1 / 16

Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann

The impacts of the UN/ECE protocols on PM emissions in Europe Preliminary results of a study conducted for the PMEG Meeting, Dessau, March 10, 2006 with funds provided by DEFRA, UK. Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

luka
Download Presentation

Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann

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. The impacts of the UN/ECE protocols on PM emissions in EuropePreliminary results of a study conducted for the PMEG Meeting, Dessau, March 10, 2006with funds provided by DEFRA, UK Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont, Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

  2. Questions • How will PM emissions in Europe develop, given the obligations laid down in the UNECE Heavy Metals and Gothenburg Protocols? • What is the potential for further PM emission reductions through extensions of the existing protocols? • To additional countries? • By strengthening existing limit values? • To other sectors? • Assessment for • EU15+Norway+Switzerland • EU10 • Non-EU countries in the EMEP region, incl. Turkey

  3. Methodology • Based on RAINS databases as reviewed for CAFE • CAFE baseline scenario (PRIMES 2004 energy projection) • Emission analysis for • 2000 • Current legislation 2020 • With further measures (MTFR) 2020 • PM10 and PM2.5 • Distinguishing between emissions from sectors covered by the HM and Gothenburg Protocols and sectors not covered. • Calculations for 200+ source categories, results presented by SNAP sector

  4. Sectors covered by the UNECEHeavy Metals (*) and Gothenburg (**) Protocols

  5. Sectors not covered by the UNECEHeavy Metals and Gothenburg Protocols

  6. Two scenarios for 2020: • Current legislation (CLE) case: • Existing national regulations • For EU countries: Current EU legislation (LCP Directive, Euro-standards) • Only if HM and Gothenburg Protocols ratified, mandatory obligations of these Protocols • Further measures (MTFR) case: • Application of all other measures from the RAINS database • No premature scrapping • No structural changes, no non-technical measures

  7. Further measures considered for the MTFR (Maximum technically feasible reductions) case

  8. Applicable legislation and Protocol ratifications(as of March 12, 2006)

  9. Results for PM2.5

  10. PM2.5 emissions in the EU-17 (EU15+N+CH)subject to current UNECE Protocols, in kt

  11. PM2.5 emissions in the EU-10 (New EU MS)subject to current UNECE Protocols, in kt

  12. PM2.5 emissions in the Non-EU countries (incl. TK)subject to current UNECE Protocols, in kt

  13. Technical potentials for further PM2.5 reductions(on top of Current legislation in 2020), in kt

  14. Technical potentials for further PM10 reductions(on top of Current legislation in 2020), in kt

  15. Scope for further technical measures in 2020[kt PM2.5]

  16. Conclusions • Tightening of existing limit values in HM+GOT Protocols would have relatively small effect on total PM emissions in 2020 (EU-27: 70 kt out of ~1000 kt PM2.5) • Large reduction potential from enhanced Protocol ratifications, especially by non-EU countries (370 kt out of 1450 kt PM2.5) • Further potential from sectors not covered in current Protocols: • EU-27: ~310 kt, non-EU: ~610 kt PM2.5 • ~2/3 in from non-combustion sources • Are technical end-of-pipe measures the best option for these small sources? • Similar conclusions hold for PM10 • Reductions of primary PM emissions are not equivalent to changes in population exposure

More Related