Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | archibald-goodman |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
IAM activities in the UK
comparisons with GAINS & work on emission projections and the road transport sector
Helen ApSimon, T Oxley, N Hasnain, A Elshkaki + colleagues at AEA Technology; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; ENTEC; and the Met Office.
1. Some comparisons with GAINS
UK projections UEP 30 and scenarios from IIASA Ref 6 report
2. A slightly more detailed look at road transport emissions and questions re TREMOVE and GAINS
3. Brief update re NH3 and secondary PM
Comparisons with GAINS
i) Take UK activity data based on MARKAL energy projections, UK agricultural projections etc and combine with GAINS emission factors assuming different abatement options. Then compare with UKIAM projections based on same activity data and emission factors from AEA Technology as used in the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI). This also includes GHGs as well as AQ pollutants.
ii) Compare UK projections to 2020 with GAINS scenarios from the IIASA report (Ref 6) -for CLE, CP and TSAP scenarios
UK (kT)
in 2020
NAEI
(UEP30)
GAINSCurrent policy
GAINSEC Envir.
targets
GAINSMTFR
SO2
NOx
PM2.5
NH3
VOC
292
789
65.8
287
844
210
625
60
268
855
175
554
52
236
855
144
445
46
198
657
Comparison GAINS scenarios with NAEI projections
Differences between GAINS and NAEI due to differences in energy, transport, agric. projections as well as assumptions about technology and emission factors
Also differences in CO2 and GHG emissions but will concentrate on AQ pollutants
SO2 (2020)
SO2(2020)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8
kT
UEP 30
G-CLE
G-CP
G-TSAP
Bit more coal , less biomass in UEP30 (also no CCS yet but ? In future)
Sometimes similar emissions but different assumptions e.g. S content coal and FGD efficiency
New sources of importance e.g. cement
Some sources not found in GAINS e.g. brick manufacture
New work on shipping by ENTEC: ?what shipping included as national emissions under NECD.
NOx(2020)
0
50
100
150
200
250
SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8
kT
UEP 30
G-CLE
G-CP
G-TSAP
NOx(2020)
Again more coal and gas, less biomass
? assumptions about domestic boilers
Differences in activity data industry
Differences within transport sector- see later
Some big differences within SNAP 8 – off-road sources
PM2.5(2020)
02468
101214161820
SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8 SNAP10
kT
UEP 30
G-CLE
G-CP
G-TSAP
PM2.5 (2020)
Comparison more difficult:-
sources in UEP30 that are not in GAINS, and vice versa
e.g BBQ & meat frying in GAINS, quarrying, bricks, industrial coatings in UEP 30
greater differences in individual sources, both EFs and activity data
(cancel out to some extent within SNAP sectors)
agriculture- differences in animal numbers and EFs, also in non-livestock. emissions (same for NH3)
Transport NOx
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
buses HDVs LDVs Pcars Dcars Mcycle
kT
NAEI
G-CP
Transport PM2.5 NAEI G-CP
exhaust 3.63 2.96
brakes etc 6.23 5.61
Trend to diesel- to differences in diesel to petrol car ratio
Importance of non-exhaust emissions (GAINS includes road abrasion)
Road transport
BRUTAL bottom up model
Differences between top-down modelling (TREMOVE/GAINS)
and bottom up modelling (BRUTAL individual roads in network)
Sensitivity to treatment of:
vehicle speeds
cold start
degrading
catalyst failure
vehicle mix (engine size)
Importance of non-exhaust emissions for PM
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
18 28 34 40 45 51 54 80 95 95 113
road types
emis
sion fac
tor PC1
PC2
PC3
DC1
DC2
DC3
Influence of speed and cold starts in BRUTAL/UKIAM:
example EFs for NOx for petrol and diesel cars in 2010
Ave EFs gm/km PC- petrol car DC- diesel car
1 No cold start .049 .132
2. +Cold start COPERT II .074 .137
3. +Cold start COPERT IV .057 .137
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
18 28 34 40 45 51 54 80 95 95 113
road type
emis
sion fac
tor
PC1
PC2
DC1
DC2
Effect of trip length: change from 8.4 to 10 km
Cold start emissions concentrated in urban areas with short journeys- relevant to urban air quality assessments
PETROL CARS
Catalytic failure is included based on The following failure rates are assumed in the BRUTAL modelEuro I 5%EURO II 1.5%Euro III and IV 0.5%
Degradation rate
The following degradation rates are assumed in the model for vehicles >80,000 kmEuro I 60%Euro II 60%EURO III 20%
CONCLUSION
Substantial uncertainties in emissions from transport depending on treatment of
vehicle speeds
cold starts
catalyst failure
degrading with mileage
trends in engine size & diesel v petrol
Need to understand how these are modelled to make true comparison.
AMMONIA
Beyond the CP scenario to TSAP a lot of the costs are incurred by measures to reduce ammonia.
Helps to justify if additional benefits as well as protection of ecosystems, in particular for human health.
-> broader more integrated approach to NH3 and the nitrogen cycle, including interaction with other pollutants and role in secondary inorganic aerosol, SIA
-> new data from EMEP supplied (to follow up initial studies by Andrea Fraser on NH3 as limiting factor for SIA)
Effect of change in NH3 from 2010 to TSAP scenario
Effect of change in NOx from 2010 to TSAP scenario
Pollutant interactions for 2ndry PM: EMEP model
END