Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Use of Lidar Backscatter to Determine the PBL Heights in New York City, NY Jia-Yeong Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Gopal Sistla New York State Department of Environmental.
Advertisements

Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Changes in U.S. Regional-Scale Air.
Heather Simon, Adam Reff, Benjamin Wells, Neil Frank Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA Ozone Trends Across the United States over a.
NASA AQAST 6th Biannual Meeting January 15-17, 2014 Heather Simon Changes in Spatial and Temporal Ozone Patterns Resulting from Emissions Reductions: Implications.
Ozone Modeling over the Western U.S. -- Impact of National Controls on Ozone Trends in the Future Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States -- March.
Effects of Grid Resolution and Perturbations in Meteorology and Emissions on Air Quality Simulations Over the Greater New York City Region Christian Hogrefe.
A statistical method for calculating the impact of climate change on future air quality over the Northeast United States. Collaborators: Cynthia Lin, Katharine.
An Assessment of CMAQ with TEOM Measurements over the Eastern US Michael Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla PM Model Performance Workshop,
Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.
Towards an Ensemble Forecast Air Quality System for New York State Michael Erickson 1, Brian A. Colle 1, Christian Hogrefe 2,3, Prakash Doraiswamy 3, Kenneth.
1 icfi.com | 1 HIGH-RESOLUTION AIR QUALITY MODELING OF NEW YORK CITY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FUELS FOR BOILERS AND POWER GENERATION 13 th Annual.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Washington July 2013.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Colorado May 2013.
Beta Testing of the SCICHEM-2012 Reactive Plume Model James T. Kelly and Kirk R. Baker Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards US Environmental Protection.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Nevada May 2013.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review New Jersey May 2013.
CMAS Conference, October 16 – 18, 2006 The work presented here was performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with partial.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
Air Quality Impacts from a Potential Shale Gas Emissions Scenario - Photochemical Modeling of Ozone Concentrations in Central North Carolina Presented.
Soontae Kim and Daewon W. Byun Comparison of Emission Estimates from SMOKE and EPS2 Used for Studying Houston-Galveston Air Quality Institute for Multidimensional.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Utah May 2013.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Connecticut July 2013.
The climate and climate variability of the wind power resource in the Great Lakes region of the United States Sharon Zhong 1 *, Xiuping Li 1, Xindi Bian.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review New York May 2013.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Central States May 2013.
CMAS Conference, October 6 – 8, 2008 The work presented in this paper was performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with.
Preliminary Experiences with the Multi-Model Air Quality Forecasting System for New York State Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Winston Hao.
Expected Ozone Benefits from EGU NOx Reductions Tim Vinciguerra, Emily Bull, Timothy Canty, Hao He, Eric Zalewsky, Michael Woodman, Sheryl Ehrman, Russell.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Alabama May 2013.
Temporal Source Apportionment of Policy-Relevant Air Quality Metrics Nicole MacDonald Amir Hakami CMAS Conference October 11, 2010.
Impact of high resolution modeling on ozone predictions in the Cascadia region Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Maryland May 2013.
Climate Change and Ozone Air Quality: Applications of a Coupled GCM/MM5/CMAQ Modeling System C. Hogrefe 1, J. Biswas 1, K. Civerolo 2, J.-Y. Ku 2, B. Lynn.
1 Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological Model Yunhee Kim, Joshua S.
C. Hogrefe 1,2, W. Hao 2, E.E. Zalewsky 2, J.-Y. Ku 2, B. Lynn 3, C. Rosenzweig 4, M. Schultz 5, S. Rast 6, M. Newchurch 7, L. Wang 7, P.L. Kinney 8, and.
1. How is model predicted O3 sensitive to day type emission variability and morning Planetary Boundary Layer rise? Hypothesis 2.
Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review North Dakota July 2013.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Seasonal Modeling of the Export of Pollutants from North America using the Multiscale Air Quality Simulation Platform (MAQSIP) Adel Hanna, 1 Rohit Mathur,
Evaluating temporal and spatial O 3 and PM 2.5 patterns simulated during an annual CMAQ application over the continental U.S. Evaluating temporal and spatial.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Air Resources Laboratory 1 Comprehensive comparisons of NAQFC surface and column NO 2 with satellites, surface, and field campaign measurements during.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review New Hampshire July 2013.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Idaho July 2013.
Impacts of Meteorological Variations on RRFs (Relative Response Factors) in the Demonstration of Attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality for 8-hr.
EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE Briefing for OTC Committees and Stakeholder Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, DC Julie McDill & Susan Wierman 1.
Georgia Institute of Technology Evaluation of the 2006 Air Quality Forecasting Operation in Georgia Talat Odman, Yongtao Hu, Ted Russell School of Civil.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Northeastern States July 2013.
Comparisons of CALPUFF and AERMOD for Vermont Applications Examining differing model performance for a 76 meter and 12 meter (stub) stack with emission.
Daiwen Kang 1, Rohit Mathur 2, S. Trivikrama Rao 2 1 Science and Technology Corporation 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ARL/NOAA NERL/U.S. EPA.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
Predicting Future-Year Ozone Concentrations: Integrated Observational-Modeling Approach for Probabilistic Evaluation of the Efficacy of Emission Control.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Deborah Luecken and Golam Sarwar U.S. EPA, ORD/NERL
Uncertainties influencing dynamic evaluation of ozone trends
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Presentation transcript:

Impact of Temporal Fluctuations in Power Plant Emissions on Air Quality Forecasts Prakash Doraiswamy 1, Christian Hogrefe 1,2, Eric Zalewsky 2, Winston Hao 2, Ken Demerjian 1, J.-Y. Ku 2 and Gopal Sistla 2,* 1 Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany, Albany, NY 2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Albany, NY * retired 10/11/2010

Background Air quality models such as CMAQ are being used to provide air quality forecast guidance. The accuracy of forecasts from such modeling systems is influenced, in part, by the quality of the emissions used and their associated uncertainties. The typical emissions processing uses annual emissions estimates for anthropogenic emissions that are then allocated to each hour based on “typical” or “average” temporal profiles for each source category. Some source categories, such as electric generating units (EGUs), are known to exhibit significant temporal variations in emissions in response to weather conditions.

Goals of this study Retrospective simulations have the advantage of using actual EGU emissions for the modeling period, while routine air quality forecasting simulations have to rely on the typical EGU profiles. Hence, this study examines the sensitivity of predicted ozone levels to these differences in EGU emissions Objectives: – What is the nature and magnitude of the variability introduced into the model predictions of Ozone due to the differences in EGU temporal profiles/emissions? – How widespread is this variability? – How does this variability affect the model performance?

Model simulations Time period: May to September 2007 (relatively warm summer in the time frame) Met model: – NCEP WRF-NMM 12z cycle weather forecast fields for the above time period (from archives maintained by NYSDEC) CMAQ v4.7.1 model Emissions: based on OTC 2007 “proxy” inventory – a mix of 2007 MANE-VU inventories for non-road and point sources, EPA-CHIEF 2005 point source inventory for all other regions, and interpolated 2007 emissions for other source- sectors/regions – 2 emission scenarios: “Actual” & “Average”

Emission Scenarios “Actual” emissions: – Temporal allocation of EGU emissions is based on measured hourly emissions from Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) for EGUs – For MANE-VU states, 2007 unit-level hourly and annual total emission files for EGUs were developed using hourly CEMs data, state-submitted emissions and cross-walk files – For non-MANE-VU states, 2005 annual EGU emissions were temporally allocated by SMOKE using 2007 hourly CEMs files obtained from CAMD and cross-referencing ORIS/boiler ID “Average” emissions: – Allocates annual emission totals to specific hours using temporal profiles derived from the actual 2007 CEM data on a state-by-state basis

Emissions

MANE-VU Daily EGU NO x Emissions

MANE-VU Average Diurnal EGU NO x Emissions “Average” emissions appeared to increase rapidly during the early morning hours until about 10 am and then stabilized until about 6 pm and then began to decrease. “Actual” emissions increased at a slower rate than the average emissions, and reached a maximum peak around 3 pm, a little later than the average profile.

Effect on Ozone Predictions - At each grid in the modeling domain - Across the ozone monitors in the MANE-VU region

Maximum Effect on Modeled 1-hr and 8-hr Daily Max Ozone For each emission scenario, calculate 1-hr and 8-hr daily max ozone for each grid Take the difference of the calculated daily 1-hr and 8- hr daily max between the two emission scenarios (“Actual” – “Average”) What is the maximum/minimum of this difference at each grid over the entire period from May-Sep 2007? – Represents the extreme effect at each grid unpaired in time – Shown on the next 2 slides

Max/Min daily difference of 1-hr Daily Max from May-Sep 2007 Peak 1-hr Daily MaxMin 1-hr Daily Max

Max/Min daily difference of 8-hr Daily Max from May-Sep 2007 Peak 8-hr Daily MaxMin 8-hr Daily Max

Total Variability in Hourly Ozone The difference of the hourly ozone between the two emission scenarios (“Actual” – “Average”) can be both positive and negative The maximum hourly difference and the minimum hourly difference were determined each day. The difference between the max and min gives the range or the total variability for that day. What is the maximum of this daily total variability at each grid?

Maximum of the daily total variability from May-Sep 2007

Distribution of Max and Min Difference in 1-hr and 8-hr Daily Max at the monitors in MANE-VU Region < ±3 ppb difference at 75% of the sites Certain sites showed effect as much as ±10 ppb

Distribution of Max and Min Difference in 1-hr and 8-hr Daily Max at the monitors in MANE-VU Region 3 cases – all days, days when observed ozone > 75 ppb, and days when actual emissions was > 90 th percentile in the respective state < ±3 ppb difference at 75% of the sites Certain sites showed effect as much as ±10 ppb

Distribution of Average Difference in 1-hr Daily Max at the monitors in MANE-VU 4 time periods: all days Obs. O 3 > 75 ppb, “Actual” emissions > 90 th percentile in the respective state “Actual” emissions < 10 th %ile Near zero on average, with 75% of the sites showing < ±0.5 ppb difference Slightly larger inter-quartile range (IQR) on high O 3 /electric demand days & narrow IQR on low emission days

Similar to the effect on 1-hr daily max, but a slightly narrower distribution in 8-hr daily max than 1-hr daily max for the respective case Distribution of Average Difference in 8-hr Daily Max at the monitors in MANE-VU

Time Series of hourly variability: 2 sites with contrasting response NY Site, urban site with high local emissions density Mostly negative difference in O 3 PA Site – rural agricultural site Mostly positive difference in O 3

Time Series of daily variability: 1-hr Daily Max O 3 NY Site, urban site PA Site – rural agricultural site Ozone changes mostly coincide with emission changes. Higher “Actual” emissions results in negative O 3 difference at NY site, while positive O 3 difference at PA site.

Time Series of daily variability: 1-hr Daily Max O 3 NY Site, urban site PA Site – rural agricultural site Ozone changes mostly coincide with emission changes. Higher “Actual” emissions results in negative O 3 difference at NY site, while positive O 3 difference at PA site. Response dependent on the photochemical regime of the region and its location relative to the source / path of plume

Comparison with Observations 8-hr daily max: Norm. Mean Bias

Summary “Actual” emissions were typically greater than “Average” emissions on days leading to an ozone episode. The impact on Ozone varied by location, and could be positive or negative. Maximum impact of ±3 ppb and an average impact of < ±0.5 ppb in 1-hr or 8-hr daily max across 75% of the monitors in the MANE-VU region – similar to variability resulting from meteorology or emission inventories The nature of the impact appears to be dependent upon the photochemical regime of the region and its location relative to the source/path of the plume.

Acknowledgements & Disclaimer This study was funded in part by NYSDEC and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) under agreement # The results presented here have not been reviewed by the funding agencies. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of NYSDEC or the sponsoring agency.