RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
page 22 of 142 <strong>RIVM</strong> <strong>report</strong> 773301 001 / NRP <strong>report</strong> 410200 051<br />
7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRIWKHJOREDOGHIDXOWHPLVVLRQIDFWRUVIRU12 [ EHWZHHQ('*$5DQG*(,$DVXVHGIRU<br />
&KLQDDQG,QGLDIRUVWDWLRQDU\FRPEXVWLRQHPLVVLRQIDFWRUVRIPLQRULPSRUWDQFHDUHEHWZHHQEUDFNHWV<br />
Sector - fuel type<br />
Emission factors<br />
EDGAR 2.0<br />
Emission factors<br />
GEIA for China a<br />
Emission factors<br />
GEIA for India a<br />
Power generation<br />
Hard coal <br />
Brown coal 250 - (863)<br />
Heavy fuel oil 260 (243) 243<br />
Light fuel oil - (668) (668)<br />
Natural gas 210 (105) 105<br />
Industrial combustion<br />
Hard coal 357 <br />
Brown coal 150 - (651)<br />
Heavy fuel oil 175 (655) 655<br />
Light fuel oil 80 (235) 235<br />
Coal products 140 321 321<br />
Natural gas 120 (53) 53<br />
Small combustion sources<br />
Hard coal <br />
Brown coal 60 (191) (195)<br />
Heavy fuel oil 175 (48) (48)<br />
Light fuel oil 50 (78) 78<br />
Coal products 85 (80) 80<br />
Natural gas 50 (37) 37<br />
a Kato HWDO (1992)<br />
Another source category for which differences were found is international shipping (see region “Sea<br />
(Oceans)”). Comparison with various literature sources has lead to the conclusion that the EDGAR<br />
emission factors need updating for this source (see Section 1.4).<br />
For SO 2 it can be concluded from Table 1.1 that the non-corrected global emission totals are in<br />
reasonable agreement with each other. Regionally, the differences found can be for a large part<br />
explained by the increase in energy consumption during 1985 to 1990. This can be seen for China and<br />
East Asia, for which emission estimates show considerably more consistency after a rough correction<br />
for energy use. The GEIA estimates for East Asia are still somewhat lower after this correction.<br />
However, comparison of the emission factors shows that these are in good agreement. The differences<br />
possibly originate from differences in underlying fuel consumption data but this is difficult to verify.<br />
Since SO 2 emission is primarily determined by fossil fuel combustion, correction for landuse and<br />
biomass activities has only a slight effect. For other regions differences can not be so easily<br />
explained. The GEIA emission estimates are considerably higher for Latin America, Africa and<br />
Canada. These all comprise regions with a high production of non-ferrous metals (e.g. copper) which<br />
can give rise to a considerable sulphur release. For this source emission factors as well as activity<br />
rates might differ. OECD Europe will be discussed in the next chapter on validation of EDGAR with<br />
CORINAIR. Emission <strong>report</strong>ed in GEIA for Japan seems low compared to EDGAR. In the EDGAR<br />
emission factors sulphur removal technologies as applied in Japan are taken into account. Also<br />
sulphur contents of fuels (including diesel fuels) are comparable between EDGAR and GEIA. It is not<br />
exactly clear what causes these differences.<br />
In conclusion, the comparison of the EDGAR 2.0 NO x and SO 2 estimates for 1990 with the GEIA<br />
inventories for 1885 shows a reasonable agreement provided that changes in energy consumption are<br />
taken into account. For NO x the importance of anthropogenic sources other that fossil fuel<br />
combustion such as landuse activities and the use of biofuels can be noted. For SO 2 these sources are<br />
not of such importance. These sources are difficult to quantify and activity rates vary considerably<br />
between studies. Emission factors for coal combustion as used in GEIA and CORINAIR are within<br />
the uncertainty range of the EDGAR factors but tend to be somewhat higher on average. SO 2