ICOS Science Conference, Session 7

1. COMPILING A MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY OF
PUBLIC POWER AND HEAT PLANT POINT SOURCE
EMISSIONS IN THE EU
STIJN DELLAERT, HUGO DENIER VAN DER GON, ANTOON VISSCHEDIJK,
JEROEN KUENEN, INGRID SUPER

2. EMISSION INVENTORIES01.
CURRENT PROBLEMS02.
COMPILING A MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY03.
RESULTS04.
OVERVIEW
05. OUTLOOK

3. High resolution spatially distributed emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants (AP) are
needed as:
Input to atmospheric modelling of air pollutant and greenhouse gas concentrations
A prior estimate of emission value and location in inverse modelling and data assimilation systems
using in-situ or satellite observations
Information on co-emitted species and ratios for emission source attribution based on pollutant
ratios and/or isotopic signatures
Data assimilation system
WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
EMISSION INVENTORIES

4. Public power and heat (PPH) sector total contribution to emissions is significant:
Why correct location of (small) point sources is important:
Simulated power plant CO2 plume
In urban areas, larger and smaller PPH plants can be local hotspots of emissions, leading to a large
concentration gradient in the atmosphere
→ Accurate and complete emission inventories are important for modelling and/or interpreting observations
PUBLIC POWER AND HEAT
EMISSION INVENTORIES
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CO NOX PM2_5 SO2 CO2_bf CO2_ff
Share of emissions by sector, EU-27+3, 2017 L_AgriOther
K_AgriLivestock
J_Waste
I_OffRoad
H_Aviation
G_Shipping
F_RoadTransport
E_Solvents
D_Fugitives
C_OtherStationaryComb
B_Industry
A_PublicPowerHeat

5. Datasets:
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) → AP & GHG
Large Combustion Plants (LCP) → NOx, SOx & PM
Based on official annual reporting under Industrial Emissions Directive
Reporting by plant operators, determined by regular or continuous emission monitoring in the flue stack
Reporting checked by EC/EEA
→ useful for creating time series (e.g. VERIFY emission inventory includes 2005 – 2017)
But:
Static threshold value for annual emissions levels (E-PRTR) or plant size (LCP, >50 MWth)
→ Leads too…
DATA SOURCES ON PPH EMISSIONS
EMISSION INVENTORIES

6. For small PPH plants, emission data is not publicly available in a centralized location
Example: missing wood-based PP (13 MW) near Heidelberg observational station (VERIFY case study region)
Red: coal-fired power plant
Green: wood-fired power plant (small)
Yellow: Institute for Environmental Physics
Heidelberg
Picture from Claudius Rosendahl & Samuel Hammer
WHAT IF INVENTORY IS INCOMPLETE?
CURRENT PROBLEMS

7. For medium-large PPH plants, pollutant reporting usually not complete:
→ Point source emissions < country totals
In TNO inventories: remainder is distributed using spatial proxies (e.g. CORINE industrial areas)
WHAT IF INVENTORY IS INCOMPLETE?
CURRENT PROBLEMS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Number of plants reporting emissions in E-PRTR dataset
Total plants reporting
CO
CO2
Nox
PM10
Sox

8. Linking (consistent ID for all years):
E-PRTR (location, emissions of GHG and AP)
LCP (fuel consumption and emissions of NOx, SOx and PM)
Platts WEPP dataset (additional information on fuel types)
Gapfilling:
Combining emissions from E-PRTR and LCP datasets
Calculating CO2 emissions from fuel consumption (LCP) where needed
When emission value is missing, use plant-specific pollutant ratio’s (e.g. NOx/CO2) to fill missing years
When emission value is missing for all years, use country + fuel-specific pollutant ratio to fill missing years
Additionally:
Manual correction of coordinates for >10% of plants
Apply fuel split, where needed using country-specific emission factors from IIASA GAINS
COMBINING DATASETS AND GAPFILLING
COMPILING A MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY

9. Problem of incomplete reporting for medium/larger plants can be ameliorated:
→ more smaller point sources!
→ better co-emitted species ratios for individual point sources
But no solution yet for small plants that are outside of the reporting datasets
If plant does not report any emissions in a year, no gapfilling is performed
MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY
RESULTS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Number of plants with emissions incl. gapfilled
Total plants reporting
CO
CO2
Nox
PM10
Sox

10. MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY
RESULTS
Number of PPH point sources for CO2 is
almost doubled
Gapfilled emission value may be more uncertain,
But..
In data assimilation, a prior emission value
can be scaled when>0, but not when it is missing
* Size of dot indicates emission source strength

11. For most species, modest effect in terms of additional absolute emissions
For CO, gapfilling “overshoots” country total for some countries
“Overshoot” also checked on country-level to validate gapfilling procedure
MORE COMPLETE INVENTORY
RESULTS
-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
CO CO2 NOx PM10 SOx
Pointsourceemissionscomparedto
sectorreporting
Point source emissions compared to reported sector total
E-PRTR Additional gapfilling

12. Emissions are split by fuel type
Allows for the distinction between
short-cycle CO2 and fossil-based CO2 emissions
FUEL SPECIFIC INVENTORY
RESULTS

13. Small PPH plants are still missing from the inventory
Included in some commercial datasets, but without emissions values or fuel consumption
Recent work on collecting data on biogas production & combustion plants (~20,000 in Europe)
Gapfilling introduces uncertainty in emission levels, however, in many applications it is useful to have
a correctly located emission source, even when the emission level is less certain
Since this year, E-PRTR and LCP reporting are integrated → easier linking and combining of data
REMAINING ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
OUTLOOK

14. This study was supported by:
the VERIFY project (EC H2020 GA no. 776810)
the CO2 Human Emissions (CHE) project (EC H2020 GA no. 776186)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

15. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION

16. CONSEQUENCES OF GAPFILLING
RESULTS (BONUS)
Emissions compared to sector total Number of plants reporting
Species years EPRTR LCP/EPRTR + gapfilling EPRTR LCP/EPRTR + gapfilling
CO
2004 & 2007 59% 134% 108 1,487
2015 – 2017 39% 117% 96 1,700
CO2
2004 & 2007 86% 94% 900 1,627
2015 – 2017 84% 93% 966 1,822
NOx
2004 & 2007 88% 93% 1,004 1,627
2015 – 2017 82% 86% 910 1,822
PM10
2004 & 2007 60% 91% 244 1,546
2015 – 2017 43% 57% 134 1,752
SOx
2004 & 2007 79% 92% 592 1,612
2015 – 2017 96% 100% 395 1,778

17. CONSEQUENCES OF GAPFILLING
RESULTS (BONUS)
-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
AUT BEL BGR CHE CYP CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GRC HRV HUN IRL ITA LTU LUX LVA MLT NLD NOR POL PRT ROU SRB SVK SVN SWE
Pointsourceemissionscomparedtosectorreporting
CO2 emissions Public power and heat
E-PRTR Additional gapfilling