A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Phase II - Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TNO MACC-II European emissions Model-ready emission set for Jeroen Kuenen, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Antoon Visschedijk TNO, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Advertisements

Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Assessment of air pollution by cadmium CZECH REPUBLIC EMEP Heavy metal case study Milan Váňa, Pavel Machálek + MSC-E.
Marion Wichmann-Fiebig II 5 Abteilungsleiterin „Luft“ 1 Review of the Gothenburg Protocol Link to potential PM control under CLRTAP: – Specifies control.
Workshop to Promote the Ratification of the UN-ECE CLRTAP HM Protocol May 2008, Yerevan, Armenia. 1 Additional technical measures, their reduction.
Workshop to Promote the Ratification of the UN-ECE CLRTAP HM Protocol May 2008, Yerevan, Armenia. 1 emissions reduction (and costs) The effectiveness.
Chris Dore AEA Energy and Environment Uncertainties in the UK Heavy Metal Emissions Inventory UK Emissions Inventory Programme Funded by Defra: RMP2106.
Hugo Denier van der Gon & Jeroen Kuenen With emphasis on recent TNO Improvements to metal emission estimates.
ICP VEGETATION 29 th session WGE Integrated science for our changing world European moss survey 2010/11  Confirmed participation: HM & N.
A high resolution emission inventory of particulate EC and OC for Europe Hugo Denier van der Gon, Antoon Visschedijk, Rianne Dröge, Maarten Mulder, Jeroen.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
Contribution to “Air quality analysis in the city of Teheran” Emission inventories to understand air quality of the present and predict the future Hugo.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EU AQ LEGISLATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC J. FIALA Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Prague, Czech Republic.
Feedback from the C&I Expert Panel Jeroen Kuenen & Carlo Trozzi Co-chairs of the Expert Panel on Combustion & Industry Stockholm, 3 May 2011.
The POP protocol in practice ……………………… André Peeters Weem Sankt Petersburg October 2009.
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.
IIASA Sources of PM Emissions in Europe. IIASA RAINS Emission and cost calculation scheme Activity data Vintages Other Emission factor Control strategies,
TFMM & TFEIP Workshop, Dublin, 2007 Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E.
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya
12. May 2010 TFEIP/EIONET Workshop Jochen Theloke Latest thinking of the emission inventory community Jochen Theloke, Hugo Denier van der Gon and Chris.
Emission control in Bulgaria The involved institutions at national and local (sub-national) levels in Emissions inventory are Ministry of Environment.
Expert Group on Techno-Economic Issues (EGTEI) – Paris 04/ Expert Group on Techno-Economic Issues (EGTEI) E xpert G roup on T echno- E conomic I.
Reported emissions for models Perspectives from MACC & MACC-II projects, and the use of the LOTOS-EUROS AQ model Jeroen Kuenen, Hugo Denier van der Gon,
1 Relations between PM and persistent toxic substances Alexey Ryaboshapko, Meteorological Synthesizing Center “East” EG on Particulate Matter, Berlin,
Bangalore, India,17-18 December 2012 METHODOLOGIES TO ASSESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ICT KEVIN J HOUSTON, CEO CARBON MASTERS Member of Independent.
Reporting and use of air pollutant emission data under the ECE CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION Krzysztof Olendrzynski ECE/Air Secretariat.
Integrated Assessment of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Mitigation Janusz Cofala International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg,
Hugo Denier van der Gon Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk Uncertainties in POP emission data.
38 th Session of the Working Group on Strategies and Review, Item 3, Review of the 1998 protocol on heavy metals Coordination Centre for Effects(CCE),
T TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation A study to the effectiveness of the HM and POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Task Force on.
7 th Joint TFEIP & EIONET meeting, Thessaloniki, 2006 Heavy metal modelling: Use of different emission inventories Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E.
EGTEI – Expert Group on Techno-economic Issues Methodology for data collection Presented by Nadine Allemand EGTEI secretariat Workshop to promote ratification.
Technical Support for the Impact Assessment of the Review of Priority Substances under Directive 2000/60/EC Updated Project Method for WG/E Brussels 22/10/10.
Joint TFEIP/TFMM workshop October 22, Dublin Understanding discrepancies between atmospheric model results and measurements given uncertainties in emission.
ESPREME Project – TFEIP Pallanza 10/2004 ESPREME Estimation of willingness-to-pay to reduce risks of exposure to heavy metals and cost-benefit analysis.
Improving the Quality of HM Emission Inventories Expert estimates for Heavy Metals from the ESPREME Project TFEIP - Thessaloniki Oct 2006.
Uncertainties in emission inventories Wilfried Winiwarter Joint TFEIP & TFMM workshop on uncertainties in emission inventories and atmospheric models Dublin,
TF HTAP, TF IAM, Vienna, February HTAP-GAINS scenario analysis: preliminary exploration of emission scenarios with regard to the benefits of global.
UNECE workshop to promote ratification of Protocols, St Petersburg, 27 oct 09 - Emmanuel FIANI 1 Technical report on sources in the metallurgical sector.
European Union emission inventory report 1990–2011 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) EU LRTAP inventory team.
TFEIP Workshop, Istanbul, May 2013 Emissions data for of heavy metal and POP modelling Oleg Travnikov, Alexey Gusev, Ilia Ilyin, Olga Rozovskaya, Victor.
24. Oktober th Joint TFEIP/EIONET meeting Jochen Theloke Improvement of HM information in the Guidebook - Implementation of the ESPREME Results Jochen.
20 th EIONET Workshop on Air Quality Assessment and Management Mapping BaP concentrations and estimation of population exposure and health impacts Cristina.
Control by existing protocols and current work under the Convention Richard Ballaman Chairman of WGSR Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape.
Hemispheric transport – Why is EMEP interested? Peringe Grennfelt, Jurgen Schneider.
EMEP/WGE Bureaux, March 2015 MSC-E work plan, 2015 TaskItem Calculations of HMs/POPs for b Testing of HM/POP models in the new EMEP grid1.3.4.
Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Cost-effectiveness Analysis in CAFE and the Need for Information about Urban Air Quality.
A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Phase II – Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of.
EMEP WGSR, EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006  Review and evaluation of the MSCE-HM model (TFMM)  Atmospheric pollution in 2004 (emissions, monitoring.
17 th TFMM Meeting, May, 2016 EMEP Case study: Assessment of HM pollution levels with fine spatial resolution in Belarus, Poland and UK Ilia Ilyin,
Particulates: Where is the current policy emphasis in the EU CAFE Programme? A contribution to the panel discussion “Nanoparticles from road vehicle exhaust:
Progress in 2017 Work-plan elements
The CAMS Policy products
Progress in assessment of POP pollution in EMEP region.
Methodology for policy evaluation on Large Combustion Plants
M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes,
of lead, cadmium and mercury German Federal Environment Agency
POPs and HMs Summary , EMEP TFMM.
A. Aulinger, V. Matthias, M. Quante, Institute for Coastal Research
Preparation of the Heavy Metals Protocol Ratification by Ukraine
10th TFMM meeting, June, 2009, France, Paris
10th TFMM meeting, June, 2009, France, Paris
MSC-E: Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulykh
EMEP Case study: Assessment of HM pollution levels with fine spatial resolution in Belarus, Poland and UK Ilia Ilyin, Olga Rozovskaya, Oleg Travnikov.
MSC-E contribution concerning heavy metals
Use of non-Party estimates in EMEP modelling: HMs and POPs
Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment
Uncertainties in the UK Heavy Metal Emissions Inventory
Emissions What are the most sensitive parameters in emissions to improve model results (chemical species, spatio-temporal resolution, spatial distribution,
Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E
Model assessment of HM and POP pollution of the EECCA region
Presentation transcript:

A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Phase II - Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of the Protocols Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk TNO Built Environment and Geosciences Presented by: Johan Sliggers, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Report requests:

Aims of the project Phase I Fully “filled” emission database (Official reporting + TNO defaults) Increase quality of emission inventories and projections (in countries) Evaluate the emission reductions achieved by the protocols Identify the (relative) importance of sources for a second step in reducing the release of HM / POP into the environment Provide input to explore further options for emission reductions including costs of measures Phase II Select measures for a possible revision of the HM / POP Protocol Calculate emission reduction and associated costs in 2020 upon a possible revision of the HM / POP protocol Estimate costs of a possible revision of the HM / POP Protocol Phase I + II Provide input for predictive modeling of environmental distribution, exposure of ecosystems, source–receptor relationships

Contents- Heavy Metals Summary Output Phase I Methodology Phase II - HM Selected measures and Costs Results Phase II - HM Conclusions Recommendations

Output of the project – Phase I - HM For Cd, Pb, Hg + 6 other HM (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se and Zn) For European UNECE Member States. Emission inventory for 2000 (base year) projections for 2010, 2015 and 2020 following two scenarios Current Legislation and Current Ratification of HM protocol (CRHM) Current Legislation and Full Implementation of HM protocol (FIHM) Quantify emission reduction due to implementation of the HM Protocol Preliminary list of possible measures to further reduce HM emissions Denier van der Gon, HAC et al.,Study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and costs of possible additional measures Phase I: Estimation of emission reduction resulting from the implementation of the HM Protocol, TNO report B&O-A R 2005/193, August 2005.

Methodology phase II HM 1.Starting point: HM emissions in 2020 FIHM 2.Key source analysis of remaining emissions upon FIHM 3.Selection of sources for a possible revision of the HM Protocol –Contribution to the total emission of Cd, Hg and/or Pb > 5% –Contribution to emission of one or more of other HM > 15% –Domestic / residential sources not selected –Sources scheduled for re-evaluation by the Protocol included (Chlor-alkali industry and Medical Waste Incineration ) 4.Select source-specific measures and their associated costs –Package 1 – dust control oriented (all HM) –Package 2 – gaseous emission control (more specific Hg) 5.Calculate emission reduction upon revision and quantify associated costs 6.Distribute emissions to make emission maps for modelling Note: Detailed (country) emission data available on CD ROM inside report.

Selected source categories for possible further HM emission reduction

Sources not in the HM Protocol % HM Europe 2020 after FI SourcesCdHgPb Residential, commercial and other combustion Industrial combustion Coke ovens Peat (Heat and power prod., residential etc, industrial comb.), sec. Al and iron foundries <0.5

Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 1 Note: Complete list of measures; see accompanying report

Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 2 Note: Complete list of measures; see accompanying report

Results HM PHASE II Avoided emission by country, by measure for 2020 * ) Annual costs by country, by measure for 2020 * ) Here aggregated results for UNECE-Europe are presented and put in perspective to 2000, 2010 and 2020 emissions with current ratification (CR) and/or full implementation (FI) of the HM Protocol * ) Detailed breakdown available in annex, addendum and CD of the TNO report

Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after possible revision of the HM Protocol, achieved emission reductions and costs for package 1+2

Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after possible revision of the HM Protocol package 1+2, achieved emission reductions

HM emissions with different scenarios - 1 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures

HM emissions with different scenarios - 2 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures

Emissions are available as input for modeling Example: Gridded emission map for Cd 2020 FIHM+AM Total Cadmium kg/ 50x50 km

Relative change HM emissions with different scenarios (year 2000 = 100%)

Conclusions -1 Total Costs of AM Package 1 (dust reduction) ~9 billion € –mostly (85%) in Non-EU25+ –Note: costs will also be made in EU but are attributed to autonomous measures (e.g. IPPC) Total Costs of AM Package 2 (Hg reduction) ~18.5 billion € –equally distributed in EU25+ and non-EU25+ –Hg is not covered by autonomous measures; Co-benefit of Package 2 may be reduction other gaseous pollutants e.g. PCDD/F Co-benefit for PM is mostly by FIHM (~ 3.7 Mt TSP, 1.2 Mt PM10 and 0.28 Mt PM2.5). FIHM+AM has limited impact because (partly) focus on gaseous emissions.

Conclusions-2 Additional Measures (AM) (~27000 M €) are expensive compared to the 1998 HM protocol (estimated at ~440 MECU (1995); Berdowski et al., 1998), but probably well below costs of implementation 2nd S Protocol (roughly estimated at ~ 50-60,000 M € ) Full implementation of the 1998 HM Protocol brings about the biggest step in reduction of HM emissions; a possible revision of the HM protocol is a further improvement and should be seen in this perspective.

Recommendations 1.The projections are scaled from 2000 emissions – these emissions are a mix of official reporting and defaults. Errors / uncertainties propagate into the projected emissions. 2.Mismatch between Emissions – Modeled concentrations - Measurements –> Suggests underestimated emissions. To address the above problems we need In-depth screening of reported emissions & consistency of reporting Improve emission factors Case studies to validate the mass balance of the causal chain (emission, atmospheric transport, deposition).