Upload
olesia
View
27
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Relative Responsibility Assessment of Sectors and States: Oxidized-Nitrogen Deposition in 2020. Robin L. Dennis NOAA/EPA Atmospheric SciencesModeling Division January 10, 2007 Chesapeake Bay Modeling Subcommittee Meeting Annapolis, MD. Total Ox-N Deposition Decreases Significantly - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Relative Responsibility Assessment of Sectors and States:
Oxidized-Nitrogen Deposition in 2020
Robin L. DennisNOAA/EPA
Atmospheric SciencesModeling Division
January 10, 2007Chesapeake Bay Modeling Subcommittee Meeting
Annapolis, MD
Decrease
Total Ox-N Deposition Decreases SignificantlyBetween 2001 and 2020 Due to Air Regulations
Increase
Decrease
However:Decreases in total ox-N deposition areseverely mitigated by increases intotal red-N deposition, driven by drydeposition. Note: We believe red-N dry deposition is too high in CMAQ. Also,OAQPS will no longer grow NH3 emissions in its new 2020 projections.
Time Trend in Proportions of Ox-N and Red-Nfrom ExtRADM (1990) and CMAQ
(averaged over Chesapeake Bay watershed)
1990 2001 2010 2020
High Low High Low High Low
Oxidized-N 67% 62% 64% 48% 52% 40% 44%
Reduced-N 33% 38% 36% 52% 48% 60% 56%
Low = Reduced dry deposition of ammonia (adapted from sensitivity study) + less growth over time. These are judged to be more “realistic” conditions than the Base Case, which is the High case.
The Average Proportion of 40:60 for 2020 isHighly Variable Across the Chesapeake Watershed
Old 1990 Sector Maps: Utilities
Oxidized-Nitrogen Deposition2020 Sector Responsibility: Power Plants
%
Old 1990 Sector Maps: Mobile
Oxidized-Nitrogen Deposition2020 Sector Responsibility: Mobile Sources
%
Old 1990 Sector Maps: Industry
Note scale change
Old 1990 Sector Maps: Other
Note scale change
Oxidized Nitrogen DepositionSector Responsibility
Watershed
1990 2020Preliminary
Power Plants (EGU’s) 40% 17%
Mobile Sources (on-road) 30% 32%
Industry 8% 20%
Other (off-road-construction; residential & commercial) 21% 31%
Oxidized-Nitrogen Deposition2020 Sector Responsibility: Industry
%
Oxidized Nitrogen DepositionSector Responsibility
(Preliminary)
Water-shed
Above-FallLine
Below-FallLine
Bay
EGU’s 17% 17% 15% 15%
Mobile 32% 31% 34% 31%
Industry 20% 20% 18% 17%
Other 31% 31% 32% 36%
Above the Fall Line
75% of total watershed ox-N deposition
Top 3 Basins (85% of Above Fall Line Deposition)
EGU's Mobile Industry Other
James 18% 28% 25% 30%
Potomac 18% 30% 20% 31%
Susque-hanna
17% 33% 19% 32%
Oxidized Nitrogen DepositionSector Responsibility
(Preliminary)
Oxidized Nitrogen DepositionSector Responsibility
(Preliminary)
Below the Fall Line
25% of total watershed ox-N deposition
Top 5 Basins (84% of Below Fall Line Deposition)
EGU's Mobile Industry Other
E. Shore 16% 33% 18% 34%
James 17% 31% 21% 32%
Potomac 14% 38% 16% 32%
W. Shore 12% 37% 16% 35%
York 18% 32% 21% 30%
Relative Responsibility for Ox-N Deposition to Watershed: Airshed and Bay States
1990 Results from ExtRADM
Relative Responsibility:Airshed and Bay States
2001 and 2020 Results from CMAQYet to Come –
Suspicion: Both %’s will increase by 2020
Airshed
Emissions
Bay State
Emissions
76% 50%
Problem with Bay State Calculations
We ran into a nonlinearity in the brute-force sensitivity approach we use to assess relative responsibility. CMAQ has more up-to-date dynamics for the gas-particle partitioning.
• The result is an overestimate of the relative responsibility for each member. Thus, when we add together the individual responsibility percentages, they sum to much more than 100.
• This affected the localized State responsibility results more than the across-the-board Sector responsibility results.
We believe the sensitivity to the nonlinearity is significantly enhanced for 2020 conditions, compared to 1990, due to the increased relative importance of ammonia.
We will need to employ a more accurate mathematical approach to replace the brute-force sensitivity approach. We have a new approach available for set up with CMAQ.
Distribution of Bay State Responsibilityfor Bay State Deposition to the Watershed
(NOT a % of overall responsibility)
1990 2020
Maryland 18.5% 24.2%
Pennsylvania 34.1% 28.0%
Virginia 21.0% 22.8%
Delaware 1.8% 1.2%
New York 9.7% 10.5%
West Virginia 15.0% 13.4%
Relative responsibility stays pretty similar over time.But, Maryland and Pennsylvania get closer together.
Future Work/Next StepsRelated to Responsibility Determinations
• Bay State Contributions Using More Advanced Technique– 2001 (to get a more current estimate)– 2020 (to see where we are going)
• Sector Contributions Using More Advanced Technique– 2001– 2020 (better establish the change identified to date)
• Airshed Contribution Using More Advanced Technique– 2001– 2020 (we expect a change between 2001 and 2020)
• Ammonia– Trend in emissions: Harmonize with Bay Program– Better dry deposition rate in CMAQ