Markus%20Amann,%20Janusz%20Cofala,%20Zbigniew%20Klimont,%20Wilfried%20Winiwarter,%20Wolfgang%20Sch

1
Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont,
Wilfried Winiwarter, Wolfgang Schöpp, Frantisek
Gyarfas, Imrich Bertok
Draft Baseline Scenariosfor CAFE 3rd
Stakeholder ConsultationBrussels, April 30, 2004
2
Integrated assessment in CAFE
Energy/agriculture projections
Driving forces
Emission control options
Emissions
Costs
Atmospheric dispersion
Health and environmental impacts
3

• Preparation of input data

4
Bilateral consultationsMain issues

• Energy projections
• Discrepancies of year 2000 energy statistics
• Comments on PRIMES projections
• Obvious discrepancies
• Differences in expectations
• Emission calculations
• Review of year 2000 emission inventory
• Penetration rates of control measures
• Emission control potential
• for
• SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM10/2.5

5
Bilateral consultations (1)
Country or organization Consultation meeting date No of experts Comments received Comments PRIMES Energy scenario Agr. scen
Denmark - - 16 Jan 04 - Y Y
Latvia - - 08 Oct 03 - - Y
EUROPIA 2-3 Oct 03 2 05 Dec 03 23 Mar 04 -
EURELECTRIC 30-31 Oct 03 4 - -
Hungary 14 Nov 03 1 - - - -
Germany 20-21 Nov 03 4 19 Dec 03 - 23 Mar 04 Y - -
Czech Republic 25 Nov 03 3 19 Dec - 27 Feb, 07Apr 04 Y - Y
ACEA 12 Dec 03 10 - -
Italy 15-16 Dec 03 2 19 Jan, 15 Feb - 02 Apr 04 Y Y -
France 8-9 Jan 04 5 31 Mar 04 - 2-15 Apr 04 Y Y -
Sweden 22-23 Jan 04 3 29 Jan, 09 Mar - 04 Apr 04 Y Y Y
UK 26-28 Jan 04 8 19 Feb, 03 Mar - 15 Mar, 06 Apr 04 Y - Y
Spain 4-5 Feb 04 5 30 Mar 04 - 13 Apr 04 Y - -
Red numbers indicate delivery after deadline
6
Bilateral consultations (2)
Country or organization Consultation meeting date No of experts Comments received Comments PRIMES Energy scenario Agr. . scen
Portugal 12-13 Feb 04 5 27 Feb, 03,05 Mar - 08 Apr 04 Y Y Y
Belgium 16-17 Feb 04 7 08 Mar - 2-13 Apr, 06 Apr 04 Y Y -
Austria 23 Feb 04 11 24 Feb - 18,19 Mar, 19 Apr 04 - - Y
Ireland 4-5/19 Mar 04 2 12,19 Mar 04 Y - Y
ESVOC 8 Mar 04 3 - - -
Finland 8-9 Mar 04 3 19,25 Mar 04 - 19 Apr 04 Y (Y) -
Lithuania 10 Mar 04 2 24 Mar 04 Y - -
Estonia 12 Mar 04 2 17 Mar 04 - - -
Slovakia 15 Mar 04 3 22 Mar 04 Y - -
Poland 17-18 Mar 04 2 17,18 Mar 04 - 07 Apr 04 - - -
Slovenia 22 Mar 04 2 24,29 Mar 04 - 01, 08 Apr 04 - Y Y
Netherlands 25-26 Mar 04 4 16 Mar 04 - 02,08,18 Apr 04 Y - Y
19 4 94 21 14 7 10
Red numbers indicate delivery after deadline
7
Bilateral consultations

• Despite time pressure, very constructive
  attitude at the meetings!
• Thorough, well prepared input from national
  experts!
• Prompt response to follow-up questions!
• THANK YOU!

• No contacts Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg,
  Malta.

8
Next steps

• June 2004
• Incorporation of national scenarios
• Feedbacks on the 2 draft emission scenarios
• Revised PRIMES scenario (with climate) taking
  into account country comments
• September 2004
• First set of policy scenarios

9
(No Transcript)
10
Janusz Cofala

• Approach to energy-related projections

11
CAFE energy baseline projections

• Two draft baseline projections available
• include PRIMES numbers plus additional
  assumptions from national submissions (e.g.,
  share of LDTs in freight transport, fuel use by
  off-road vehicles and maritime activities,
  corrections for fuel used outside EMEP area)
• National projections will be implemented by June
• Currently available for eight countries, some of
  them need to be completed or re-formatted
• Revised PRIMES projection by June

12
Approach for baseline emission projections

• Match nationally reported emission inventories
  for 2000
• Problem for some countries important differences
  between subsequent submissions (e.g., to CLRTAP,
  NEC, new national total different by gt 10)
• Values reported to CLRTAP plus changes documented
  during consultations taken into account
• Extrapolate penetration rates of control measures
  up to 2020
• Takes international and national legislation into
  account
• Done together with national teams to also include
  current practices

13
Problems encountered

• Tight schedule and thus late delivery of national
  data - not all comments could be included
• Insufficient time for iterations with national
  experts
• Problem with interpretation of national numbers
  (format, coverage)
• Inclusion of suggested changes would have created
  large inconsistencies with national inventories
• Consultations helped a lot in mutual
  understanding!

14
Transport emissions - approach (1)

• Exhaust emissions fuel use from PRIMES
• Non-exhaust emissions veh-km (derived from fuel
  use)
• Turnover of fleet taken from national estimates
• National emission factors applied where available
  (Auto/Oil estimates modified during
  consultations)
• Efficiencies of EURO-stages based on Auto/Oil
  info plus other sources (TREMOD, Austrian model,
  RICARDO - for EURO 5/6)

15
Transport emissions - approach (2)

• Impact of cycle-beating for trucks on NOx
  considered (ARTEMIS Project, report by TU Graz,
  2003),generates inconsistencies with some
  national 2000 emission inventories
• Other findings of ARTEMIS not included
• Data for off-road sources from EGTEI
• Consistency with TREMOVE not yet established
• Further calibration and updates is needed when
  new data become available

16
(No Transcript)
17
Zbigniew Klimont

• Comments on the agricultural projections

18
Available projections

• No-CAP reform projection is implemented
• National projections will be implemented by June
  2004
• CAP-reform scenario implementation depends on
  availability of data

19
Approach for baseline emission projections

• Capture major characteristics of national
  agricultural systems, including implementation of
  measures
• Match nationally reported emission inventories
  for 2000
• Extrapolate penetration rates of control measures
  up to 2020

20
Problems encountered

• Only limited response to the RAINS data sets
• Only few countries commented on control
  strategies
• A number of consistency issues encountered,
  i.e.,
• What are laying hens?
• Which horses emit ammonia and why not all of
  them?
• How to deal with changing production efficiency
  and its feedback on unit ammonia emissions?
• In some cases late delivery of national data
• Insufficient time for iterations with national
  experts

21
Comments on the projections of VOC related
activities
22
Available projections

• Baseline projection based on PRIMES (no climate
  policy) value added growth rates
• Additional information from national experts was
  used, especially for sectors that were only
  poorly correlated with the PRIMES broad sector
  categories
• National projections will be implemented by June
  2004

23
Approach for baseline emission projections

• Attempt to reproduce national implied emission
  factors including implementation of VOC control
  measures between 1990 and 2000
• Match nationally reported emission inventories
  for 2000
• Extrapolate penetration rates of control measures
  up to 2020

24
Problems encountered

• Late completion of RAINS for the non-energy
  sectors
• Limited response to the energy related data sets
• Several countries pointed out that data required
  by RAINS (although aggregated) is hardly or not
  available in national inventory systems
• Difficulty in defining national control
  strategies and future penetration rates
• Insufficient time for iterations with national
  experts

25
(No Transcript)
26

• Draft baseline emission projections

27

• Energy projections

28
Energy projections

• By now
• 2 Europe-wide projections implemented
• DG-TREN Baseline (no further climate measures)
• With climate measures
• By end of June
• National projections
• Revised PRIMES projection with climate measures,
  taking into account stakeholder comments

29
Energy use per fuel EU-15 PJ
30
Energy use per fuelNew Member States PJ
31
Energy use per sectorEU-15 PJ
32
Energy use per sector New Member States PJ
33

• Agricultural projections

34
Animal numbers (pre-CAP reform), relative to
2000
EU-15 New Member States
35

• SO2 emissions

36
Comparison of 2000 SO2 inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
37
SO2 emissions

• Measures
• Large Combustion Plant Directive
• S Content of Liquid Fuels Directive
• Directives on quality of petrol and diesel fuels
• IPPC legislation on process sources
• National legislation and national practices (if
  stricter)

38
SO2 emissions by fuelEU-15 kt
39
SO2 emissions by fuel New Member States kt
40
SO2 emissions by sector EU-15 kt
41
SO2 emissions by sector New Member States kt
42
Projected SO2 emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, EU-15
43
Projected SO2 emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, NMS
44

• NOx emissions

45
Comparison of 2000 NOx inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
46
NOx emissions

• Assumed measures
• LCP Directive
• Auto/Oil EURO standards
• Standards for motorcycles and mopeds
• Legislation on non-road mobile machinery
• Implementation failure of EURO-II and III for HDT
• IPPC legislation on process sources
• National legislation and national practices (if
  stricter)

47
NOx emissions by fuelEU-15 kt
48
NOx emissions by fuel New Member States kt
49
NOx emissions by sectorEU-15 kt
50
NOx emissions by sector New Member States kt
51
Projected NOx emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, EU-15
52
Projected NOx emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, NMS
53
Emissions from shipping of land-based EU-25
emissions
54

• VOC emissions

55
Comparison of 2000 VOC inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
56
VOC emissions

• Assumed measures
• Stage I Directive
• Directive 91/441 (carbon canisters)
• Auto/Oil EURO standards
• Fuel Directive (RVP of fuels)
• Solvents Directive
• Product Directive (paints)
• National legislation, e.g., Stage II

57
VOC emissionsEU-15 kt
58
VOC emissions New Member States kt
59
Projected VOC emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, EU-15
60
Projected VOC emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, NMS
61

• NH3 emissions

62
Comparison of 2000 NH3 inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
63
NH3 emissions

• Assumed measures
• No EU-wide legislation
• National legislations
• Current practice

64
NH3 emissions EU-15 kt
65
NH3 emissions New Member States kt
66
Projected NH3 emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, EU-15
67
Projected NH3 emissions in 2010compared to NEC
emission ceilings, NMS
68

• PM10 emissions

69
Comparison of 2000 PM10 inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
70
PM10 emissions

• Assumed measures
• LCP Directive
• Auto/Oil EURO standards
• Standards for motorcycles and mopeds
• Legislation on non-road mobile machinery
• IPPC legislation on process sources
• National legislation and national practices (if
  stricter)

71
Primary PM10 emissions by fuel EU-15 kt
72
Primary PM10 emissions by fuel New Member States
kt
73
Primary PM10 emissions by sector EU-15 kt
74
Primary PM10 emissions by sector New Member
States kt
75

• PM2.5 emissions

76
Comparison of 2000 PM2.5 inventoriesRAINS vs.
national estimates
77
Primary PM2.5 emissions by fuel EU-15 kt
78
Primary PM2.5 emissions by fuel New Member
States kt
79
Primary PM2.5 emissions by sector EU-15 kt
80
Primary PM2.5 emissions by sector New Member
States kt
81
Draft conclusions

• General downwards trend in emissions caused by
• Legislation on transport emissions
• Further penetration of natural gas
• Large Combustion Plant Directive
• Larger improvements in New Member States
• Caveats
• National energy projections might differ from
  PRIMES
• Further validation of emission estimates
  necessary
• More information on effects of transport emission
  legislation required

82
(No Transcript)
83

• Air quality impacts

84

• PM2.5
• Contribution from anthropogenic emissions
  excluding secondary organic aerosols
• No natural sources (soil, sea salt, biogenic,
  etc.) included!
• Rural concentrationsAnnual mean
• Average 1999 2003 meteorology

85
Anthropogenic contribution to PM2.5 2000
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2000 Average
meteorologyfor 1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
86
Anthropogenic contribution to PM2.5
2000 2010
2020
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2020, no further climate
measures, Average meteorology for 1999 and 2003
87
Inter-annual meteorological variabilityAnthropoge
nic contribution to PM2.5
1999 average
2003
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2000
88
Anthropogenic contribution to PM2.5 2010
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2010Baseline, no
further climate measures Average meteorologyfor
1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
89
Anthropogenic contribution to PM2.5 2020
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2020Baseline, no
further climate measures Average meteorologyfor
1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
90

• PM10
• Contribution from anthropogenic emissions
  excluding secondary organic aerosols
• No natural sources (soil, sea salt, etc.)
  included!
• Rural concentrations
• Annual mean
• Average 1999 2003 meteorology

91
Anthropogenic contribution to PM10 2000
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2000 Average
meteorologyfor 1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
92
Anthropogenic contribution to PM10
2000 2010
2020
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for the no further climate
measures scenario Average meteorology for 1999
and 2003
93
Anthropogenic contribution to PM10 2010
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2010Baseline, no
further climate measures Average meteorologyfor
1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
94
Anthropogenic contribution to PM10 2020
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2020Baseline, no
further climate measures Average meteorologyfor
1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian model
95

• Ozone AOT40
• Six months (April-September)
• Average 1999 2003 meteorology

96
AOT402000
AOT40 (ppm.hours) Emissions for 2000 Average
1999 2003 meteorology EMEP/MSC-W
97
AOT40
2000 2010
2020
Six months AOT40 (forests) ppm.hours Emissions
for the no further climate measures scenario
Average meteorology for 1999 and 2003
98
AOT402010
AOT40 (ppm.hours) Emissions for 2010no further
climate measures Average 1999 2003
meteorology EMEP/MSC-W
99
AOT402020
AOT40 (ppm.hours) Emissions for 2020no further
climate measures Average 1999 2003
meteorology EMEP/MSC-W
100

• Acidification of forest soils
• Percentage of forest area
• with acid deposition above critical loads
• Using ecosystem-specific deposition!
• Based on preliminary critical loads data!
• Average 1999 2003 meteorology

101
Excess of forest critical loads2000, Provisional
estimates!
Percentage of forest area with acid deposition
above critical loads Emissions for 2000 Using
ecosystem-specific deposition! Based on
preliminary critical loads data! Average 1999
2003 meteorology EMEP/MSC-W CCE
102
Excess of forest critical loads
2000 2010
2020
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for the no further climate
measures scenario Average meteorology for 1999
and 2003
103
Excess of forest critical loads2010, Provisional
estimates!
Percentage of forest area with acid deposition
above critical loads Emissions for 2010no
further climate measures Using
ecosystem-specific deposition! Based on
preliminary critical loads data! Average 1999
2003 meteorology EMEP/MSC-W CCE
104
Excess of forest critical loads2020, Provisional
estimates!
Percentage of forest area with acid deposition
above critical loads Emissions for 2020no
further climate measures Using
ecosystem-specific deposition! Based on
preliminary critical loads data! Average 1999
2003 meteorology EMEP/MSC-W CCE