RIVM report xxxxxx xxx

More documents

Recommendations

Info

page 26 of 142 RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report 410200 051 7DEOH &RPSDULVRQ RI &2 HPLVVLRQV IRU (XURSHDQ FRXQWULHV RI &25,1$,5 H[FO QDWXUH DQG ('*$5E\FRXQWU\0WRQ\HDU Country CORINAIR (excl. nature) EDGAR 2.0 CORINAIR/ EDGAR 2.0 CORINAIR/ EDGAR 2.0, excl. biofuels CORINAIR/EDGAR 2.0, excl. biofuels and nonenery use and chemical feedstocks 7RWDO Austria 53 78 0.7 0.8 0.9 Belgium 103 121 0.9 0.9 0.9 Bulgaria 91 76 1.2 1.2 1.2 former Czechoslovakia 206 226 0.9 0.9 0.9 Denmark 55 64 0.9 1.1 1.1 Finland 55 88 0.6 1.0 1.1 France 373 429 0.9 0.9 1.1 Germany (former DDR) 303 305 1.0 1.0 1.0 Germany (former BRD) 708 754 0.9 1.0 1.0 Greece 74 79 0.9 1.0 1.0 Hungary 60 75 0.8 0.8 0.9 Ireland 32 37 0.9 0.9 0.9 Italy 441 456 1.0 1.0 1.1 Luxembourg 11 10 1.1 1.1 1.1 Netherlands 159 177 0.9 0.9 1.1 Norway 34 42 0.8 1.0 1.2 Poland 402 386 1.0 1.1 1.1 Portugal 47 52 0.9 1.0 1.1 Romania 171 171 1.0 1.0 1.0 Spain 279 236 1.2 1.2 1.3 Sweden 86 110 0.8 1.4 1.6 Switzerland 47 48 1.0 1.1 1.1 United Kingdom 580 596 1.0 1.0 1.0 In Table 1.6 differences larger than 10% have been underlined. As can be concluded the unmodified emission estimates sometimes vary considerably between EDGAR and CORINAIR. A correction for biofuel use (which is usually but not always excluded in the CORINAIR inventories) leads to more consistent results: the European totals deviate less than 5%. Still differences remain for several countries that might be partly caused by different CO 2 emission factors for non-energy use and use as feed stock of fossil fuels. In order to verify this CO 2 emission due to non-energy uses of fuels have been excluded from the EDGAR results and the result is listed in sixth column. Although for some countries this leads to an improvement, overall consistency is less with the exclusion of non-energy uses. As in CORINAIR methodologies and sector coverage with respect to biofuels and non-energy uses vary between countries, incidental differences with consistent inventories like EDGAR are likely. Overall, results are in reasonable to good agreement with each other and no major inconsistencies in the underlying energy data seem to exist. &RPSDULVRQRIRWKHUFRPSRXQGV The second validation step comprises a more detailed comparison of the CORINAIR and EDGAR results for CH 4 , CO, CO 2 ,N 2 O, NMVOC, NO x and SO 2 . In this comparison the link between the sectors is analogous to Table 1.4. Basically this comparison has been made by sector and by country and aggregated results are listed in Table 1.7. Here results are aggregated for three regions being Western and Eastern Europe separately and Europe as a whole. There are several different sub-totals given in the tables. In the second column is indicated which CORINAIR SNAP1 sectors are included in the sub-totals. These sub-totals are listed because in some cases the apportioning of emissions to SNAP sectors is not always consistent in CORINAIR. This applies for example to small differences in what a country considers SNAP01 ‘Public Power, cogeneration and district heating’, SNAP02
RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report 410200 051 page 27 of 142 ‘Commercial, institutional and residential combustion’ and SNAP03 ‘Industrial combustion’. Furthermore the combustion-related sources in industry (SNAP03 ‘Industrial combustion’) are sometimes listed under SNAP04, ‘Process emissions’ and vice versa. In several cases waste which is incinerated for heat production is listed under SNAP01 or SNAP03, whereas waste incineration would normally fall under SNAP09 ‘Waste treatment and disposal’. For SNAP 11, ‘Nature’, no emissions are reported in CORINAIR while in EDGAR there are emissions for this source category. Therefore for each substance the totals minus ‘Nature’ are also listed. In the section following, it will be evaluated whether all differences between CORINAIR and EDGAR can be explained. 'LIIHUHQFHVSHUFRPSRXQG The CO 2 emission estimates of EDGAR and CORINAIR show a good consistency. As has been mentioned above possible causes for differences are process emission factors (for instance cement production) and non-energy uses, for which emission factors have a higher uncertainty compared to combustion sources. This results in differences for SNAP 04, process emissions. The sub-totals (total excluding ‘Nature’) for CH 4 agree very well. Also for the individual major sources results are consistent. For SNAP 09, EDGAR gives higher values for Eastern Europe. This is caused by including the EDGAR estimate for Agricultural Waste Burning (some 300 kton), whereas this source is lacking in CORINAIR. For combustion processes (SNAP 10, 02, 03) which are a minor source of CH 4 though, emissions differ more. The emission factors proposed in the CORINAIR handbook have a very broad range, which might imply that these are fairly uncertain and highly variable. For N 2 O large differences are found. Of the seven substances discussed here the N 2 O emission factors probably have the largest uncertainty. The very broad range of the emission factors in the CORINAIR handbook can for instance illustrate this. It is therefore not unexpected that results differ so remarkably. On average the CORINAIR figures are about a factor 3 higher than the EDGAR estimates, and similar ratios in the values of the emission factors are observed. Given the large uncertainties in these factors however, it is difficult to assess which inventory gives the best results in this case. For SNAP 10, CORINAIR sometimes includes emission estimates for crops and grasslands whereas these are estimated according to different methodologies in EDGAR. For CO the differences are somewhat larger than for CH 4 . The emission estimates for the main contributing sources, road transport, small combustion sources, show a reasonable agreement. Differences are higher for SNAP 03, industrial combustion. Partly this is caused by the fact that emissions from processes with contact such as ore sintering (a major CO source) are in CORINAIR categorised under SNAP 03 while in EDGAR these emissions are marked as process emissions and thus would fall under SNAP 04, process emissions. This also partly causes the discrepancies found for SNAP 04. The sum of process emissions and industrial combustion compare better. But there still seem to exist notable differences in emission factors. For SNAP 08, non-road transport, EDGAR excludes air transport in the country totals. However, emission factors for other transport modes differ to such degree that revision of the EDGAR 2.0 factors has been necessary (see Section 4.2.3). Another major CO source in EDGAR is agricultural waste burning. Coverage of this source is only very limited in CORINAIR, hence the very large differences for SNAP 09, agriculture. For NMVOC regional totals show a fair consistency. This is also observed for major contributing sectors separately such as solvent use, road transport and industrial processes. It should be noted that the distinction between emissions from processes and industrial combustion is not always consistent in CORINAIR. The sum of these emissions compare reasonably, the higher EDGAR estimate for industrial combustion is mainly caused by the inclusion of biofuels for this sector. Agricultural waste burning makes a very relevant contribution in the EDGAR inventories for NMVOC. In CORINAIR this activity is poorly covered, hence the differences for waste treatment and disposal (SNAP 09). CORINAIR includes NMVOC emission estimates for excretions and crops/grassland that are in turn lacking in EDGAR. Also for NMVOC, the large differences found for emission from non-road transport (SNAP 08) have led to a revision of the EDGAR factors for this compound (see Section 4.2.3).
Page 1 and 2: RIVM report 773301001 / NRP report
Page 3 and 4: RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
Page 25: RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
Page 77 and 78:
RIVM report 773301 001 / NRP report
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?