IAM activities in the UK

comparisons with GAINS & work on emission projections and the road transport sector

Helen ApSimon, T Oxley, N Hasnain, A Elshkaki + colleagues at AEA Technology; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; ENTEC; and the Met Office.

1. Some comparisons with GAINS

UK projections UEP 30 and scenarios from IIASA Ref 6 report

2. A slightly more detailed look at road transport emissions and questions re TREMOVE and GAINS

3. Brief update re NH3 and secondary PM

Comparisons with GAINS

i) Take UK activity data based on MARKAL energy projections, UK agricultural projections etc and combine with GAINS emission factors assuming different abatement options. Then compare with UKIAM projections based on same activity data and emission factors from AEA Technology as used in the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI). This also includes GHGs as well as AQ pollutants.

ii) Compare UK projections to 2020 with GAINS scenarios from the IIASA report (Ref 6) -for CLE, CP and TSAP scenarios

UK (kT)

in 2020

NAEI

(UEP30)

GAINSCurrent policy

GAINSEC Envir.

targets

GAINSMTFR

SO2

NOx

PM2.5

NH3

VOC

292

789

65.8

287

844

210

625

60

268

855

175

554

52

236

855

144

445

46

198

657

Comparison GAINS scenarios with NAEI projections

Differences between GAINS and NAEI due to differences in energy, transport, agric. projections as well as assumptions about technology and emission factors

Also differences in CO2 and GHG emissions but will concentrate on AQ pollutants

SO2 (2020)

SO2(2020)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8

kT

UEP 30

G-CLE

G-CP

G-TSAP

Bit more coal , less biomass in UEP30 (also no CCS yet but ? In future)

Sometimes similar emissions but different assumptions e.g. S content coal and FGD efficiency

New sources of importance e.g. cement

Some sources not found in GAINS e.g. brick manufacture

New work on shipping by ENTEC: ?what shipping included as national emissions under NECD.

NOx(2020)

0

50

100

150

200

250

SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8

kT

UEP 30

G-CLE

G-CP

G-TSAP

NOx(2020)

Again more coal and gas, less biomass

? assumptions about domestic boilers

Differences in activity data industry

Differences within transport sector- see later

Some big differences within SNAP 8 – off-road sources

PM2.5(2020)

02468

101214161820

SNAP 1 SNAP2 SNAP3&4 SNAP7 SNAP8 SNAP10

kT

UEP 30

G-CLE

G-CP

G-TSAP

PM2.5 (2020)

Comparison more difficult:-

sources in UEP30 that are not in GAINS, and vice versa

e.g BBQ & meat frying in GAINS, quarrying, bricks, industrial coatings in UEP 30

greater differences in individual sources, both EFs and activity data

(cancel out to some extent within SNAP sectors)

agriculture- differences in animal numbers and EFs, also in non-livestock. emissions (same for NH3)

Transport NOx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

buses HDVs LDVs Pcars Dcars Mcycle

kT

NAEI

G-CP

Transport PM2.5 NAEI G-CP

exhaust 3.63 2.96

brakes etc 6.23 5.61

Trend to diesel- to differences in diesel to petrol car ratio

Importance of non-exhaust emissions (GAINS includes road abrasion)

Road transport

BRUTAL bottom up model

Differences between top-down modelling (TREMOVE/GAINS)

and bottom up modelling (BRUTAL individual roads in network)

Sensitivity to treatment of:

vehicle speeds

cold start

degrading

catalyst failure

vehicle mix (engine size)

Importance of non-exhaust emissions for PM

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

18 28 34 40 45 51 54 80 95 95 113

road types

emis

sion fac

tor PC1

PC2

PC3

DC1

DC2

DC3

Influence of speed and cold starts in BRUTAL/UKIAM:

example EFs for NOx for petrol and diesel cars in 2010

Ave EFs gm/km PC- petrol car DC- diesel car

1 No cold start .049 .132

2. +Cold start COPERT II .074 .137

3. +Cold start COPERT IV .057 .137

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

18 28 34 40 45 51 54 80 95 95 113

road type

emis

sion fac

tor

PC1

PC2

DC1

DC2

Effect of trip length: change from 8.4 to 10 km

Cold start emissions concentrated in urban areas with short journeys- relevant to urban air quality assessments

PETROL CARS

Catalytic failure is included based on The following failure rates are assumed in the BRUTAL modelEuro I 5%EURO II 1.5%Euro III and IV 0.5%

Degradation rate

The following degradation rates are assumed in the model for vehicles >80,000 kmEuro I 60%Euro II 60%EURO III 20%

CONCLUSION

Substantial uncertainties in emissions from transport depending on treatment of

vehicle speeds

cold starts

catalyst failure

degrading with mileage

trends in engine size & diesel v petrol

Need to understand how these are modelled to make true comparison.

AMMONIA

Beyond the CP scenario to TSAP a lot of the costs are incurred by measures to reduce ammonia.

Helps to justify if additional benefits as well as protection of ecosystems, in particular for human health.

-> broader more integrated approach to NH3 and the nitrogen cycle, including interaction with other pollutants and role in secondary inorganic aerosol, SIA

-> new data from EMEP supplied (to follow up initial studies by Andrea Fraser on NH3 as limiting factor for SIA)

Effect of change in NH3 from 2010 to TSAP scenario

Effect of change in NOx from 2010 to TSAP scenario

Pollutant interactions for 2ndry PM: EMEP model

END