1 / 14

Results of CAFE Consultations

5 th Joint UNECE Task Force & EIONET Workshop on Emission Inventories and Projections Lago Maggiore, Italy, October 18 – 20, 2004. Results of CAFE Consultations. Wilfried Winiwarter, Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann,. Outline.

dmaxon
Download Presentation

Results of CAFE Consultations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 5th Joint UNECE Task Force & EIONET Workshop on Emission Inventories and Projections Lago Maggiore, Italy, October 18 – 20, 2004 Results of CAFE Consultations Wilfried Winiwarter, Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann, ...

  2. Outline • Consultations, the RAINS model and the emission inventory process • Findings and specific results from the consultation process • Conclusions and recommendations for future reporting

  3. UNECE / NECD EMEP msc-w ETC/ACC CIAM / IIASA The fate of national inventory data ... C Country U Check for submission, timeliness Check for data consistency (REPDAB) Data comparability Data integration into RAINS model

  4. Optimizing RAINS data • Inventory review (see Klimont, TFEIP Warsaw) • Comparing national submissions to RAINS (emissions, energy balances, other activity data) • Questionnaire to countries • Consultations with countries under the CAFE program • Includes personal contacts with experts

  5. Aims of consultations • Include national information • Identify data gaps • Provide a consistent European dataset • Inform national experts about aims of CAFE process and modelling tools used

  6. Consultations • Visits of 20 country teams, most of them between November 2003 and March 2004 • 4 industrial associations • More than 100 experts involved • Further correspondence by telephone and/or E-Mail

  7. The RAINS model

  8. Findings / experience • Predefined NFR form is very helpful • Even if RAINS structure far more detailed • „Automatization“ of data transfer could not be achieved fully • Aggregated data can not be automatically interpreted • Different interpretation of specific source sectors • Sector „other“: e.g. 1A2f – NOxindustrial combustion  internal combustion engines

  9. Documentation • Important for transparency & to identify national interpretation of NFR • Time consuming to understand • Language • Individual concepts • Advantage of forms • Use of covering notes would be helpful

  10. Finding of consultations • Most striking differences: • Fuel sulfur contents • Traffic models • Activity data (Note: RAINS uses PRIMES) • Inconsistencies/corrections in national data • Structural items • Missing sources in national submissions result in remaining discrepancies to RAINS (e.g., PM emissions from livestock)

  11. Systematic difference: fuel exports • Local requirement: • Knowledge about local air pollution and actual emissions on site • European requirement: • As above, but • National shipping to be reported as national emissions (also off-shore fishing) • Fuel sales to be accounted nationally, independent of where fuel is consumed (tank tourism) • International shipping not to be reported, even if emissions important locally

  12. National inventory RAINS estimate RAINS vs. national inventories, 2000 SO2 NOx VOC NH3

  13. Conclusions (1) • Consultation process was able to provide consistency between RAINS input and national emission data • (even if in some cases iterations were needed) • Also, it supported consistency between countries • A wealth of valuable data was provided by country experts • (Thank you!)

  14. Conclusions (2) • Much time was spent on control technologies, their penetration rates and efficiencies (far beyond mere emission estimates) • Ideally, data transmission forms should serve • The possibilities of the data provider • The needs of the data user • Effort was extremely time consuming, but extremely worthwhile!

More Related