Diapositiva 1

1

ESCUELA TÉCNICA SUPERIOR DE INGENIEROS INDUSTRIALES UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID
DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERIA QUÍMICA INDUSTRIAL Y DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERIA QUÍMICA INDUSTRIAL Y DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE

MINISTERIO DE MEDIO AMBIENTE. DIRECCIÓN GENERAL
DE CALIDAD Y EVALUACIÓN AMBIENTAL
WORK UNDER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPAINS
ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY AND THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
OF MADRID
SPAINS EMISSION PROJECTIONS (SEP) PROJECT
Dr. Julio Lumbreras jlumbreras_at_etsii.upm.es
Thessaloniki, 30th October 2006
2
OUTLINE
1 - METHODOLOGY

• 1.1. Aim of the project
• 1.2. Activities
• 1.3 Pollutants
• 1.4. Projection methodology
• 1.5. EmiPro
• 1.6. Update system
• 2.1. Ex-post evaluation
• 2.2. RAINS comparison
• 2.3. National Emission Ceilings achievement
• 3. CONCLUSIONS

2 - RESULTS
3
1.1.- The aim of the project
Objectives

• To develop a consistent methodology to evaluate
  Spains Emission Projections
• To obtain the emission projections for the
  period 2001 2020

Critical aspects

• A tool for decision making process
• Projection Vs. Prediction
• - Activity projection vs. sectoral prospective
• Integration of sectoral studies and activity
  projections
• Full consistency with the National Atmospheric
  Emission Inventory (NEI)
• Basis for national AQ modelling

4
1.2.- Activities
Every activity under NEI using SNAP-97
nomenclature
SNAP Description Number of SL3
1 Combustion in energy and transformation industries 17
2 Non-industrial combustion plants 6
3 Combustion in manufacturing industry 30
4 Production processes 62
5 Extraction and distribution of fossil fuels and geothermal energy 14
6 Solvent and other product use 42
7 Road transport 15
8 Other mobile sources and machinery 10
9 Waste treatment and disposal 14
10 Agriculture 37
11 Other sources and sinks 44
TOTAL TOTAL 291
5
1.3.- Pollutants
Geneva Convention
Sulphur oxides (SO2SO3), measured as mass of SO2
Nitrogen oxides (NONO2), measured as mass of
NO2 Ammonia (NH3) Volatile organic compounds
(except methane) (NMVOC) Carbon monoxide
(CO) Particulate Matter (as TSP, PM10 and
PM2,5) Heavy metals lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and
mercury (Hg)
Kyoto Protocol
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous oxide
(N2O) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
As mass of each individual compound In CO2
equivalent weighted according to its global
warming potential
6
1.4.- Methodology
- The projections are developed under EEA and US
EPA framework

• The usual projection level is national (SNAP
  activity) and in annual basis.

• Macroeconomic variables are exogenous to the model

• Projections are specifically calculated for each
  pollutant included in the activities considered.

• Projections are associated to scenarios

• Starting considerations
• Technological
• Socioeconomic
• Statistical
• Legislative

• Hypothesis
• Activity rates
• Emission factors
• Emission trends

SCENARIO
7
Scenarios
8
NO
YES
CONCLUSIONS
Definition of a Target scenario
SCENARIOS Base BAU
SCENARIO Target
9
Integration criteria

• Development of macroscenarios for coherence
  assurance

• Once the relationship mapping has been clearly
  identified, it is only a matter of introducing
  consistency conditions into the hypothesis made
  under each scenario for a particular activity rate

10
1.5.- EmiPro

• EmiPro (Emission Projections) is a software tool
  specifically developed to handle all the data and
  procedures involved in the SEP project.

Last non-Beta version, currently v4.0
- Start screen -
11
Design issues

• Generally, projections are made on national basis
• But, the setting of thresholds derived from NEC
  Directives commitments must be done taking into
  account only a subset of the total national
  emissions

Solution

• Implementation of a parallel database system
  inside EmiPro corresponding to the two different
  geographic and pollutant scopes. None of them
  stores NUTS-3 level information

12
- Parallel projection scheme and information
stored in each database

• NEC-Base
• Only NMVOC, NH3, NOX and SO2
• SNAP 11 (nature) emissions are excluded
• NMVOC from SNAP 10 (agriculture) are excluded
• Emissions under the EMEP domain (Canary Islands
  are not included)
• Domestic and international cruise traffic (h gt
  1000 m) emissions are excluded
• National and international airport traffic (LTO
  cycleslt1000m) are included

13
Main functionalities
Storage and recovery of past (history) emissions
14
Main functionalities
Generation of projections from history data and
algorithm factors
15
Main functionalities
Storage and recovery of projected emissions
16
Main functionalities
Reports generation
17
Main functionalities
Quality Assurance/Quality Check
18
1.6.- Updating system
Projections 2001-2020 (NEI series 1990-year i-3)
year i
Updated NEI (series 1990-year i-2)
Inclusion of new policies and measures
9-month delay
Publication of new methodology (series 1990-year
i-2)
Projection update (NEI series 1990-year i-2)
year i1
Updated NEI (series 1990-year i-1)
Inclusion of new policies and measures
19
Conclusions from updating system

• It is not possible to obtain consistent emission
  projections until 9 months after NEI publication
• New policies and measures are included into
  emission projections as they appear vs. NEI
  annual updates

Other updates

• Base year intended to be changed every 5 years
• Temporal scope is extended, if necessary, when
  the base year is updated
• Historical data up to new base year are included
• Previous projected series are kept

20
OUTLINE
1 - METHODOLOGY

• 1.1. Aim of the project
• 1.2. Activities
• 1.3 Pollutants
• 1.4. Projection methodology
• 1.5. EmiPro
• 1.6. Update system
• 2.1. Ex-post evaluation
• 2.2. RAINS comparison
• 2.3. National Emission Ceilings achievement
• 3. CONCLUSIONS

2 - RESULTS
21
2.1.- Ex-post evaluation

• Each 2 years
• Projection values are checked against official
  NEI estimates
• Comparison at group and national level
• Deviation analysis
• due to trend estimation (non-updated NEI) (a)
• due to methodological issues (updated NEI) (b)

Ex-post evaluation for NH3 emissions
Ex-post evaluation for GHG emissions
(a)
22
(b)
Ex-post evaluation for total VOC emissions
Provisional data
23
2.2.- RAINS comparison

• Development of a 4-level hierarchy nomenclature
  (sub-SNAP SEP)
• Mapping RAINS-SEP (biunivocal correspondence)
• Comparisons
• Activity rate
• Technology penetration and emission factors
• NEC emissions

Fuel F Technology T Reduction measure M
01/01/01/01
SNAP
PP_EX_OTH-BC1-NOC
SEP
Power Plant (SNAP) Existing (T) Other boiler type
(T) Brown Coal (F) No Control Measure (M)
24
2.3.- NEC accomplishment
NH3 Emissions
Provisional data
25
VOC Emissions
Provisional data
26
NOx Emissions
Provisional data
27
SOx Emissions
Provisional data
28
Policies and measures included in base scenario
SNAP Groups Policy and measure
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 Strategy for saving energy and improving efficiency (E4)
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 9 Action plan for the implementation of E4 in the period 2005-2007
1, 2, 3, 4, 7 9 Plan for the electricity and gas sectors
1, 2, 3, 7 8 Plan for the increase of renewable energies
1 Directive 2001/80/EC for Large Combustion Plants
1 BREF on Large Combustion Plant
1, 4 BREF on Refineries
2, 6 National plan for house accessibility
1, 2, 3, 7 8 Directive related to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 11 Population projections for 2002-2020
3, 4 BREF on Iron and Steel production
3 BREF on Ferrous Metal processing
3, 4 BREF on Non-Ferrous Metal processes
3, 4 BREF on Cement and Lime production
3 BREF on Glass manufacture
3 BREF on Glass manufacture
4 BAT on ammonia manufacture
29
SNAP Policy and measure
4 BAT on ammonium nitrate manufacture
4 BREF on Chlor-Alkali manufacture
4 BREF on Large Volume Organic Chemicals
4 BREF on Pulp and Paper manufacture
4, 6, 7, 8 Strategic Plan for Transport Infrastructures
4, 5 Directive on the control of VOC emissions.
4, 8 OSPAR Convention
4 BREF on Food, Drink and Milk processes
6 Directive on the limitation of emissions of VOC due to the use of organic solvents
6 BREF on Textile processing
6 Reduction of the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the European Union
7 Auto Oil II programme
7 Agreements with car manufacturers
8 Directive against the emission of pollutants from engines in non-road mobile machinery
9 10 Waste plans
9 Directive on packaging and packaging waste
10 11 Nitrogen balance in Spanish agriculture
9, 10 11 Spanish Forestry Plan
10 11 Reform of the CAP. Medium-Term prospects for agricultural markets and income in the EU
30
Drivers comparison
  NEC (1999) NEC (1999) NEC (1999) SEP (2006) SEP (2006) SEP (2006) IIASA (2006) IIASA (2006) IIASA (2006)
  2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990
Pop. (Mp) 40,57 38,97 4,1 45,50 38,85 17,1 45,50 38,85 17,1
GDP (b) 631,20 377,96 67,0 695,57 406,25 71,2 - - -
Energy (PJ) 5215,00 3621,53 44,0 6674,58 N.A. - 6674,58 3618,12 84,5
Cattle (Mh) 6,00 5,13 17,0 5,67 5,06 12,0 6,14 5,08 20,9
Pigs (Mh) 20,30 15,98 27,0 26,33 16,94 55,4 26,94 16,99 58,6
Poultry (Mh) 83,10 44,92 85,0 181,53 166,26 9,2 170,03 157,19 8,2
F. use (kt N) 1052,00 1062,63 -1,0 1090,26 1074,17 1,5 1049,00 1074,17 -2,3
 Current situation 2005 NEC
Population (Mp) 44,11 40,57 8,7
GDP (billion ) 641,19 631,20 1,6
Energy (PJ) 6119,43 5215,00 17,3
Cattle (Mheads) 6,65 6,00 10,9
Pigs (Mheads) 24,89 20,30 22,6
Poultry (Mheads) 178,35 83,10 114,6
Fertiliser use (kt N) 1052,29 1052,00 0,0

• Most of the drivers were underestimated
• SEP and IIASA estimates show a reasonable
  agreement

Total National Data from 2004
31
2010 comparison SEP-NEC RAINS-NEC
Population (Mp) 12.15 12.15
GDP (billion ) 10.20 -
Energy (PJ) 27.99 27.99
Cattle (Mheads) -5.53 2.34
Pigs (Mheads) 29.70 32.72
Poultry (Mheads) 118.45 104.61
Fertiliser use (kt N) 3.64 -0.29
Emissions comparison for 2010 with NEC
SEP-NEC RAINS-NEC
NH3 2.18 0.48
NMVOC 30.09 -
NOx 22.13 35.43
SO2 -52.24 -32.63
32
3.- Conclusions

• Spain has a consistent methodology to evaluate
  emission projections
• A tailored software tool (EmiPro) supports data
  management, quality checks and report generation
• A specific nomenclature (SEP) has been developed
  with a SEP-RAINS mapping (open for comments)
• Spains projections have been compared against
  RAINS/GAINS results using this mapping
• SEP and RAINS emission trends are very similar
• Difficulties in the achievement of the ceilings
  for 2010 could be partly explained by unrealistic
  estimation of drivers trends when negotiating
  Spains emission ceilings