Upload
timothy-mckinney
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Revision of EMEP/CORINAIR emissions Guidebook
Chapters on agricultural emissions
How current chapters equate to the new
Current New
1010 Cultures with fertilizers 4D Agric. soils
1020 Cultures without fertilizers 4D Agric. soils
1040 Enteric fermentation Not needed
1050 Manure management C compounds
4B Manure management
1090 Manure management N compounds
4B Manure management
1030 Stubble burning 4F Field burning
Order of explanation
Ammonia (NH3)
Nitric oxide (NO)
Non-methane VOCs (NMVOCs)
PM –Klaas and Torsten are working on this
Reasoning behind Tiers
Consistent with Justin’s definitions this morning
•T1 - readily available statistics
• combined with default EF
•T2 - process/practice-specific conditions
• combined with default EF, but with provision for national EF when available
•T3 - goes beyond the above, e.g. models
Chapter 4D – Tier 1 NH3 methodology
Separate emission factors (EF) for major types of N fertilizer, including
• ammonium nitrate (AN)• urea• ammonium sulphate (AS) and phosphate (AP)
Three climatic regions according to their mean spring air temperatures:
Region A, ts > 13 °C; B 6 °C < ts < 13 °C;
C ts < 6 °C
Tier 1 – examples of EF
Fertilizer Region A Region B
AN 0.020 0.015
Urea 0.200 0.170
AS 0.025 0.020
AP 0.025 0.020
Solutions 0.110 0.090
Chapter 4D – Tier 2 NH3 methodology
For fertilizer types, for which evidence is available, different EF for arable and grassland
In each of the three climatic regions
A multiplier when AS and AP applied to soils of pH >7
Tier 2 – examples of EF, Region B
Fertilizer Arable Grass Multiplier
AN 0.008 0.016 1
Urea 0.115 0.230 1
AS 0.020 0.020 10
AP 0.020 0.020 10
Solutions 0.060 0.120 1
Tier 3 – process-based models
Example of a simple process-based model is provided by Misselbrook et al. (2004)
Each fertilizer type is associated with a maximum potential emission (EFmax)
Modified by functions relating to • soil pH• land use• application rate• rainfall • and temperature
Chapter 4B -Tiers 1, 2 and 3
Following IPCC approach we begin (in concept) with the most complex approach (Tier 3) and then simplify to produce Tiers 2 and 1
4B Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology
Tier 3
Mass-flow approach
All N losses and transformations are estimated using Tier 3 methodology
• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN
• immobilization of TAN in litter
• emissions of N2O, NO and N2
In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management
4B – NH3 Tier 3
Mass balance models developed by the reporting country may be used
A calculation procedure is outlined (as a Tier 2 method) in which country-specific EF may be used
4B – NH3 Tier 2
A process-based, mass balance approach, which tracks N throughout the system, starting with feed input through final use/disposal, is proposed as a Tier 2 procedure
The Tier 2 method uses default EF for each stage of manure management
• But requires the use of country-specific activity data, for example, the proportions of livestock sub-categories on different manure management systems
• default data are provided for N excretion
4B – NH3 Tier 2
In addition to NH3-N EF, default EF are
provided for all other N losses and transformations to be estimated
• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN • immobilization of TAN in litter • emissions of N2O, NO and N2
In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management
Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?
Increasing the number of EF to account for emissions at each stage of manure management and discriminating between systems and abatement measures, makes the calculation of the interactions between abatement measures complicated
In particular, such an approach may fail to recognise that introducing abatement at an early stage of manure management, e.g. housing, will, by conserving NH4
+-N,
increase the potential size of NH3 emissions later, i.e.
during storage or after spreading
Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?
In fact the procedure is not complicated
The calculation routines may be lengthy• but are easy to follow
Defaults are provided• derived from EF used in published mass-flow models such as • DYNAMO (CH)• DAN-AM (DK)
4B – NH3 Tier 1
Tier 1 entails multiplying the total number of animals in each livestock class by a default EF
• expressed as kg NH3-N/animal/year
Default EF were calculated using Tier 2 default NH3 EF for each stage of manure management including, where appropriate,
• grazing, default N excretion data and default data on %TAN in excreta
• where appropriate, separate EF are provided for slurry- and litter-based manure management systems
• the user may choose the EF for the predominant manure management system for that livestock class in the relevant country
4B Manure Management - proposed NO methodology
No robust method available, for housing and storage emissions
An estimate is available of losses during storage as part of the Tier 2 and 3 approaches to estimating NH3
emissions • mass flow will estimate N applied to soils • NO emissions may then be 0.7% of manure-N applied.
4D - proposed NO methodology for fertilizer application
Tier 1• 0.7 % of applied mineral fertilizer-N
An improvement in estimates of NO emissions from soils may only be achieved by use of detailed mechanistic models, which allow simultaneous calculation of production, consumption and emission of NO from soils with regard to all processes involved
No Tier 2 or Tier 3 proposed
4D - proposed NMVOC methodology
Tier 1
An estimate may be made for a few crop types based on the crop area and published EF
• However, there is insufficient published data to enable compilation of an inventory
No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach
4B Manure Management - proposed NMVOC methodology
Tier 1
Some EF per animal for livestock classes
No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach
4B Manure Management - proposed authors
Ulrich Dämmgen (Germany)
Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
Harald Menzi (Switzerland)
Carlos Pineiro (Spain)
Martin Dedina (Czech Republic)
Brian Rumberg (USA)
Shabtai Bittman (Canada)
Karin Groenestein (the Netherlands - NO)
Phil Hobbs (UK -NMVOC)
Klaas van der Hoek (Netherlands – PM)
Torsten Hinz (Germany – PM)
4D Agricultural soils – proposed authors
Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
Tom Misselbrook (UK)
Pierre Cellier (France)
Kentaro Hayashi (Japan)
Ute Skiba (UK – NO)
David Simpson (EMEP - NMVOCs)
4F- Stubble burning – current approach
Simple methodology
Where an EF is combined with an activity statistic, i.e. the amount of residue burnt.
It is assumed in this methodology that a dry weight of straw from cereal crops is 5 tonnes per ha
Stubble burning – current approach
Detailed methodology
An improvement can only be achieved by a prior knowledge of the dry weight per ha yielded from a specific crop
Some crop residue statistics are provided by the GHG Inventory Reference Manual
The following ratios for residue/crop product are given: wheat 1.3, barley 1.2, maize 1, oats 1.3 and rye 1.6.
Stubble burning – proposed approach
Tier 1
simple EF to be provided
Tier 2
country-specific EF
Tier 3
process-based modelling, if an approach is available
4F - Stubble burning – proposed authors
Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel
Bryan Jenkins (US)
Cecile de Klein ? (New Zealand)
Any volunteers ?
Summary
Explain which chapters
explain Tiers for each pollutant in each chapter
agree co-authors• Including from outside area to get methodology accepted by UNFCC?
explain timetable
4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 Tier 2
Tier 2
the Tier 2 method follows the same calculation equation as Tier 1 but would include the use of technology- or climate-specific activity data
• For example, the use of country-specific N excretion rates for livestock categories would constitute a Tier 2 methodology
• proportions of livestock on slurry or FYM• use default EF based on technology and climate
Cultures with fertilizers – current NH3 methodology
Simpler methodology
an EF for each type of N fertilizer• applied in all countries
e.g. AN 2%, Urea 15%
Cultures with fertilizers – current NO methodology
0.7 % of applied mineral fertilizer-N
Cultures with fertilizers – current NMVOC methodology
The sparse information on emissions of NMVOCs did not allow for the construction of even a simpler methodology
however, an equation provided to estimate the order of magnitude of NMVOC emissions
4B - proposed NH3 methodology for fertilizer application
Tier 1
since Tier 1 is a reference table, why not use the climatic regions?
Tier 2• use Tier 2 where activity data are available on amounts applied to arable
and grassland• effect of calcareous soils
Tier 3
process-based model of the type developed by Tom for the UK [do not describe new tier 3s – refer]
Manure Management N Compounds - current NH3 methodology
Simpler methodology
the use of an average EF per animal for each class of animal multiplied by the number of animals
Detailed methodology
mass-flow approach
Manure Management N Compounds - current NO methodology
Simpler methodology
no method
Detailed methodology
NO emissions calculated as part of mass flow aproach
4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology
Tier 1
in the current simpler approach the EF per animal is already sub-divided (in an appendix) into EF for each stage of manure management, as kg per animal
propose that for Tier 1 we have EF for each stage of manure management using IPCC default values for N excretion
Manure Management C Compounds - current NMVOC methodology
Simpler methodology
estimated as a ratio of NH3 emissions
no detailed methodology
4B – proposed NO methodology without fertilizers
Simpler methodology
0.7 % of the N returned to the soil as crop residues is emitted as NO
no Detailed methodology
4D Manure Management - additional co-author
Phil Hobbs
Cultures without fertilizers – current NH3 methodology
Simpler methodology
multiply area of legumes by an EF of of 1 kg ha-1 a-1 NH3-N
EF also supplied for unfertilized pastures grazed by cattle and sheep
• or an EF as % of N deposited during grazing
Cultures without fertilizers – current NH3 methodology
Detailed methodology
to provide a more detailed methodology it would be necessary to distinguish between different legume species
further detail may be provided if estimates are available of NH3
emissions from crops (e.g. hay), or unfertilized crop residues left on the surface
• the effects of different climates on NH3 emissions both from unfertilized
crops, and from their residues, needs to be known
4B – proposed NH3 methodology without fertilizers
Tier 1
simple EF to be provided
Tier 2
country-specific EF for legumes and for grazing emissions based on country-specific data on N excretion - %of N excreted.
Tier 3
process-based modelling, if an approach is available
Cultures without fertilizers – proposed NO methodology
Simpler methodology
0.7 % of the N returned to the soil as crop residues is emitted as NO
no Tier 2 or 3
4B – proposed NMVOCs methodology without fertilizers
Not currently reported
same approach as for with fertilizers
Cultures without fertilizers – proposed NMVOC methodology
Tier I
methodology as proposed in chapter 'cultures with fertilizers'
No Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods proposed.
Timetable - 1
Preliminary drafts of 3 chapters already prepared for comment by Barbara and Nick
zero order drafts to be submitted to co-authors by end August
co-authors to comment by end September
any issues raised by co-authors to be discussed at TFEIP meeting in October
Timetable - 2
First order drafts for formal consultation by January 2008
second order drafts to be prepared by May 2008 for final revision
How do current chapters equate to the new
Current• 1010 Cultures with fertilizers• 1020 Cultures without fertilizers• 1040 Enteric fermentation• 1050 Manure management regarding organic compounds• 1090 Manure management regarding N compounds