Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 9
About This Presentation
Title:

Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher

Description:

TNO study 2003-2006 'Emission reduction resulting from the implementation of the ... Nobody wants to be the emission policeman! UNECE TFEIP November 2006 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:56
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: TNO78
Category:
Tags: bolscher | denier | der | gon | het | hugo | maarten | policeman | van

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher


1
Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher
Antoon Visschedijk
  • Uncertainties in POP emission data

2
Background Introduction
  • TNO study 2003-2006 Emission reduction resulting
    from the implementation of the UNECE HM and POP
    protocols
  • Emission inventory results presented at TFEIP
    Workshop Rovaniemi, 2005
  • Commitment to contribute to 2006 review
    Evaluation of inventories of HMs and POPs (in
    Vestreng et al., MSC-W Technical Report, 2006.)
  • This presentation summarizes POP evaluation
    section in the report and ends with some ideas
    about future work

3
POP Emissions UNECE Europe for 2000 and projected
emissions following two policy scenarios (TNO,
2005).
(Tonnes/yr, PCDD/f in kg Teq/yr)
CR current ratification FI full
implementation all countries Methodology
documented in Denier van der Gon et al., TNO
report 2005/194
  • To obtain a complete inventory official and
    unofficial data are mixed
  • Some uncertainties whos problem are they?
  • Are all sources covered?
  • Consistency between official data?
  • Consistency in present past estimates and
    projections!
  • Nobody wants to be the emission policeman!

4
Case study - Comparison of national total PCDD/F
emissions between unofficial/research and
official reported data
Note Official reported data for year 2000 or
closest year if 2000 emission data not available
CY -2003, EE - 2002 and LT -2003.
5
Comparison of national total PCDD/F emissions
unofficial /research estimates VS official
reported data
  • Research estimates consistently higher than the
    officially submitted data (except 1 country but
    after 2002 lower).
  • All country estimates are within the unofficial
    estimate uncertainty boundaries (except 2
    countries)
  • A review of sources covered will result in
    identification of omitted sources and/or
    identification single large discrepancies
  • Uncertainty approach gives confidence in overall
    importance (e.g., 13 countries 3.3 kg Teq/yr
    range (1.2 - 7.4) (Total UNECE-Europe 2000 12
    kg Teq/yr (TNO, 2005))
  • Most important! Combination of external
    estimates and official data may be a quick step
    forward if the right procedure could be invented

6
Official emission data
  • POP emission inventory for year 2000 is based on
    official emissions and research / default
    estimates to fill gaps.

EMEP Status Report 3/2006 Official data on the
emission totals of PAHs, PCDD/Fs, HCB, PCBs and
HCH for the period from 1990 to 2004 (for at
least one year) were reported by 36 countries.
  • Reason for differences?
  • year 2000 sector splits needed,
  • indicator compounds needed not total PAHs
  • Truth is in between -gt with concerted action
    (national experts topic experts) it could be
    much better.

7
Future developments
  • Remaining emissions after full implementation of
    POP Protocol
  • Emissions of substances (possibly) proposed for
    addition
  • But first.more complete reporting of POPs?!

8
2020 UNECE Europe emission of substances
(possibly) proposed for addition in 2020 before
and after possible revision of the POP Protocol,
and costs
Source Denier van der Gon et al., TNO report
2006/187
9
Future work Current results can be the
starting point for targeted and / or concerted
actions
  • Further complete official reporting use default
    emission factors improve where better data
    available. What is blocking progress?
  • How to most effectively use the national expert
    knowledge? Action by substance? e.g. PAHs
  • Improvements in POP/ new substance emissions
    through more detailed country product usage data
    (e.g., for pesticides)
  • For some substances emission factor determination
    should be put on the agenda (e.g., emission from
    in-use products)
  • Transparency maintenance of emission data!!!
  • E.g., Sector level estimates (incl. reporting
    zero emissions), removal old estimates
  • A programme (under TFEIP?) were general and
    national expert/focal points cooperate?

10
Thank you for your attention Please note
  • Phase II reports Emission reduction and cost of
    a possible revision of the HM POP Protocols
    finalised in August 2006, presented in WGSR

Report requests hugo.deniervandergon_at_tno.nl Or
download from www.tno.nl/HM_POP  
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com