Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

1. Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Recent developments of the RAINS model

2. Recent model development • Energy & emission databases • Modelling of deposition and its effects • Modelling of ozone and its impacts • health • Vegetation • Internet version

3. Modelling of deposition and its effects

4. Issues • Source-receptor relationships for deposition • Ecosystem-specific deposition • Dynamic modelling

5. S-R relations for RAINS Linearity of changes in PM due to changes in emissions is crucial for the mathematical design of RAINS • 87 model experiments with the new EMEP model: • Response of European S/N deposition to changes in SO2, NOx, NH3, [VOC, PPM2.5/10] emissions • For German, Italian, Dutch, UK and European emissions • 3 emission scenarios: • CLE (current legislation 2010) = CAFE baseline for 2010 • MFR (maximum technically feasible reductions 2010 • UFR (ultimately feasible reductions) = MFR/2

6. Response of total S depositiondue to changes in UK SO2 emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

7. Response of total S depositiondue to changes in UK NH3 emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

8. Response of total S depositiondue to changes in all UK emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

9. Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in UK NOx emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

10. Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in UK NH3 emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

11. Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in all UK emissions Emissions change from UFR UK emissions change from CLE to UFR Emissions change from CLE UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

12. Conclusion on S-R relations • Linear treatment (transfer matrices) seems sufficient • Work together with MSC-W is underway to derive coefficients • Time problem to calculate many different years

13. Eco-system specific deposition

14. Ecosystem-specific deposition • Ecosystem-specific deposition:Estimates of unprotected ecosystems in Europe for 2010: • Harmonized land-use maps: • Meeting at IIASA in March. • CDFs of CL will be delivered for forests, lakes, others.

15. 2000 2010 2020 Excess of forest critical loads Percentage of forest areawith acid deposition above critical loads, using ecosystem-specific deposition, mean meteorology

16. Estimated in 2003with ecosystem specific deposition Probability of deposition exceeeding critical loadsfor the Gothenburg 2010 ceilings, EU-15 Estimated in 1999

17. Dynamic modelling

18. Five stages in dynamic acidification modelling Important time factors: • Damage delay time • Recover delay time Graph provided by Max Posch, CCE

19. Use of dynamic modelling in RAINS Target load functions have been developed for IAM, specifying • the levels of S/N deposition • in a given year • that lead to recovery of x% of ecosystems • within y years. Could be directly used in RAINS optimisation with x, y as policy choices. But: • How to upscale to ecosystems without dynamic estimates? • How to reach full European coverage? • Historic base cation deposition?

20. Ozone modelling

21. Ozone modelling • Health impact assessment • Vegetation impacts • Regional ozone modelling • Linearity • Uncertainty • Urban ozone modelling

22. Health impacts

23. Health impacts • All epidemiological studies use daily maximum 8-hour mean concentrationas metric, often for the full year. • Different from hourly values used for AOT calculations! • Models not yet evaluated against health metric. • WHO review: Effects found below 60 ppb, no solid evidence on existence of threshold • How to treat this in an integrated assessment?

24. Critical question for IAM of O3 • How certain are we about health impacts below (natural) background levels (30-40 ppb)? • Especially, if ozone is reduced below background because of (too) high NOx concentrations? • Do we expect health benefits from reductions in urban O3 through increased NOx emissions - while total oxidants (NOx + Ox) increase?

25. Example implementation • CAFE baseline energy & emission projection for 2000, 2010, 2010 • EMEP Eulerian dispersion model, regional background concentrations • Mean meteorology, 1999 & 2003 • No adjustment of ozone levels for urban areas (awaiting results from City-Delta) • RR from WHO meta study (1.003) • Calculation for summer, no effects for winter assumed

26. Premature deaths attributable to O3 Absolute numbers (for 6 months), with different cut-offs 30 ppb 40 ppb 60 ppb Provisional estimates!

27. Reduction of premature deaths attributable to O3compared to 2000, with different cut-offs 30 ppb 40 ppb 60 ppb Provisional estimates!

28. Approach recommended by TFH7 • Focus on mortality – premature deaths attributable to ozone • Will create bias, because morbidity not considered • Do not use potential impacts of ozone below background to drive policy • Use 35 ppb as cut-off • Reflects present background concentrations • Use of linear regressed RR will underestimate the effect • Consider full year • Use one “characteristic” urban concentration level

29. Premature deaths attributable to O3Year 2000, mean meteorology, cut-off=30 ppb, percent of total deaths

30. Vegetation impacts

31. Concentration-based critical levels for ozoneSource: Mapping manual

32. Flux-based critical levels for ozoneSource: Mapping manual

33. Considerations for RAINS • Critical levels for forests are most sensitive • Use flux-based assessment for ex-post scenario analysis, concentrations-based CL for optimisation • For trees, mapping manuals leaves a choice between AOT40 and AOT30 • Further analysis of advantages and disadvantages necessary

34. Statistical indicators for AOT-based CLSource: Mapping manual

35. Source-receptor relations • Regional scale: • Linearity? • Confidence? • Urban scale

36. Response of ozone due to ΔNOxfrom German emissions AOT30 AOT40

37. Response of ozone due to ΔVOCfrom German emissions AOT40 AOT30

38. How much can we trust results from one model? • Euro-Delta intercomparison of regional scale models • Coordinated by JRC, IIASA, MSC-W, TNO, CONCAWE • 5 models: • CHIMERE (F) • EMEP • LOTOS (NL) • MATCH (S) • REM (D) • Study model responses to emission control cases • Ensemble model

39. Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and Philippe Thunis, JRC

40. Summary of model performances

41. Urban scale

42. Changes in urban ozone for further NOx reductionCity-Delta results AOT30 Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and Philippe Thunis, JRC AOT40 Urban O3 Population-weighted O3

43. Changes in urban ozone for further VOC reductionCity-Delta results AOT30 Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and Philippe Thunis, JRC AOT40 Urban O3 Population-weighted O3

44. Can titration be detected for long-term ozone at urban background? Preliminary results from City-Delta Difference between observed urban and background O3, annual mean O3 Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and Philippe Thunis, JRC NOx emission density in urban domain (t/km2)

45. Next steps • Analyze City-Delta 2 results, especially for PM • Develop functional relationships between rural and urban concentrations • Develop extension to other cities • Implement in RAINS • Final City-Delta workshop, fall 2004

46. Internet version • RAINS available on the Internet • Free access at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tap/RainsWeb/