emission factors. These factors are
calculated ratios relating GHG emissions to a proxy measure of activity at an emissions source.
The IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 1996) refer to a hierarchy of calculation approaches and
techniques ranging from the application of generic emission factors to direct monitoring. In
many cases, particularly when direct monitoring is either unavailable or prohibitively
expensive, accurate emission data can be calculated from fuel use data. Even small users
usually know both the amount of fuel consumed and have access to data on the carbon content
of the fuel through default carbon content coefficients or through more accurate periodic fuel
sampling. Companies should use the most accurate calculation approach available to them and
that is appropriate for their reporting context.

Collect activity data and choose emission factors

For most small to medium-sized companies and for many larger companies, scope 1 GHG
emissions will be calculated based on the purchased quantities of commercial fuels (such as
natural gas and heating oil) using published emission factors. Scope 2 GHG emissions will
primarily be calculated from metered electricity consumption and supplier-specific, local grid,
or other published emission factors. Scope 3 GHG emissions will primarily be calculated from
activity data such as fuel use or passenger miles and published or third-party emission factors.
In most cases, if source- or facility specific emission factors are available, they are preferable
to more generic or general emission factors.

Industrial companies may be faced with a wider range of approaches and methodologies. They
should seek guidance from the sector-specific guidelines on the GHG Protocol website (if
available) or from their industry associations (e.g., International Aluminium Institute,
International Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, WBCSD Sustainable
Cement Initiative, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association).

xvi | P a g e
 5. CALCULATION

Overview of GHG calculation tools available on the GHG Protocol:

Calculation Tool Main Features

Stationary Combustion Calculates direct and indirect CO2 emissions from fuel combustion
in stationary equipment
Provides two options for allocating GHG emissions from a co-
generation facility
Provides default fuel and national average electricity emission
factors
Mobile Combustion Calculates direct and indirect CO2 emissions from fuel combustion
in mobile sources
Provides calculations and emission factors for road, air, water, and
rail transport
HFC from Air Calculates direct HFC emissions during manufacture, use and
Conditioning and disposal of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment in
Refrigeration Us commercial applications
Provides three calculation methodologies: a sales-based approach, a
life cycle stage-based approach, and an emission factor-based
approach
Measurement and Introduces the fundamentals of uncertainty analysis and
Estimation Uncertainty for quantification
GHG Emissions Calculates statistical parameter uncertainties due to random errors
related to calculation of GHG emissions
Automates the aggregation steps involved in developing a basic
uncertainty assessment for GHG inventory data
Aluminum and other non- Calculates direct GHG emissions from aluminum production (CO2
Ferrous Metals Production from anode oxidation, PFC emissions from the “anode effect,” and
SF6 used in non-ferrous metals production as a cover gas)
Iron and Steel Calculates direct GHG emissions (CO2) from oxidation of the
reducing agent, from the calcination of the flux used in steel
production, and from the removal of carbon from the iron ore and
scrap steel used
Nitric Acid Manufacture Calculates direct GHG emissions (N2O) from the production of
nitric acid
Ammonia Manufacture Calculates direct GHG emissions (CO2) from ammonia production.
This is for the removal of carbon from the feedstock stream only;
combustion emissions are calculated with the stationary combustion
module
Adipic Acid Manufacture Calculates direct GHG emissions (N2O) from adipic acid production
Cement Calculates direct CO2 emissions from the calcination process in
cement manufacturing (WBCSD tool also calculates combustion

xvii | P a g e
 emissions)
Provides two calculation methodologies: the cement-based approach
and the clinker-based approach
Lime Calculates direct GHG emissions from lime manufacturing (CO2
from the calcination process)
HFC-23 from HCFC-22 Calculates direct HFC-23 emissions from production of HCFC-22
Production
Pulp and Paper Calculates direct CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from production of
pulp and paper. This includes calculation of direct and indirect CO2
emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, bio-fuels, and waste
products in stationary equipment
Semi-Conductor Wafer Calculates PFC emission from the production of semi-conductor
Production wafers
Guide for Small Office- Calculates direct CO2 emissions from fuel use, indirect CO2
Based Organizations emissions from electricity consumption, and other indirect CO2
emissions from business travel and commuting

SCOPE 1 EMISSION CALCULATION

For an Example, Natural Gas:

(MMBTU * Conversion Factor (CO2)/10^3) + (MMBTU*Conversion Factor (CH4)/10^6) +

(MMBTU * Conversion Factor (N2O)/10^6)

= tCO2e (Total Emission for Natural Gas)

Taking another Example, Furnace Oil:

(L* Conversion Factor (NCV)) *(Conversion Factor (Density)) *(Conversion Factor

(CO2)/10^9) + (L* Conversion Factor (NCV)) *(Conversion Factor (Density)) *(Conversion
Factor (CH4) *(Conversion Factor (Methane (GWP)) /10^9) + ((L* Conversion Factor
(NCV)) *(Conversion Factor (Density)) *(Conversion Factor(N2O) *(Conversion Factor
(N2O (GWP)) /10^9)

= tCO2e (Total Emission for Furnace Oil)

For Refrigerants: R22 – (Kg * Conversion Factor (R22 GWP)/1000) = tCO2e

SCOPE 2 EMISSION CALCULATION

xviii | P a g e
Electrical Energy – Non-RE Grid = (Kwh * Emission Factors) = tCO2e

Electrical Energy – RE Grid = (Kwh * Emission Factors) = tCO2e

EMISSION FACTOR LIST:

Source Items Values

Emission factor (tCO2/MWh) 0.82
Grid power Emission factor (tCO2/MWh) 0.79
Conversion factor (kWh to GJ) 0.0036
Conversion factor (MMBTU to GJ) 1.055056
Conversion Factor (SCM to MMBTU) 0.039206349
Natural Gas CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/MMBTU) 53.06
CH4 emission factor (g CO2e/MMBTU) 1
N2O emission factor (g CO2e/MMBTU) 0.1
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 44.3
Density (kg/L) 0.971
Conversion factor (L to GJ) 0.03838
Furnace oil
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 77400
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 3
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.6
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 43
Density (kg/L) 0.8222
Conversion factor (L to GJ) 0.03579
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 74100
Diesel CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 74100
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 3
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 3.9
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.6
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 3.9
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 43
Density (Kg/L) 0.7475
Conversion factor (L to GJ) 0.3311
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 69300
Petrol (Motor Gasoline) CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 69300
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 3
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 33
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.6
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Mobile 3.2
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 43.8
Kerosene (Other) Conversion factor (L to kg) 0.817
Conversion factor (L to GJ) 0.03757
xix | P a g e
 CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 71900
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 3
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.6
Conversion factor (m3 to kg) 1.17
Acetylene Net calorific value (GJ/kg) 0.0499
Emission factor (kg CO2e/kg) 3.39
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 47.3
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 63100
LPG
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 1
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.1
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 18.9
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 96100
Coal ( sub-Bituminous )
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 10
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 1.5
Net calorific value (TJ/Gg) 32.5
CO2 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 97500
Pet Coke
CH4 emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 3
N2O emission factor (kg CO2e/TJ) - Stationary 0.6
Briquette Bricks Net calorific value (GJ/kg) 0.01809535
R22 Global warming potential 1810
R134a Global warming potential 1430
R407c Global warming potential 1774
R410a Global warming potential 2088
Methane Global warming potential 25
R32 Global warming potential 675
N2O Global warming potential 298
Air Travel tCO2e./Pax-km 0.000121
Rail Travel tCO2e./Pax-km 0.00000795
Rail Transport kgCO2e./Ton-km 0.009504
T&D Losses T & D Losses percentage 20.66%

xx | P a g e
 6. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION

PGP GLASS PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA, GUJARAT

EMISSION FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Total Emission (tCO2e) 137010 133932 124644 136403 133879
GHG Scope 1 (tCO2e) 83350 87698 81622 92543 92622
GHG Scope 2 (tCO2e) 53659 46233 43022 43860 41258
GHG Emission Avoided (tCO2e) 14324 21009 24646 22404 24385
Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ MT) 1.07 1.13 1.20 1.35 1.43
Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ M
INR) 12.00 13.46 15.09 16.94 18.04

180 000 20. 00

21009 22404 18.04

24385 18. 00

24646
160 000

14324 16.94
16. 00

140 000

133879
137010 15.09 136403
133932 14. 00

120 000
13.46 124644

12.00 43860
12. 00

100 000
41258

53659 46233 43022 10. 00

800 00

8.0 0

600 00

6.0 0

92543 92622
400 00 83350 87698 81622
4.0 0

200 00

2.0 0

1.07 1.13 1.20 1.35 1.43

0 0.0 0

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Total Emission (tCO2e) GHG Scope 1 (tCO2e) GHG Scope 2 (tCO2e)

GHG Emission Avoided (tCO2e) Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ MT) Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ M INR)

xxi | P a g e
HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS PRIVATE LIMITED, BAHADURGARH, HR

EMISSION FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Total Emission (tCO2e) 130991 129974 118359 125139 170496
GHG Scope 1 (tCO2e) 82983 82397 71016 71403 101737
GHG Scope 2 (tCO2e) 48007 47577 47343 53735 68759
GHG Emission Avoided (tCO2e) 5719 11624 16048 10218 12920
Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ MT) 0.78 0.83 0.79 0.95 1.30
Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ M
INR) 15 18 20 21 30

200 000 35. 00

12920

180 000

30 30. 00

170496
5719
160 000

11624
16048 10218
25. 00

130991 125139
140 000

129974

120 000
118359 21 68759
20. 00

20
100 000 18

53735
48007 47577
15
15. 00

800 00
47343

600 00

10. 00

101737

400 00 82983 82397

71016 71403
5.0 0

200 00

0.83 0.79 0.95 1.30

0
0.78 0.0 0

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Total Emission (tCO2e) GHG Scope 1 (tCO2e) GHG Scope 2 (tCO2e)

GHG Emission Avoided (tCO2e) Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ MT) Emission Intensity (tCO2e/ M INR)

xxii | P a g e
 7. RESULTS:

For PGP Glass Private Limited & HNG Private Limited, Bahadurgarh, Haryana:

PGP UoM FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Glass Production MT 127645 118567 104281 101286 93946
Revenue Generation M INR 11418 9952 8262 8051 7423

Energy Consumption GJ 1711909 1867857 1908466 2116027 1940600

Energy Intensity GJ/ MT 13 16 18 21 21
GJ/ Revenue in M
Energy Intensity INR 150 188 231 263 261
RE/ TE % 4% 5% 6% 5% 6%
RE/ GE % 21% 31% 36% 34% 37%

GHG Emission
(Scope 1 & 2) tCO2e 137010 133932 124644 136403 133879
GHG Emission
Intensity tCO2e/ MT 1.07 1.13 1.20 1.35 1.43
GHG Emission tCO2e/ Revenue in
Intensity M INR 12 13 15 17 18
GHG Emission
Avoided tCO2e 14324 21009 24646 22404 24385

HNG UoM FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Glass Production MT 169012 157104 149990 131756 131492
Revenue Generation M INR 8925 7293 6069 5886 5619

Energy Consumption GJ 1639638 1666386 1680750 1704428 1880982

Energy Intensity GJ/ MT 10 11 11 13 14
GJ/ Revenue in M
Energy Intensity INR 184 228 277 290 335
RE/ TE % 2% 3% 4% 3% 3%
RE/ GE % 11% 20% 25% 16% 16%

GHG Emission
(Scope 1 & 2) tCO2e 130991 129974 118359 125139 170496
GHG Emission
Intensity tCO2e/ MT 0.78 0.83 0.79 0.95 1.30
GHG Emission tCO2e/ Revenue in
Intensity M INR 15 18 20 21 30
GHG Emission
Avoided tCO2e 5719 11624 16048 10218 12920

xxiii | P a g e
 8. MITIGATION MEASURES

• Furnace efficiency: Modernizing furnaces with features like oxy-fuel burners, heat
exchangers, and improved insulation can significantly reduce energy consumption and
emissions.
• Increased cullet use: Recycling glass (cullet) requires much less energy than melting
raw materials, so maximizing cullet content in the production process can lead to
substantial carbon savings.
• Improved batch mixing: Optimizing the composition of the raw materials (batch) can
improve furnace efficiency and reduce energy consumption.
• Renewable energy: Shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like
electricity, biofuels, or hydrogen for furnace heating can drastically reduce carbon
emissions.
• Waste heat recovery: Capturing waste heat from furnaces and other processes can be
used to generate electricity or preheat materials, decreasing overall energy demand.

xxiv | P a g e
 9. FUTURE SCOPE

The glass industry faces a significant challenge in reducing its carbon footprint.
Here are some key areas where we can expect to see major strides in the future:
❖ Hydrogen combustion: Burning hydrogen instead of natural gas offers a
near-zero emission alternative. While challenges remain in hydrogen
production and storage, significant investments are being made to overcome
these hurdles.
❖ Closed-loop recycling: Revolutionizing glass recycling infrastructure to
achieve near-complete closed-loop systems will drastically reduce reliance
on virgin raw materials and the associated emissions. Innovations in sorting,
cleaning, and processing cullet (recycled glass) will be crucial.
❖ Lightweighting and product design: Engineering lighter and thinner glass
products while maintaining required strength and functionality will
minimize material usage and associated emissions.

xxv | P a g e
 10. REFERENCE

• An, N., Huang, C., Shen, Y., Wang, J., Yu, Z., Fu, J., Liu, X., & Yao, J. (2023). Efficient data-driven
prediction of household carbon footprint in China with limited features. Energy Policy, 185, 113926.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113926
• Anttonen, H., Kinnunen, A., Heinonen, J., Ottelin, J., & Junnila, S. (2023). The spatial distribution of
carbon footprints and engagement in pro-climate behaviors – Trends across urban-rural gradients in
the nordics. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100139
• Fabris, F., Fabrizio, M., Marinetti, S., Rossetti, A., & Minetto, S. (2023). Evaluation of the carbon
footprint of HFC and natural refrigerant transport refrigeration units from a life-cycle perspective.
International Journal of Refrigeration.
• Wen, J., Wang, B., Dai, Z., Shi, X., Jin, Z., Wang, H., & Jiang, X. (2023). New insights into the green
cement composites with low carbon footprint: The role of biochar as cement additive/alternative. In
Resources, Conservation and Recycling (Vol. 197). Elsevier B.V.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107081
• Xu, J., Liu, B., Zhang, Q., Li, L., Li, Y., Lu, L., & Cheng, X. (2023). Hydration characteristics,
structure evolution of marine cement composites with high durability modified by colloidal nano-
silica for low carbon footprints. Journal of Building Engineering, 75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106981
• Zier, M., Pflugradt, N., Stenzel, P., Kotzur, L., & Stolten, D. (2023). Industrial decarbonization
pathways: The example of the German glass industry. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100336
• Huang, L., Long, Y., Chen, J., & Yoshida, Y. (2023). Sustainable lifestyle: Urban household carbon
footprint accounting and policy implications for lifestyle-based decarbonization. Energy Policy, 181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113696
• Alzeer, M. I. M., Nguyen, H., Fabritius, T., Sreenivasan, H., Telkki, V. V., Kantola, A. M.,
Cheeseman, C., Illikainen, M., & Kinnunen, P. (2022). On the hydration of synthetic aluminosilicate
glass as a sole cement precursor. Cement and Concrete Research, 159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106859
• Gueddari-Aourir, A., García-Alaminos, A., García-Yuste, S., Alonso-Moreno, C., Canales-Vázquez,
J., & Zafrilla, J. E. (2022). The carbon footprint balance of a real-case wine fermentation CO2 capture
and utilization strategy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.112058

• www.ghgprotocol.org
• https://cea.nic.in/wp-
content/uploads/tpe___cc/2022/02/User_Guide__ver_17_2021.pdf
• https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission-
factors_mar_2018_0.pdf
• https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationar
y_Combustion.pdf
• https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/documents/emission-
factors_mar_2018_0.pdf
xxvi | P a g e