Revision of EMEPCORINAIR emissions Guidebook

1
Revision of EMEP/CORINAIR emissions Guidebook

• Chapters on agricultural emissions

2
How current chapters equate to the new
3
Order of explanation

• Ammonia (NH3)
• Nitric oxide (NO)
• Non-methane VOCs (NMVOCs)
• PM Klaas and Torsten are working on this

4
Reasoning behind Tiers

• Consistent with Justins definitions this morning
• T1 - readily available statistics
• combined with default EF
• T2 - process/practice-specific conditions
• combined with default EF, but with provision for
  national EF when available
• T3 - goes beyond the above, e.g. models

5
Chapter 4D Tier 1 NH3 methodology

• Separate emission factors (EF) for major types of
  N fertilizer, including
• ammonium nitrate (AN)
• urea
• ammonium sulphate (AS) and phosphate (AP)
• Three climatic regions according to their mean
  spring air temperatures 
• Region A, ts gt 13 C B 6 C lt ts lt 13 C
• C ts lt 6 C

6
Tier 1 examples of EF
7
Chapter 4D Tier 2 NH3 methodology

• For fertilizer types, for which evidence is
  available, different EF for arable and grassland
• In each of the three climatic regions
• A multiplier when AS and AP applied to soils of
  pH gt7

8
Tier 2 examples of EF, Region B
9
Tier 3 process-based models

• Example of a simple process-based model is
  provided by Misselbrook et al. (2004)
• Each fertilizer type is associated with a maximum
  potential emission (EFmax)
• Modified by functions relating to
• soil pH
• land use
• application rate
• rainfall
• and temperature

10
Chapter 4B -Tiers 1, 2 and 3

• Following IPCC approach we begin (in concept)
  with the most complex approach (Tier 3) and then
  simplify to produce Tiers 2 and 1

11
4B Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology

• Tier 3
• Mass-flow approach
• All N losses and transformations are estimated
  using Tier 3 methodology
• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN
• immobilization of TAN in litter
• emissions of N2O, NO and N2
• In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool
  at each stage of manure management

12
(No Transcript)
13
4B NH3 Tier 3

• Mass balance models developed by the reporting
  country may be used
• A calculation procedure is outlined (as a Tier 2
  method) in which country-specific EF may be used

14
4B NH3 Tier 2

• A process-based, mass balance approach, which
  tracks N throughout the system, starting with
  feed input through final use/disposal, is
  proposed as a Tier 2 procedure
• The Tier 2 method uses default EF for each stage
  of manure management
• But requires the use of country-specific activity
  data, for example, the proportions of livestock
  sub-categories on different manure management
  systems
• default data are provided for N excretion

15
4B NH3 Tier 2

• In addition to NH3-N EF, default EF are provided
  for all other N losses and transformations to be
  estimated
• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN
• immobilization of TAN in litter
• emissions of N2O, NO and N2
• In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool
  at each stage of manure management

16
Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?

• Increasing the number of EF to account for
  emissions at each stage of manure management and
  discriminating between systems and abatement
  measures, makes the calculation of the
  interactions between abatement measures
  complicated
• In particular, such an approach may fail to
  recognise that introducing abatement at an early
  stage of manure management, e.g. housing, will,
  by conserving NH4-N, increase the potential size
  of NH3 emissions later, i.e. during storage or
  after spreading

17
Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?

• In fact the procedure is not complicated
• The calculation routines may be lengthy
• but are easy to follow
• Defaults are provided
• derived from EF used in published mass-flow
  models such as
• DYNAMO (CH)
• DAN-AM (DK)

18
4B NH3 Tier 1

• Tier 1 entails multiplying the total number of
  animals in each livestock class by a default EF
• expressed as kg NH3-N/animal/year
• Default EF were calculated using Tier 2 default
  NH3 EF for each stage of manure management
  including, where appropriate,
• grazing, default N excretion data and default
  data on TAN in excreta
• where appropriate, separate EF are provided for
  slurry- and litter-based manure management
  systems
• the user may choose the EF for the predominant
  manure management system for that livestock class
  in the relevant country

19
4B Manure Management - proposed NO methodology

• No robust method available, for housing and
  storage emissions
• An estimate is available of losses during storage
  as part of the Tier 2 and 3 approaches to
  estimating NH3 emissions
• mass flow will estimate N applied to soils
• NO emissions may then be 0.7 of manure-N
  applied.

20
4D - proposed NO methodology for fertilizer
application

• Tier 1
• 0.7 of applied mineral fertilizer-N
• An improvement in estimates of NO emissions from
  soils may only be achieved by use of detailed
  mechanistic models, which allow simultaneous
  calculation of production, consumption and
  emission of NO from soils with regard to all
  processes involved
• No Tier 2 or Tier 3 proposed

21
4D - proposed NMVOC methodology

• Tier 1
• An estimate may be made for a few crop types
  based on the crop area and published EF
• However, there is insufficient published data to
  enable compilation of an inventory
• No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach

22
4B Manure Management - proposed NMVOC methodology

• Tier 1
• Some EF per animal for livestock classes
• No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach

23
4B Manure Management - proposed authors

• Ulrich Dämmgen (Germany)
• Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
• Harald Menzi (Switzerland)
• Carlos Pineiro (Spain)
• Martin Dedina (Czech Republic)
• Brian Rumberg (USA)
• Shabtai Bittman (Canada)
• Karin Groenestein (the Netherlands - NO)
• Phil Hobbs (UK -NMVOC)
• Klaas van der Hoek (Netherlands PM)
• Torsten Hinz (Germany PM)

24
4D Agricultural soils proposed authors

• Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
• Tom Misselbrook (UK)
• Pierre Cellier (France)
• Kentaro Hayashi (Japan)
• Ute Skiba (UK NO)
• David Simpson (EMEP - NMVOCs)

25
4F- Stubble burning current approach

• Simple methodology
• Where an EF is combined with an activity
  statistic, i.e. the amount of residue burnt.
• It is assumed in this methodology that a dry
  weight of straw from cereal crops is 5 tonnes per
  ha

26
Stubble burning current approach

• Detailed methodology
• An improvement can only be achieved by a prior
  knowledge of the dry weight per ha yielded from a
  specific crop
• Some crop residue statistics are provided by the
  GHG Inventory Reference Manual
• The following ratios for residue/crop product are
  given wheat 1.3, barley 1.2, maize 1, oats 1.3
  and rye 1.6.

27
Stubble burning proposed approach

• Tier 1
• simple EF to be provided
• Tier 2
• country-specific EF
• Tier 3
• process-based modelling, if an approach is
  available

28
4F - Stubble burning proposed authors

• Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
• Bryan Jenkins (US)
• Cecile de Klein ? (New Zealand)
• Any volunteers ?

29
(No Transcript)
30
Summary

• Explain which chapters
• explain Tiers for each pollutant in each chapter
• agree co-authors
• Including from outside area to get methodology
  accepted by UNFCC?
• explain timetable

31
4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 Tier 2

• Tier 2
• the Tier 2 method follows the same calculation
  equation as Tier 1 but would include the use of
  technology- or climate-specific activity data
• For example, the use of country-specific N
  excretion rates for livestock categories would
  constitute a Tier 2 methodology
• proportions of livestock on slurry or FYM
• use default EF based on technology and climate

32
Cultures with fertilizers current NH3
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• an EF for each type of N fertilizer
• applied in all countries
• e.g. AN 2, Urea 15

33
Cultures with fertilizers current NO methodology

• 0.7 of applied mineral fertilizer-N

34
Cultures with fertilizers current NMVOC
methodology

• The sparse information on emissions of NMVOCs did
  not allow for the construction of even a simpler
  methodology
• however, an equation provided to estimate the
  order of magnitude of NMVOC emissions

35
4B - proposed NH3 methodology for fertilizer
application

• Tier 1
• since Tier 1 is a reference table, why not use
  the climatic regions?
• Tier 2
• use Tier 2 where activity data are available on
  amounts applied to arable and grassland
• effect of calcareous soils
• Tier 3
• process-based model of the type developed by Tom
  for the UK do not describe new tier 3s refer

36
Manure Management N Compounds - current NH3
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• the use of an average EF per animal for each
  class of animal multiplied by the number of
  animals
• Detailed methodology
• mass-flow approach

37
Manure Management N Compounds - current NO
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• no method
• Detailed methodology
• NO emissions calculated as part of mass flow
  aproach

38
4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology

• Tier 1
• in the current simpler approach the EF per animal
  is already sub-divided (in an appendix) into EF
  for each stage of manure management, as kg per
  animal
• propose that for Tier 1 we have EF for each stage
  of manure management using IPCC default values
  for N excretion

39
Manure Management C Compounds - current NMVOC
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• estimated as a ratio of NH3 emissions
• no detailed methodology

40
4B proposed NO methodology without fertilizers

• Simpler methodology
• 0.7 of the N returned to the soil as crop
  residues is emitted as NO
• no Detailed methodology

41
4D Manure Management - additional co-author

• Phil Hobbs

42
Cultures without fertilizers current NH3
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• multiply area of legumes by an EF of of 1 kg ha-1
  a-1 NH3-N
• EF also supplied for unfertilized pastures grazed
  by cattle and sheep
• or an EF as of N deposited during grazing

43
Cultures without fertilizers current NH3
methodology

• Detailed methodology
• to provide a more detailed methodology it would
  be necessary to distinguish between different
  legume species
• further detail may be provided if estimates are
  available of NH3 emissions from crops (e.g. hay),
  or unfertilized crop residues left on the surface
  
• the effects of different climates on NH3
  emissions both from unfertilized crops, and from
  their residues, needs to be known

44
4B proposed NH3 methodology without fertilizers

• Tier 1
• simple EF to be provided
• Tier 2
• country-specific EF for legumes and for grazing
  emissions based on country-specific data on N
  excretion - of N excreted.
• Tier 3
• process-based modelling, if an approach is
  available

45
Cultures without fertilizers proposed NO
methodology

• Simpler methodology
• 0.7 of the N returned to the soil as crop
  residues is emitted as NO
• no Tier 2 or 3

46
4B proposed NMVOCs methodology without
fertilizers

• Not currently reported
• same approach as for with fertilizers

47
Cultures without fertilizers proposed NMVOC
methodology

• Tier I
• methodology as proposed in chapter 'cultures with
  fertilizers'
• No Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods proposed.

48
Timetable - 1

• Preliminary drafts of 3 chapters already prepared
  for comment by Barbara and Nick
• zero order drafts to be submitted to co-authors
  by end August
• co-authors to comment by end September
• any issues raised by co-authors to be discussed
  at TFEIP meeting in October

49
Timetable - 2

• First order drafts for formal consultation by
  January 2008
• second order drafts to be prepared by May 2008
  for final revision

50
How do current chapters equate to the new

• Current
• 1010 Cultures with fertilizers
• 1020 Cultures without fertilizers
• 1040 Enteric fermentation
• 1050 Manure management regarding organic
  compounds
• 1090 Manure management regarding N compounds

51
(No Transcript)