dmug 2016 - alun roberts-jones, environment agency
Post on 27-Jan-2017
147 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Lagrangian particle modelling for long range ecological impacts
Presentation to DMUG Alun Roberts-Jones Environment Agency Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit 19th April 2016
2
Outline of presentation Typical dispersion model types Long range Lagrangian model Case study – impact of ESI plant on habitat sites Results – modelling comparison to monitoring Case study conclusions Complex long range models future in regulation
New generation Gaussian plume models Models dispersion assuming a Gaussian distribution Skewed Gaussian distribution under convective conditions
3
Schematic of the Gaussian plume (Schulze and Turner, 1996)
Emission rate constant over each hour Hourly sequential meteorological data Turbulent diffusivity
Boundary layer depth Monin-Obukov length
Wind speed and direction constant in space and time No change in wind direction over distance Accurate to 10 - 15 km 4
New generation Gaussian plume models
Gaussian Puff Models Lagrangian Particle Models Eulerian Advection and Dispersion Models Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
5
Other types of dispersion models
6
NAME Lagrangian Model Met Office Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion Modelling Environment (NAME) Stochastic Lagrangian Model Accounts for various atmospheric processes 3D model atmosphere
7
NAME applications
Emergency response
Nuclear incidents
Volcanic Ash Services
Source: Met Office
8
Case study part of ESI sector review Habitat Regulations assessment in 2007
Review of Consents for including Habitats Directive into IPPC
Concerns about deposition and ecological effects Opt-in installations given an improvement conditions to identify and monitor at certain sensitive Natura 2000 sites Ecological monitoring programme Linked to ESI sector permit reviews – Success? Continued monitoring required? Project to analyse data, and predict contribution from some of the ESI facilities
9
Source and habitat locations
10
Modelling assumptions Long range NAME modelling
NAME III version 6 Emissions of NOX and SO2 Emissions data – site specific hourly time varying emissions 2012 Efflux parameters – site specific Plume rise Dry deposition, includes plume depletion Meteorological data – NWP UM 4km resolution 2012 Receptors – gridded receptors over each habitat site Outputs – hourly and annual concentration and dry deposition outputs
11
Sensitivity analysis Number of particles Sync time Near source scheme
Plume rise
Dry deposition Time varying emissions v Flat annual emissions
12
Annual mean NOX results
13
NOX PCs comparison
14
Nutrient nitrogen deposition comparison
0.2 0.13 0.1 0.18
15
Annual mean SO2 results
16
SO2 PCs comparison
17
Acid deposition comparison
18
Case study conclusions NOX
Combined modelled contribution only represents a small proportion relative to measured concentration. NOX dominated by other sources, eg traffic and more localised small combustion plants
SO2 Combined modelled contribution similar to measured value. Power stations likely to be a more dominant contributor to SO2 at the habitat sites Modelled contribution and measured values well below critical level
Deposition Approximation using AQTAG06 method Nutrient nitrogen and acid (N + S) – combined contributions small relative to measured and APIS values Dominated by other sources of N deposition.
19
Modelling helped underpin decision Can not confidently attribute changes in measured values to emissions from ESI facilities:
Small individual process contributions from each of the plant Modelling and monitoring uncertainties Inter-annual variation
Monitoring data Useful to determine current levels and status of habitat sites Useful to compare and confirm modelling conclusions
Continued monitoring Useful scientific exercise for reporting on site condition Unlikely to provided further insight on ESI emissions on the sites
20
Long range models – future use? Not routinely used for regulation Useful tool in regulatory case studies, understanding impacts which can help underpin decision making Complex modelling provides valuable insight in situations where simpler Gaussian models are limited
Large sources with longer range of impact No change to current regulatory stance or modelling policy
The Environment Agency does not favour or prescribe the use of any particular model Gaussian models still widely applicable for regulatory purposes
top related