RAINS overview

TFIEP Workshop on Emission ProjectionsThessaloniki, Greece, 30-31 October, 2006

Zbigniew KlimontEMEP Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM)

Content

• Principles and type of analysis

• Method and structure of emission calculation

• Data flow

• Calibration

• Projection data

• Examples of projections and arising issues

• More information?

• No conclusions

Cost-effectiveness needs integration

• Economic/energy development (projections)

• State of emission controls, available technologies, costs

• Atmospheric processes

• Environmental sensitivities

The RAINS model:Scenario analysis mode

Energy/agriculture projections

Emissions

Emission control options

Atmospheric dispersion

Costs

Driving forces

Health & environmental impact indicators

A multi-pollutant/multi-effect framework

Primary PM

Health impacts:- PM

SO2 NOx VOC NH3

via secondary aerosols

Acidification

Eutrophication

- Ozone

Vegetation damage: - Ozone

Multi-pollutant/multi-effect analysisfor identifying cost-effective policy scenarios

SO2 NOx VOCNH3PM

Health AcidificationEutrophication Ozone

Policy targets

IIASA’s RAINScomputer model

Uniform or effect-based scenarios?

REF

G5/3

G5/2

G5/1

UNIFORMPER CAPITAEMISSIONS

UNIFORM% REDUCTION

0

5

10

15

20

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Population exposure index (million persons.ppm.hours)

Co

sts

ab

ov

e R

EF

( Bil

lio

n E

UR

O/y

r)

The cost-effectiveness approach

Decision makers

Decide about•Ambition level (environmental targets)

•Level of acceptable risk

•Willingness to pay

Models help to separate policy and technical issues:

Models

Identify cost-effective and robust measures:

• Balance controls over different countries, sectors and pollutants

• Regional differences in Europe

• Side-effects of present policies

• Maximize synergies with other air quality problems

• Search for robust strategies

Emission sources (1)

• Several sectors: – energy

– industrial production

– transport

– solvent use

– agriculture

• Activities– fuels (17)

– processes (~70)

– other (e.g., livestock farming, paint use)

Emission sources (2)Criteria for aggregation

RAINS applies five criteria:

• Importance of source (>0.5 percent in a country)

• Possibility for using uniform activity rates and emission factors

• Possibility of establishing plausible forecasts of future activity levels

• Availability and applicability of “similar” control technologies

• Availability of relevant data

In spite all that effort….about 1500 emission categories included.

Emission sources (3)

Level of detail (1):

• Energy: – Power plants (by fuel and furnace type) – Industry (by fuel and furnace type) – residential combustion (by fuel and installation type)

• Industrial processes:– NMVOC module (over 20 sectors)– PM module (over 40 sectors)

• Transport:– Road (two-wheelers, cars, trucks; by fuel and engine type)– Off-road (several categories; by fuel)– Non-exhaust (brake, tyre, and road wear and evaporative)– Shipping (inland shipping, coastal zone, international)

Emission sources (4)

Level of detail (2):

• Agriculture: – Animal categories (by housing type)

– N-Fertilizer application (urea and other fertilizers)

– Industry

– Transport

– Other

• Other:– NMVOC module (e.g., evaporative losses from fuel distribution, paint

use, waste burning, etc.)

– PM module (agriculture, waste burning, storage and distribution of fuels and industrial products, etc.)

Emission sources (5)EXAMPLE: VOC processes/sources

Solvent use:• Dry cleaning and degreasing• Decorative paints• Industrial paint application• Vehicle manufacturing and

repair• Printing• Manufacture of paints, inks

and glue• Preservation of wood• Chemical industry• Tyre production• Pharmaceutical industry• Domestic use of solvents• Other

Oil production and use:• Off- and on- shore

exploration• Refineries• Storage of crude and

products• Distribution of products

(e.g., gasoline stations)

Mobile:• Evaporative emissions from

gasoline engines• Exhaust emissions from road

and off-road vehicles

Method - Calculating emissions

mkj

mkjiymykjikjimkj

ymkjiyi XeffefAEE,,

,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,, )1(

where:

i,j,k,m,y Country, sector, fuel, abatement technology, pollutant Ei,y Emissions in country i and pollutant (species) y A Activity in a given sector ef “Raw gas” emission factor effm Reduction efficiency of the abatement option m Xm Implementation rate of the considered abatement measure m

Method - Information on the level of activity

• Historical (1990,1995,2000) – statistics, communication with national experts, own assessments

• Forecasts (until 2030) – energy models, agricultural models, countries’ submissions

Method – emission factors

• “Unabated” emission factors for anthropogenic sources only

• Country/region specific factors taken into account wherever possible, i.e.:

– For SO2: fuel characteristics

– For PM: fuel and installation characteristics

– For NH3: N-excretion and volatilization, production efficiency, housing period

– For NMVOC: climatic conditions, volatility of fuels, solvent content of products

Method – abatement techniques

• Economic and technical information for “technical” measures

• For most techniques efficiency assessed from literature and communication with experts, however, country/region specific factors taken into account when necessary, i.e.:

– For NH3: geophysical conditions, feeding strategies

– For NMVOC: sector “composition”, solvent content of products

• Introduction of “applicability” parameter, i.e., maximum technically feasible application rate of control option

• Actual and projected penetration rate of control technology

Expert Groups

Data flow

National Inventory

UNECE - LRTAP UNFCCC

EU - NECD

Industrial inventory

EU – Solvent D.

EU – LCPD

EU – IPPC/EPER

EU – Other

Emissions

EMEP (Verification)

Parameters, e.g, abatement efficiencies

RAINS modelNationalExperts

IndustrialExperts

Activity data, emissions, abatement penetration

Changes in national emission inventories for 2000 - NEC vs. earlier assessment (1)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Au

str

ia

Be

lgiu

m

Fra

nc

e

Gre

ec

e

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

Be

lgiu

m

Cy

pru

s

Cze

ch

Re

pu

blic

Fra

nc

e

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ec

e

Ire

lan

d

Ma

lta

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sw

ed

en

UK

Be

lgiu

m

Fra

nc

e

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sw

ed

en

UK

Earlier NEC

SO2 NOx PM

Changes in national emission inventories for 2000 - NEC vs. earlier assessment (2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Au

str

ia

Be

lgiu

m

Fin

lan

d

Ge

rma

ny

Ire

lan

d

Lit

hu

an

ia

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sp

ain

UK

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Be

lgiu

m

De

nm

ark

Fra

nce

Ge

rma

ny

Lit

hu

an

ia

Ne

therl

an

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

ve

nia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

Earlier NEC

NH3SO2

VOC

National assessments vs. RAINS estimate for 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Irel

and

Italy

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

eden U

K

EU

-25

National estimates RAINS estimate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Irel

and

Italy

Lat

via

Lith

uan

ia

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

eden U

K

EU

-25

National estimates RAINS estimate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lit

hu

ania

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

eden U

K

EU

-25

National estimates RAINS estimate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep.

Den

mar

k

Est

on

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Lat

via

Lit

hu

ania

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Sp

ain

Sw

eden U

K

EU

-25

National estimates RAINS estimate

SO2 NOx

NH3 NMVOC

PM emissions – national assessment vs. RAINS estimate for 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Au

str

ia

Be

lgiu

m

Cy

pru

s

Cze

ch

Re

p.

De

nm

ark

Es

ton

ia

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nc

e

Ge

rma

ny

Gre

ec

e

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

La

tvia

Lit

hu

an

ia

Lu

xe

mb

ou

rg

Ma

lta

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

va

kia

Slo

ve

nia

Sp

ain

Sw

ed

en

UK

EU

-25

National estimates PM2.5 RAINS estimate

PM10TSP

Input data for projections

Driving forces • National information on projected energy (21),

agricultural (18) and other activities• European models:

– Energy and macroeconomic assumptions - PRIMES,– Agriculture - CAPRI, FAO, EFMA,– Transport - TREMOVE

• Other sources, e.g., industry (solvents), CEPMEIP

Parameters• Penetration of abatement techniques• Changes in efficiency of production• Applicability of abatement

Problems and uncertainties(SOx, NOx, PM)

• Transport – Veh-km and vehicle numbers often inconsistent with fuel consumption. Projections of vehicle numbers available only for a few countries

• Differences in reporting transport emissions – fuel sold vs. fuel used. For NEC fuel sold was taken

• PM estimates – some countries don’t report PM2.5 and PM10; often not all sources included

• Poor information on size an chemical speciation for several sources

• Larger uncertainty for un- or poorly regulated sources, i.e., industrial processes, off-road, domestic

• Availability of data on biomass use• ‘Real life’ reduction efficiencies, e.g., NOx-HDT, PM-DPM

Problems and uncertainties(NH3)

• For few countries issue of base year statistical data; inconsistencies between national and international data

• Poor information on housing systems in place and their future evolution

• Contradictory information on how existing legislation is or will be implemented

• Emissions from non-agricultural sources not always reported

• For a number of countries better information on current practices could lead to significant improvements, i.e., development of national emission factors

Changes in ammonia emissions for different activity projections

EU-25

80%

90%

100%

110%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NEC Baseline

CAFE-N

CAP1

Comparison of agricultural activity projectionsExample for Dairy cows

Dairy cows EU15

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Years

he

ad

s/h

ea

ds

in 2

00

0

Dairy cows - CAFE

Dairy cows - CAP1

Dairy cows - NEC

Dairy cows - CAP2

Dairy cows NMS

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Years

he

ad

s/h

ea

ds

in 2

00

0Dairy cows - CAFE

Dairy cows - CAP1

Dairy cows - NEC

Dairy cows - CAP2

Changes in ammonia emissions for different interpretation of law

Implementation of legislation – interpretation of IPPC Directive

EU-25

80%

90%

100%

110%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NEC - National IPPC

NEC Baseline

Changes in ammonia emissions for different interpretation of law

Implementation of legislation – interpretation of IPPC Directive

ITALY

80%

90%

100%

110%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NEC - National IPPC

NEC Baseline

UNITED KINGDOM

80%

90%

100%

110%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NEC - National IPPC

NEC Baseline

POLAND

80%

90%

100%

110%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NEC - National IPPC

NEC Baseline

Problems and uncertainties(NMVOC)

• Unsatisfactory resolution of emission reporting format does not allow for verification of emissions from solvent use

• Evaporative emissions from cars, residential combustion and solvent use contribute most to the uncertainty of 2000 estimates; the latter two retain their importance for 2020 calculations

• Better information on combustion technology used in residential sector essential for future work

• National projections for emissions from solvent use remain an exception; industry provided their perspective for a number of sectors and MS

• Emissions from open biomass burning often not included• Better collaboration between industrial associations and

national emission experts could lead to significant improvements

NMVOC emission trends (example for coating sector)national vs. industrial perspective

Country A

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

PAINT - National

PAINT - Industry

Country B

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

National

Industrial

More information

The background information available from:

• Home of RAINS:http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/

• The RainsWeb on line model: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/apd/RainsWeb

• The RAINS documentation:http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/databases.html

• The RAINS review: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/review