1 / 17

Quality of EPER 2004 data

Tinus Pulles. European Environment Agency European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change. Quality of EPER 2004 data. This work is partly performed under contract with DG Environment ( 070402/2006/440841/MAR/C4 ).

tansy
Download Presentation

Quality of EPER 2004 data

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. Tinus Pulles European Environment Agency European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change Quality of EPER 2004 data • This work is partly performed • under contract with DG Environment (070402/2006/440841/MAR/C4). • within the ETC-ACC 2007 work programme with contributions by Martin Adams (now at EEA)

  2. Outline • EPER process and 2004 Data set • Completeness • Comparison with national inventories Mainly based on second EPER Review Report: http://www.eper.ec.europa.eu/eper/documents/EPER_Review_2004_version16May2007.pdf

  3. EPER process EPER reporting process Identification of facilities Estimation of emissions Report using formats Validation by authorities Publish Review Report Data transfer to EU Disseminate Results Key to actors Evaluate reporting process Authorities Facilities Commission

  4. Number of facilities reporting2004 and 2001

  5. Facilities reporting in 2004 compared with 2001(relative change)

  6. Emission reports in EPER2004 and 2001 comparison • The 2004 EPER reporting cycle involves nine countries that did not participate in the 2001 reporting cycle • For those countries that participated in both reporting cycles three different groups of facilities could occur: • Facilities that have reported emissions in both years • Facilities that reported in 2001, but not in 2004 • Facilities that did not report in 2001 but report in 2004 • Emission reports from facilities that participated in both reporting cycles could be again differentiated into three different groups: • Emissions of pollutants reported in both years • Emissions of pollutants reported in 2001 but not in 2004 • Emissions of pollutants reported in 2004, but not in 2001

  7. EPER 2004 compared with EPER 2001

  8. EPER Platts Efficiency factors CO2 emissions Capacity MWth Capacity MWe (unit level) CO2 emission factors (g/GJ) NOx, SO2, CO, NMVOC, PM10 emissions CO2 emissions /unit Fuel type Abatement techniques Fuel use (GJ) /unit • Expected emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, NMVOC, PM10 • “as is” • LCP • BAT (BREF) Pollutant emission factors (g/GJ) Comparing for NOX, SO2, CO, NMVOC, PM10 emissions reported with emissions expected Separation efficiencies abatement techniques Large Combustion Plants in EPER Facility Level Unit Level

  9. Completeness of EPER reporting • NOx and SO2 reporting seems to be almost complete • NMVOC, PM10, CO reports might be missing • PM10 emissions actually might be abated at a number of facilities • CO and NMVOC abatement is less likely

  10. Threshold value for CO2: 0.1 billion kg Threshold analysisthe method • Sort emission reports for a specific pollutant in decreasing order • Draw cumulative emission as a function of number of facilities (squares and circles in the graphs) • Fit with the cumulative Weibull distribution function (full lines in the graphs) • Find cumulative emission for number of facilities   (dotted lines)

  11. Threshold value for PM10: 0.05 million kg Threshold analysisNOx and PM10: threshold value seems to be OK Threshold value for NOx: 0.1 million kg

  12. Comparison of EPER with National Inventories;Source defintions differ:

  13. CO2 All sources • For all countries CO2 emissions in EPEr are below the national inventory data • Only “Industry” • For most countries EPER reports are a major part of industiral emissions of CO2 • For some countries there might be a problem

  14. NOx and SO2 in industry NOx • For most countries: consistency between national inventory and EPER • For some countries inconsistency • For some countries a possible problem • SO2 • Similar to NOx

  15. CO and NMVOC CO in Industry • Important inconsistencies for a number of countries • NMVOC in Industrial Processes • Important inconsistencies for a number of countries

  16. Conclusions • EPER Facility data is a large set of useful data • Time series are complicated by different coverage • Completeness differs between pollutants • CO2, NOx, SO2: reasonable • PM10: might be questionable • CO, NMVOC: many emissions seems to be not reported • The emission thresholds seem to work well • Comparison with national inventories shows problems

  17. European Environment Agency European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change Thank you !

More Related