RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
RIVM report xxxxxx xxx
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>RIVM</strong> <strong>report</strong> 773301 001 / NRP <strong>report</strong> 410200 051 page 27 of 142<br />
‘Commercial, institutional and residential combustion’ and SNAP03 ‘Industrial combustion’.<br />
Furthermore the combustion-related sources in industry (SNAP03 ‘Industrial combustion’) are<br />
sometimes listed under SNAP04, ‘Process emissions’ and vice versa. In several cases waste which is<br />
incinerated for heat production is listed under SNAP01 or SNAP03, whereas waste incineration<br />
would normally fall under SNAP09 ‘Waste treatment and disposal’. For SNAP 11, ‘Nature’, no<br />
emissions are <strong>report</strong>ed in CORINAIR while in EDGAR there are emissions for this source category.<br />
Therefore for each substance the totals minus ‘Nature’ are also listed. In the section following, it will<br />
be evaluated whether all differences between CORINAIR and EDGAR can be explained.<br />
'LIIHUHQFHVSHUFRPSRXQG<br />
The CO 2 emission estimates of EDGAR and CORINAIR show a good consistency. As has been<br />
mentioned above possible causes for differences are process emission factors (for instance cement<br />
production) and non-energy uses, for which emission factors have a higher uncertainty compared to<br />
combustion sources. This results in differences for SNAP 04, process emissions.<br />
The sub-totals (total excluding ‘Nature’) for CH 4 agree very well. Also for the individual major<br />
sources results are consistent. For SNAP 09, EDGAR gives higher values for Eastern Europe. This is<br />
caused by including the EDGAR estimate for Agricultural Waste Burning (some 300 kton), whereas<br />
this source is lacking in CORINAIR. For combustion processes (SNAP 10, 02, 03) which are a minor<br />
source of CH 4 though, emissions differ more. The emission factors proposed in the CORINAIR<br />
handbook have a very broad range, which might imply that these are fairly uncertain and highly<br />
variable.<br />
For N 2 O large differences are found. Of the seven substances discussed here the N 2 O emission<br />
factors probably have the largest uncertainty. The very broad range of the emission factors in the<br />
CORINAIR handbook can for instance illustrate this. It is therefore not unexpected that results differ<br />
so remarkably. On average the CORINAIR figures are about a factor 3 higher than the EDGAR<br />
estimates, and similar ratios in the values of the emission factors are observed. Given the large<br />
uncertainties in these factors however, it is difficult to assess which inventory gives the best results in<br />
this case. For SNAP 10, CORINAIR sometimes includes emission estimates for crops and grasslands<br />
whereas these are estimated according to different methodologies in EDGAR.<br />
For CO the differences are somewhat larger than for CH 4 . The emission estimates for the main<br />
contributing sources, road transport, small combustion sources, show a reasonable agreement.<br />
Differences are higher for SNAP 03, industrial combustion. Partly this is caused by the fact that<br />
emissions from processes with contact such as ore sintering (a major CO source) are in CORINAIR<br />
categorised under SNAP 03 while in EDGAR these emissions are marked as process emissions and<br />
thus would fall under SNAP 04, process emissions. This also partly causes the discrepancies found<br />
for SNAP 04. The sum of process emissions and industrial combustion compare better. But there still<br />
seem to exist notable differences in emission factors. For SNAP 08, non-road transport, EDGAR<br />
excludes air transport in the country totals. However, emission factors for other transport modes<br />
differ to such degree that revision of the EDGAR 2.0 factors has been necessary (see Section 4.2.3).<br />
Another major CO source in EDGAR is agricultural waste burning. Coverage of this source is only<br />
very limited in CORINAIR, hence the very large differences for SNAP 09, agriculture.<br />
For NMVOC regional totals show a fair consistency. This is also observed for major contributing<br />
sectors separately such as solvent use, road transport and industrial processes. It should be noted that<br />
the distinction between emissions from processes and industrial combustion is not always consistent<br />
in CORINAIR. The sum of these emissions compare reasonably, the higher EDGAR estimate for<br />
industrial combustion is mainly caused by the inclusion of biofuels for this sector. Agricultural waste<br />
burning makes a very relevant contribution in the EDGAR inventories for NMVOC. In CORINAIR<br />
this activity is poorly covered, hence the differences for waste treatment and disposal (SNAP 09).<br />
CORINAIR includes NMVOC emission estimates for excretions and crops/grassland that are in turn<br />
lacking in EDGAR. Also for NMVOC, the large differences found for emission from non-road<br />
transport (SNAP 08) have led to a revision of the EDGAR factors for this compound (see Section<br />
4.2.3).