RIVM report xxxxxx xxx

More documents

Recommendations

Info

page 22 of 142 RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report 410200 051 7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRIWKHJOREDOGHIDXOWHPLVVLRQIDFWRUVIRU12 [ EHWZHHQ('*$5DQG*(,$DVXVHGIRU &KLQDDQG,QGLDIRUVWDWLRQDU\FRPEXVWLRQHPLVVLRQIDFWRUVRIPLQRULPSRUWDQFHDUHEHWZHHQEUDFNHWV Sector - fuel type Emission factors EDGAR 2.0 Emission factors GEIA for China a Emission factors GEIA for India a Power generation Hard coal Brown coal 250 - (863) Heavy fuel oil 260 (243) 243 Light fuel oil - (668) (668) Natural gas 210 (105) 105 Industrial combustion Hard coal 357 Brown coal 150 - (651) Heavy fuel oil 175 (655) 655 Light fuel oil 80 (235) 235 Coal products 140 321 321 Natural gas 120 (53) 53 Small combustion sources Hard coal Brown coal 60 (191) (195) Heavy fuel oil 175 (48) (48) Light fuel oil 50 (78) 78 Coal products 85 (80) 80 Natural gas 50 (37) 37 a Kato HWDO (1992) Another source category for which differences were found is international shipping (see region “Sea (Oceans)”). Comparison with various literature sources has lead to the conclusion that the EDGAR emission factors need updating for this source (see Section 1.4). For SO 2 it can be concluded from Table 1.1 that the non-corrected global emission totals are in reasonable agreement with each other. Regionally, the differences found can be for a large part explained by the increase in energy consumption during 1985 to 1990. This can be seen for China and East Asia, for which emission estimates show considerably more consistency after a rough correction for energy use. The GEIA estimates for East Asia are still somewhat lower after this correction. However, comparison of the emission factors shows that these are in good agreement. The differences possibly originate from differences in underlying fuel consumption data but this is difficult to verify. Since SO 2 emission is primarily determined by fossil fuel combustion, correction for landuse and biomass activities has only a slight effect. For other regions differences can not be so easily explained. The GEIA emission estimates are considerably higher for Latin America, Africa and Canada. These all comprise regions with a high production of non-ferrous metals (e.g. copper) which can give rise to a considerable sulphur release. For this source emission factors as well as activity rates might differ. OECD Europe will be discussed in the next chapter on validation of EDGAR with CORINAIR. Emission reported in GEIA for Japan seems low compared to EDGAR. In the EDGAR emission factors sulphur removal technologies as applied in Japan are taken into account. Also sulphur contents of fuels (including diesel fuels) are comparable between EDGAR and GEIA. It is not exactly clear what causes these differences. In conclusion, the comparison of the EDGAR 2.0 NO x and SO 2 estimates for 1990 with the GEIA inventories for 1885 shows a reasonable agreement provided that changes in energy consumption are taken into account. For NO x the importance of anthropogenic sources other that fossil fuel combustion such as landuse activities and the use of biofuels can be noted. For SO 2 these sources are not of such importance. These sources are difficult to quantify and activity rates vary considerably between studies. Emission factors for coal combustion as used in GEIA and CORINAIR are within the uncertainty range of the EDGAR factors but tend to be somewhat higher on average. SO 2
RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report 410200 051 page 23 of 142 emissions show a better consistency between EDGAR and GEIA than for NO x . Emission factors generally agree but fuel consumption data might, also after correction for 1985 to 1990, still differ significantly. Emission factors for international shipping have been updated in EDGAR, since very large differences were found for ‘Sea (Oceans)’, which was also observed and communicated to us by some EDGAR users. &RPSDULVRQZLWK*(,$LQYHQWRULHV&2 A detailed comparison has been made between the EDGAR and ORNL/CDIAC (GEIA) datasets for CO 2 , which are based on energy statistics of the IEA and the UN, respectively (Marland HWDO., 1999). This was done both at country and at grid level. Here we summarise the conclusions of the comparison made at country (region) level for 1990 (Marland HWDO., 1998). EDGAR 2.0 adopted the emission factors of CDIAC for comparable source types (Table 1.3) and global total emissions differ only 1%. The largest difference in global total emissions was found in solid fuels (16%) (see Table 1.4). However, emissions for specific countries were found to differ significantly for many countries, e.g. 8% for the former USSR, 50% for North Korea, 25% for South Korea, 10% for India, 1% for USA and China and 3 to 25% for Japan, Venezuela, Canada, China and Taiwan. In general, the largest relative differences occur in countries with small total emissions and weaker national energy statistics systems (see Fig. 1.3). For more details we refer to Marland HWDO 1999). 7DEOH6XPPDU\RIYDULDEOHVXVHGLQ('*$5DQG*(,$&2 HPLVVLRQVGDWDVHWV Variable EDGAR ORNL (QHUJ\GDWD - data source IEA UN - fuel consumption detailed fuel types by end-use sector primary solids, liquids, gases - units of primary data TJ (LHV) ton, TJ (converted using country-specific conversion factors) - emission sources all domestic use for combustion similar (on grid: minus domestic aircraft) - emission factor 3 uniform aggregated values essentially the same values - correction for unoxidised part no yes &HPHQWGDWD - data source UN USGS (former US-BoM) - activity explanatory variable cement production cement production - emission factor uniform factor same value *DVIODULQJGDWD - data source IEA UN - emission factor uniform factor same value 7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRI251/DQG('*$5HVWLPDWHVRIQDWLRQDO&2 HPLVVLRQVIRUGLIIHUHQWIXHOW\SHVDQG WKUHHFRXQWU\JURXSVGDWDUHIHUWRWKHQDWXUDOORJDULWKPRI251/YDOXH('*$5YDOXH Ln (ORNL/EDGAR) Mean Standard deviation Number of countries % of global total emissions $OOFRXQWULHV - Total emissions 0.011 0.449 173 - Solids combustion -0.161 0.921 92 - Liquids combustion 0.107 0.391 170 - Gases combustion -0.042 0.621 74 - Cement production 0.016 0.207 123 - Flaring 0.027 0.050 40 7RWDOHPLVVLRQVJURXSHG - Highest emitting countries 0.010 0.115 48 94% - Medium emitting countries 0.093 0.259 41 5% - Least emitting countries -0.028 0.611 84 1%
Page 1 and 2: RIVM report 773301001 / NRP report
Page 3 and 4: RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
Page 21: RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
Page 73 and 74:
RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123:
Page 126 and 127:
page 126 of 142 RIVM report 773301
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142:
show all

RIVM report xxxxxx xxx

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?