1 / 23

Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?

Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?. Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki 5-6 September 2005 H.H.J. Vreuls, SenterNovem. Dutch GHG emissions Recalculations of GHG emissions Uncertainty analysis TIER 1 uncertainty assessment

elewa
Download Presentation

Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?

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. Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ? Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki 5-6 September 2005 H.H.J. Vreuls, SenterNovem

  2. Dutch GHG emissions Recalculations of GHG emissions Uncertainty analysis TIER 1 uncertainty assessment TIER 2 uncertainty assessment Conclusions Outline

  3. GHG Emissions Netherlands 1990: 211,7 Tg 2003: 214,8 Tg

  4. Reasons for recalculation 2005 • IPCC reporting requirements • Transparency • Completeness • Consistency in time series • Compliance with the IPCC guidelines • Accuracy • Results from improvement programme • Input from uncertainty analysis

  5. Recalculations and emission data in the base year 1990 CO2: - 2,6 Tg (excluding LUCF) + 1,7 Tg (including LUCF) CH4: - 1,5 Tg CO2-eq N20: + 3,8 Tg CO2-eq F-gases – 0,04 Tg CO2-eq (1995)

  6. Differences between NIR 2004 and NIR 2005 for the emission trends 1990-2002 1) Excluding LUCF

  7. All individual emissions sources are independent from each other The emission probability shows normal (Gaussian) distributions Uncertainties are smaller than + 60% TIER 1 Methodology uncertainties; assumptions

  8. Top 12 sources in total annual uncertainty

  9. Adding uncertainty information

  10. Uncertainty in annual total national greenhouse gas emissions

  11. No decrease of uncertainties after recalculations • Application of new methods • Uncertainties of newly identified key sources • CO2 emissions from LUCF • Indirect N2O emissions from agricultural soils • For F-gases higher quality activity data and more accurate emission data

  12. Tier 2 uncertainty analysis • Correlations between emission sources • Specific probability density functions Conducted in the Netherlands using 1990 and 1999 data • Using Monte Carlo method • Also qualitative uncertainty

  13. Qualitative uncertainty:Typology of uncertainties • Uncertainty due to variability • Natural randomness • Value diversity • Behavioral variability • Social randomness • Technological surprise • Uncertainty due to limited knowledge • Measurable uncertainty • Structural uncertainty

  14. Uncertainty due to limited knowledge • Measurable uncertainty • Inexactness • Lack of observation/measurements • Practical immeasurable • Conflicting information • Structural uncertainty • Reducible ignorance • Indeterminacy • Irreducible ignorance

  15. Tier-1 and Tier-2 uncertainty assessment 1999

  16. Elements in the update TIER 2; about to start October 2005 • Updated and new information on expert judgment • Key areas of interest for research • Sensibility analysis using min/max values from EU member states • Research on PDF and sources of uncertainty for selected areas • TIER 2 uncertainty analysis 1990-2003

  17. Conclusions • Uncertainty assessments (TIER1 and 2) are used as a tool to prioritise improvements for GHG emission inventory • More complex uncertainty assessments (TIER2) did not result in surprising, other insights • Changes in methods resulting in recalculation did not result in ‘ better’ uncertainty values

  18. Conclusions (continue) • Possible impact of methodological changes seems not to be included in uncertainty assessments • Update TIER 2 based on recalculated data and to justify no follow up of new TIER 2 for the next five years

More Related