Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?...
-
Upload
colleen-hopkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
2
Transcript of Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?...
Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas
Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?
Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki 5-6 September 2005H.H.J. Vreuls, SenterNovem
Outline
• Dutch GHG emissions
• Recalculations of GHG emissions
• Uncertainty analysis– TIER 1 uncertainty assessment– TIER 2 uncertainty assessment
• Conclusions
GHG Emissions Netherlands
1990: 211,7 Tg 2003: 214,8 Tg
CO2: sectoral trends and shares in 1990
0.30- 0.10- 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.90
1A1a Electricity and heat production
1A1c Other transformation
1A2 INDUSTRY
1A3 TRANSPORT
1A4a Commercial / Institutional
1A4b Residential
1A4c Agriculture / Forestry / Fishing
5 LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY
6 WASTE
Difference 2003-1990
Share in 1990
Reasons for recalculation 2005
• IPCC reporting requirements– Transparency– Completeness– Consistency in time series– Compliance with the IPCC guidelines– Accuracy
• Results from improvement programme
• Input from uncertainty analysis
Recalculations and emission data in the base year 1990
CO2: - 2,6 Tg (excluding LUCF)
+ 1,7 Tg (including LUCF)
CH4: - 1,5 Tg CO2-eq
N20: + 3,8 Tg CO2-eq
F-gases – 0,04 Tg CO2-eq
(1995)
Differences between NIR 2004 and NIR 2005 for the emission trends 1990-2002
GasCO2-eq. [Gg]
1)
NIR 2004 NIR 2005 Difference NIR 2004 NIR 2005 Difference
CO2 16.076 15.929 -146 10,0% 10,1% 0,1%
CH4 -8.633 -7.409 1.224 -31,6% -28,9% 2,7%
N2O -1.112 -3.341 -2.228 -6,8% -15,7% -8,9%HFCs -2.859 -2.865 -6 -64,5% -64,7% -0,1%PFCs -1.216 -699 517 -50,3% -33,1% 17,3%SF6 126 141 15 58,1% 65,1% 7,0%Total 2.381 1.756 -624 1,1% 0,8% -0,3%
Trend (percentage)Trend (absolute)
1) Excluding LUCF
TIER 1 Methodology uncertainties; assumptions
• All individual emissions sources are independent from each other
• The emission probability shows normal (Gaussian) distributions
• Uncertainties are smaller than + 60%
Top 12 sources in total annual uncertaintyIPCCcode
IPCC Source category Tg CO2-eq
1990
Tg CO2-eq
2003
Activity data
uncert.
Emissionfactor unc.
Total Uncertainty
1A1 CO2 from stationary combustion: energy industry 12.0 6.8 3% 2% 4%
1A2
CO2 emissions from stationary combustion : Manufacturing
Industries and Construction 32.8 27.1 3% 1% 3%
1A3 CO2 from stationary combustion: other sectors 38.0 40.6 10% 1% 10%
1A3b CO2 mobile from combustion: road vehicles 25.5 33.4 2% 2% 3%
2B N2O from nitric acid production 6.3 5.1 10% 50% 51%
4A1
CH4 from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock:
cattle 6.6 5.4 5% 20% 21%
4B CH4 from manure management: cattle 1.6 1.4 10% 100% 100%
4B CH4 emissions from manure management : swine 1.1 0.9 10% 100% 100%
4D Direct N2O from agricultural soils 4.6 4.8 10% 60% 61%
4D Indirect N2O from nitrogen used in agriculture 5.0 3.3 50% 200% 206%
5 CO2 from Land Use Change and Forestry 2.9 2.8 100% 100% 141%
6A CH4 from solid waste disposal sites 51.0 65.8 15% 30% 34%
Sum of emissions (percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions)
187.4 (87%)
197.3 (91%)
Adding uncertainty informationIPCC Source category Tg
CO2-eq.Activity data
uncert.Emission factor
uncert.Total
uncertainty
1A CH4 from stationary combustion0.5 3% 50% 50%
1A3d CO2 from mobile combustion: navigation0.6 50% 2% 50%
1B1 CO2 from coke production0.5 50% 2% 50%
1B2 CH4 from fugitive emissions oil/gas: gas
distribution 0.5 2% 50% 50%
2F SF6 from SF6 use 0.3 50% 25% 56%
4B N2O from manure management 0.6 10% 100% 100%
6B N2O from wastewater handling 0.4 20% 50% 54%
Sum of emissions (percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions)
3.4(2%)
Uncertainty in annual total national greenhouse gas emissions
Greenhouse gas NIR 2004calculated (reported)
uncertainty
NIR 2005calculated (reported)
uncertainty
Carbon dioxide ± 2% (± 3%) ± 4% (± 5%)
Methane ± 17% (± 25%) ± 18% (± 25%)
Nitrous oxide ± 34% (± 50%) ± 53% (± 50%)
F-gases ± 21% (± 50%) ± 11% (± 50%)
Total CO2-eq. ± 4% (± 5%) ± 6% (± 7%)
Trend in 1990-2002 emissions and IPCC Tier 1 trend uncertaintybefore and after recalculations
-62%
-7%
-32%
10%0.0%
-59%
-16%
-29%
10%0.1%
-80.0%
-60.0%
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
All 1) 2) CO2 1) CH4 N2O F-gases 2)
NIR 2004 NIR 2005 2) For F-gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) the base year is 1995.
1) Excluding CO2 from LUCF
No decrease of uncertainties after recalculations
• Application of new methods
• Uncertainties of newly identified key sources– CO2 emissions from LUCF
– Indirect N2O emissions from agricultural soils
• For F-gases higher quality activity data and more accurate emission data
Tier 2 uncertainty analysis
• Correlations between emission sources
• Specific probability density functions
Conducted in the Netherlands using 1990 and 1999 data– Using Monte Carlo method– Also qualitative uncertainty
Qualitative uncertainty:Typology of uncertainties
• Uncertainty due to variability– Natural randomness– Value diversity– Behavioral variability– Social randomness– Technological surprise
• Uncertainty due to limited knowledge– Measurable uncertainty– Structural uncertainty
Uncertainty due to limited knowledge
• Measurable uncertainty– Inexactness– Lack of observation/measurements– Practical immeasurable– Conflicting information
• Structural uncertainty– Reducible ignorance– Indeterminacy– Irreducible ignorance
Tier-1 and Tier-2 uncertainty assessment 1999
Greenhouse gas Tier 1 uncertainty
Tier 2 uncertainty
Carbon dioxide 2.7% 1.6%
Methane 16% 15%
Nitrous oxide 36% 29%
F-gases 20% 20%
Total CO2-eq. 4.5% 3.6%
Elements in the update TIER 2; about to start October 2005
• Updated and new information on expert judgment
• Key areas of interest for research
• Sensibility analysis using min/max values from EU member states
• Research on PDF and sources of uncertainty for selected areas
• TIER 2 uncertainty analysis 1990-2003
Conclusions
• Uncertainty assessments (TIER1 and 2) are used as a tool to prioritise improvements for GHG emission inventory
• More complex uncertainty assessments (TIER2) did not result in surprising, other insights
• Changes in methods resulting in recalculation did not result in ‘ better’ uncertainty values
Conclusions (continue)• Possible impact of methodological
changes seems not to be included in uncertainty assessments
• Update TIER 2 based on recalculated data and to justify no follow up of new TIER 2 for the next five years