meta data for this page
  •  

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
general:adjustments:adjustment_de-a [2021/05/19 10:42] – kotzullageneral:adjustments:adjustment_de-a [2024/11/06 16:10] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 24: Line 24:
 ==== ANALYSING THE PROBLEM: THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE BASED ON COPERT ==== ==== ANALYSING THE PROBLEM: THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE BASED ON COPERT ====
  
-Already in 2011, these effects were demonstrated by Ntziachristos and Papageorgiou (2011) [((bibcite 4))]. Here, the impacts of changing model versions and activity data in the context of meeting the EU NEC Directive ceiling commitments were examined for four European countries including Germany. Unfortunately, this comparison study was carried out within a COPERT environment. Therefore, the results gained cannot be transferred to the German TREMOD environment on a one-to-one level but nonetheless allow a highly illustrative insight in the reasons for not meeting the set ceiling.+Already in 2011, these effects were demonstrated by Ntziachristos and Papageorgiou (2011). Here, the impacts of changing model versions and activity data in the context of meeting the EU NEC Directive ceiling commitments were examined for four European countries including Germany. Unfortunately, this comparison study was carried out within a COPERT environment. Therefore, the results gained cannot be transferred to the German TREMOD environment on a one-to-one level but nonetheless allow a highly illustrative insight in the reasons for not meeting the set ceiling.
 The study modeled fuel consumption and NO<sub>x</sub> emissions for four selected countries (Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium) and found higher NO<sub>x</sub> emissions were estimated for the road transport sector than originally modelled by the RAINS model of IIASA (which underpinned the setting of 2010 ceilings). For Germany, this study shows that with the same activity data set (LIFE+ EC4MACS data from Amann et al. (2010)), NO<sub>x</sub> emissions estimated with COPERT II vs. COPERT 4 (v8.0) increase from 410 kt to 518 kt due to methodological changes, a difference of 282 kt.  The study modeled fuel consumption and NO<sub>x</sub> emissions for four selected countries (Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium) and found higher NO<sub>x</sub> emissions were estimated for the road transport sector than originally modelled by the RAINS model of IIASA (which underpinned the setting of 2010 ceilings). For Germany, this study shows that with the same activity data set (LIFE+ EC4MACS data from Amann et al. (2010)), NO<sub>x</sub> emissions estimated with COPERT II vs. COPERT 4 (v8.0) increase from 410 kt to 518 kt due to methodological changes, a difference of 282 kt. 
 An additional consideration of changes in AD would lead to 620 kt of NO<sub>x</sub>. However, as changes in AD are no valid adjustment reason, the latter value is  for information only. An additional consideration of changes in AD would lead to 620 kt of NO<sub>x</sub>. However, as changes in AD are no valid adjustment reason, the latter value is  for information only.
Line 35: Line 35:
 In other words, the exceeding of NO<sub>x</sub> ceilings for road transport is due to: In other words, the exceeding of NO<sub>x</sub> ceilings for road transport is due to:
  
-**Changes in methodology and emission factors**+=== Changes in methodology and emission factors ===
  
 As these technologically driven changes (as reflected in the __evolution of the different so-called Euro norms__) lie outside the country's responsibility, current methodology and EFs have to be adjusted in a way to allow the comparison of the actual inventory and the Gothenburg ceilings. As these technologically driven changes (as reflected in the __evolution of the different so-called Euro norms__) lie outside the country's responsibility, current methodology and EFs have to be adjusted in a way to allow the comparison of the actual inventory and the Gothenburg ceilings.
  
-**Changes in the activity data**+=== Changes in the activity data==
  
 As the development of mileage driven and fuels used within a country (__Germany: stronger dieselisation__ then originally expected) is of the country's responsibility, this effect has to be excluded from any adjustment estimation. As the development of mileage driven and fuels used within a country (__Germany: stronger dieselisation__ then originally expected) is of the country's responsibility, this effect has to be excluded from any adjustment estimation.
Line 67: Line 67:
  
 with  with 
-  * **//EM// ,,adjustment,,** = amount of emissions to be subtracted from National Totals +  * **//EM//<sub>adjustment</sub>** = amount of emissions to be subtracted from National Totals 
-  * **//AD// ,,current,,** = AD from latest TREMOD version as used for current submission +  * **//AD//<sub>current</sub>** = AD from latest TREMOD version as used for current submission 
-  * **//EF// ,,current,,** = EF from latest TREMOD version as used for current submission +  * **//EF//<sub>current</sub>** = EF from latest TREMOD version as used for current submission 
-  * **//EF// ,,original,,** = EF from TREMOD version used at the time NEC ceilings were set (here: TREMOD 3.1) +  * **//EF//<sub>original</sub>** = EF from TREMOD version used at the time NEC ceilings were set (here: TREMOD 3.1) 
-  * **//EM// ,,current,,** = EM estimated from AD and EF from latest TREMOD version = EM reported for NFR 1.A.3.b with latest submission +  * **//EM//<sub>current</sub>** = EM estimated from AD and EF from latest TREMOD version = EM reported for NFR 1.A.3.b with latest submission 
-  * **//EM// ,,current-"artificial",,** = EM estimated from AD from latest TREMOD version and EF from TREMOD version used at the time NEC ceilings were set (here: TREMOD 3.1)+  * **//EM//<sub>curent "artificial"</sub>** = EM estimated from AD from latest TREMOD version and EF from TREMOD version used at the time NEC ceilings were set (here: TREMOD 3.1)
  
 === APPLYING THE ORIGINAL METHODOLOGY === === APPLYING THE ORIGINAL METHODOLOGY ===
Line 161: Line 161:
  
 __Table 2: annual NO<sub>x</sub> adjustment proposals, in kilotonnes__ __Table 2: annual NO<sub>x</sub> adjustment proposals, in kilotonnes__
-|                                  |  **2010**  |  **2011**  |  **2012**  |  **2013**  |  **2014**  |  **2015**  |  **2016**  |  **2017**  |  **2018**  | **2019**  | +|                                                         |  **2010**  |  **2011**  |  **2012**  |  **2013**  |  **2014**  |  **2015**  |  **2016**  |  **2017**  |  **2018**  | **2019**  | 
-| Adjustment 2014 (accepted) [(CEIP2014a)], [(CEIP2014b)]    |  -105.6    |  -101.3    |  -95.7     |  -91.7     ^            ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2014 (accepted) [(CEIP2014a)],[(CEIP2014b)]  |  -105.6    |  -101.3    |  -95.7     |  -91.7     ^            ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2015 (accepted) [(CEIP2015a)], [(CEIP2015b)] |  -100.3    |  -95.5     |  -89.9     |  -85.1     ^            ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2015 (accepted) [(CEIP2015a)],[(CEIP2015b)]  |  -100.3    |  -95.5     |  -89.9     |  -85.1     ^            ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2016 (accepted) [(CEIP2016a)], [(CEIP2016b)] |  -151.3    |  -146.9    |  -145.1    |  -142.5    |  -128.1    ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2016 (accepted) [(CEIP2016a)],[(CEIP2016b)]  |  -151.3    |  -146.9    |  -145.1    |  -142.5    |  -128.1    ^            ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2017 (accepted) [(CEIP2017a)] |  -151.3    |  -146.8    |  -145.0    |  -142.4    |  -127.2    |  -100.9    ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2017 (accepted) [(CEIP2017a)]                |  -151.3    |  -146.8    |  -145.0    |  -142.4    |  -127.2    |  -100.9    ^            ^            ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2018 (accepted) [(CEIP2018a)] |  -172.3    |  -174.5    |  -177.4    |  -180.4    |  -171.5    |  -148.9    |  -123.2    ^            ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2018 (accepted) [(CEIP2018a)],[(CEIP2018b)]  |  -172.3    |  -174.5    |  -177.4    |  -180.4    |  -171.5    |  -148.9    |  -123.2    ^            ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2019 (accepted) [(CEIP2019a)] |  -172.3    |  -174.5    |  -177.4    |  -180.3    |  -171.4    |  -148.8    |  -123.3    |  93.7      ^            ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2019 (accepted) [(CEIP2019a)],[(CEIP2019b)]  |  -172.3    |  -174.5    |  -177.4    |  -180.3    |  -171.4    |  -148.8    |  -123.3    |  -93.7     ^            ^           ^ 
-| Adjustment 2020 (accepted) |  -297.8    |  -302.3    |  -301.3    |  -306.1    |  -294.5    |  -269.0    |  -244.3    |  -214.9    |  -174.6    ^           ^ +| Adjustment 2020 (accepted) [(CEIP2020)]                 |  -297.8    |  -302.3    |  -301.3    |  -306.1    |  -294.5    |  -269.0    |  -244.3    |  -214.9    |  -174.6    ^           ^ 
-|                                                                                                                                                         ||||||||||| +|                                                                                                                                                                                ||||||||||| 
-^  Adjustment 2021 (proposal)      ^     -296.1 ^     -300.7 ^     -300.4 ^     -305.2 ^     -294.9 ^     -274.9 ^     -250.9 ^     -221.1 ^     -179.6 ^    -144.8 ^ +^  Adjustment 2021 (proposal)                             ^     -296.1 ^     -300.7 ^     -300.4 ^     -305.2 ^     -294.9 ^     -274.9 ^     -250.9 ^     -221.1 ^     -179.6 ^    -144.8 ^ 
-|  Change against Adjustment 2020  |        1.7 |        1.6 |        0.9 |        0.9 |       -0.4 |       -5.9 |       -6.6 |       -6.2 |       -5.0 |           |+|  Change against Adjustment 2020                         |        1.7 |        1.6 |        0.9 |        0.9 |       -0.4 |       -5.9 |       -6.6 |       -6.2 |       -5.0 |           |
  
 The noticeable differences between the 2017 and 2018 adjustment proposals resulted from an ad-hoc revision of the //Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport// (HBEFA, version 3.3) in the aftermath of the so-called "Diesel-gate". [(KELLER2017)] The noticeable differences between the 2017 and 2018 adjustment proposals resulted from an ad-hoc revision of the //Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport// (HBEFA, version 3.3) in the aftermath of the so-called "Diesel-gate". [(KELLER2017)]
Line 177: Line 177:
 The even bigger changes between adjustment 2019 and adjustment proposal 2020 result from an additional rather fundamental revision of of the //Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport// now available in version 4.1 [(NOTTER2019)] strongly effecting the TREMOD model underlying Germany's emission reporting for road transport and hence any adjustments of NO<sub>x</sub> emissions. With such major model revision between submissions 2019 and 2020, the 2020 adjustment proposal differed significantly from the adjustment applied for and accepted in 2019.\\ The even bigger changes between adjustment 2019 and adjustment proposal 2020 result from an additional rather fundamental revision of of the //Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport// now available in version 4.1 [(NOTTER2019)] strongly effecting the TREMOD model underlying Germany's emission reporting for road transport and hence any adjustments of NO<sub>x</sub> emissions. With such major model revision between submissions 2019 and 2020, the 2020 adjustment proposal differed significantly from the adjustment applied for and accepted in 2019.\\
 \\ \\
-**In comparison to 2020, the TREMOD model apllied for the 2021 submission has been revised only slightly in terms of NO<sub>x</sub> emission factors. Hence, the 2021 adjustment proposal differs onyl slightly from the (accepted) proposal provided with submission 2020.** +**In comparison to 2020, the TREMOD model applied for the 2021 submission has been revised only slightly in terms of NO<sub>x</sub> emission factors, taking into account results from ongoing measurement campaigns especially for EURO 6 vehicles. Hence, the 2021 adjustment proposal differs onyl slightly from the (accepted) proposal provided with submission 2020.**
- +
-**__Adjustment description as provided in IIRs 2014 and 2015:__** +
- +
-[[image Description%20Adjustment%20DE-A%20-%20NOx%20from%201.A.3.b%20Road%20transport%20-%20IIRs%202014%20%26%202015.pdf]] +
- +
------+
  
 [(EB2012a> EB, 2012a: CLRTAP EB Decision 2012/3, ECE/EB.AIR/111/Add.1: Adjustments under the Gothenburg Protocol to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them [(EB2012a> EB, 2012a: CLRTAP EB Decision 2012/3, ECE/EB.AIR/111/Add.1: Adjustments under the Gothenburg Protocol to emission reduction commitments or to inventories for the purposes of comparing total national emissions with them
Line 203: Line 197:
 [(CEIP2016b > CEIP, 2016b: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2016/10−ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2016/18: Review of adjustment applications 2016; URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2016/ECE_EB.AIR_GE.1_2016_10_E.pdf, 2016. )] [(CEIP2016b > CEIP, 2016b: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2016/10−ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2016/18: Review of adjustment applications 2016; URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2016/ECE_EB.AIR_GE.1_2016_10_E.pdf, 2016. )]
 [(CEIP2017a > CEIP, 2017a: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2017/10–ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2017/20: Review of adjustment applications 2017; URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2017/Advance_ece_eb_air_ge_1_2017_10_ece_eb_air_wg_1_2017.pdf, 2017. )] [(CEIP2017a > CEIP, 2017a: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2017/10–ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2017/20: Review of adjustment applications 2017; URL: http://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2017/Advance_ece_eb_air_ge_1_2017_10_ece_eb_air_wg_1_2017.pdf, 2017. )]
-[(CEIP2018a > CEIP, 2018a: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2018/10-ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2018/21: Review of adjustment applications 2018; URL: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2018/ADJ_ece.eb.air.ge.1.2018.10-ece.eb.air.wg.1.2018.21_advance.pdf, 2018. )]+[(CEIP2018a > CEIP, 2018a: ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2018/10-ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2018/21: Review of adjustment applications 2018; URL: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2018/ADJ_ece.eb.air.ge.1.2018.10-ece.eb.air.wg.1.2018.21_advance.pdf, 2018. )] 
 +[(CEIP2018b > CEIP, 2018b: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/ceip/00_pdf_other/2018/adj_ece.eb.air.ge.1.2018.10-ece.eb.air.wg.1.2018.21_advance.pdf )]
 [(CEIP2019a > CEIP, 2019a: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2019/10−ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2019/22: Review of adjustment applications 2019; URL: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2019/ECE_EB.AIR_GE.1_2019_10-1909789E.pdf, 2019. )] [(CEIP2019a > CEIP, 2019a: Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP): ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2019/10−ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2019/22: Review of adjustment applications 2019; URL: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/2019/ECE_EB.AIR_GE.1_2019_10-1909789E.pdf, 2019. )]
 +[(CEIP2019b > CEIP, 2019b: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/ceip/00_pdf_other/2019/ece_eb.air_ge.1_2019_10-1909789e.pdf )]
 +[(CEIP2020 > CEIP, 2020: https://www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/ceip/00_pdf_other/2020/adj-status_ece_eb.air_ge.1_2020_10-2008939e.pdf )]