1 / 16

IAM activities in the UK

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. Some comparisons with GAINS

kata
Download Presentation

IAM activities in the UK

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. Comparisons with GAINS • 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. • Compare UK projections to 2020 with GAINS scenarios from the IIASA report (Ref 6) -for CLE, CP and TSAP scenarios

  4. 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

  5. SO2 (2020) 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. Road transport Trend to diesel- to differences in diesel to petrol car ratio Importance of non-exhaust emissions (GAINS includes road abrasion)

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. PETROL CARS Catalytic failure is included based on The following failure rates are assumed in the BRUTAL model Euro 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 km Euro I 60% Euro II 60% EURO III 20%

  13. 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.

  14. 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)

  15. 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

  16. END

More Related