meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
sector:energy:fuel_combustion:transport:civil_aviation:start [2021/04/08 08:17] – kotzulla | sector:energy:fuel_combustion:transport:civil_aviation:start [2021/12/15 20:00] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==== Activity Data ==== | ==== Activity Data ==== | ||
- | Emissions estimation is mainly based on consumption data for jet kerosene and aviation gasoline as provided in the national Energy Balances (AGEB, | + | Emissions estimation is mainly based on consumption data for jet kerosene and aviation gasoline as provided in the national Energy Balances (AGEB, |
Table 1: Sources for 1.A.3.a activity data | Table 1: Sources for 1.A.3.a activity data | ||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Emissions have been calculated for each flight phase, based on the respective emission factors. Therefore, the EF used have been taken from a wide range of different sources. | Emissions have been calculated for each flight phase, based on the respective emission factors. Therefore, the EF used have been taken from a wide range of different sources. | ||
- | In contrast to earlier submissions, | + | In contrast to earlier submissions, |
The EF provided with the current submission represent annual average EF for the entire fleet, calculated as implied EF from the emissions computed within TREMOD AV and therefore differ from the values used in the past. | The EF provided with the current submission represent annual average EF for the entire fleet, calculated as implied EF from the emissions computed within TREMOD AV and therefore differ from the values used in the past. | ||
- | **Sulphur dioxide (SO,,2,,)** emissions depend directly on the kerosene' | + | **Sulphur dioxide (SO<sub>2</ |
+ | In IPCC 2006b [(IPCC2006)] with 1 kg SO<sub>2</ | ||
- | As an EF decreasing due to improved production procedures and stricter critical levels seems plausible, for this report a constant decline between the annual values of 1.08 g SO,,2,,/kg for 1990, 0.4 g for 1998 and 0.2 g for 2009 has been assumed. Thereby, an exhaustive conversion of the sulfur into suflur dioxide is expected. - Due to the EF depending directly on the S content of the kerosene, one annual EF is used for both flight stages. | + | As an EF decreasing due to improved production procedures and stricter critical levels seems plausible, for this report a constant decline between the annual values of 1.08 g SO<sub>2</ |
- | **Nitrogen oxide (NO,,x,,)**, **carbon monoxide (CO)** and **hydrocarbons (HC)** emissions were estimated using IEF calculated within TREMOD AV, based upon more specific (depending on type of aircraft, flight stage) EF mostly taken from the EMEP-EEA data base. For 2009, 40 % of over-all starts (about 70 % of total kilometres flown) had to be linked with adapted EF as it was not possible to directly or even indirectly (via similar types of aircraft) allocate the aircraft used here. Therefore, regression analysis had to be carried out, estimating EF via emission functions that calculate an EF for the respective type of engine depending on the particular take-off weight. | + | **Nitrogen oxide (NO<sub>x</ |
- | As a basis for these functions the EF of types of aircraft with given EF have been used (see: Knörr et al. (2018c)) [((bibcite 1))]. From the trend of the emissions calculated within TREMOD AV, annual average EF for the entire fleet have been formed, which have then been used for reporting. Hence, the EF differ widely from those used in earlier submissions. | + | As a basis for these functions the EF of types of aircraft with given EF have been used (see: Knörr et al. (2020c)) [(KNOERR2020c)]. From the trend of the emissions calculated within TREMOD AV, annual average EF for the entire fleet have been formed, which have then been used for reporting. Hence, the EF differ widely from those used in earlier submissions. |
- | **Ammonia (NH,,3,,)** emissions were estimated using an EF of 0.173 g/kg kerosene for both flight stages (UBA, 2009). | + | **Ammonia (NH<sub>3</ |
- | The EFs for **non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)** were calculated as the difference between the EF for over-all hydrocarbons (HC) and the EF for methane (CH,,4,,). | + | The EFs for **non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)** were calculated as the difference between the EF for over-all hydrocarbons (HC) and the EF for methane (CH<sub>4</ |
**Particulate Matter** | **Particulate Matter** | ||
- | Within the IPCC EF data base, there are no default data provided for emissions of particulate matter (TSP, PM,,10,,, and PM,,2.5,,). Therefore, the EF for dust (**T**otal **S**uspended **P**articulate Matter – **TSP**) are taken over from Corinair (2006), giving specific values for an average fleet and for the two flight stages in table 8.2: For national flights 0.7 kg TSP/LTO and 0.2 kg TSP/t kerosene and 0.15 kg TSP/LTO and 0.2 kg TSP/t kerosene for international flights. Following this table, a kerosene consumption per LTO cycle of 825 kg for national and 1,617 kg for international flights have been assumed and the EF for the LTO stage have been estimated. | + | Within the IPCC EF data base, there are no default data provided for emissions of particulate matter (TSP, PM<sub>10</ |
- | The EF for **water vapor (H,,2,,O)** provided by Eurocontrol (2004) is about 1,230g H,,2,,O / kg kerosene, whereas in Corinair (2006) [((bibcite 8))] 1,237g H,,2,,O/kg is assumed. Based on the stoichiometric assumptions mentioned above a EF(CO,,2,,) of 1.24 kg H,,2,,O/kg can be derived. To reduce the number of sources for EF, here, the Corinair value has been used for both flight stages and for both national and international flights. | + | The EF for **water vapor (H<sub>2</ |
- | As for **polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons** (PAH), tier1 EF from (EMEP/ | + | As for **polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons** (PAH), tier1 EF from (EMEP/ |
The conversion of EF representing emissions per kilo fuel combusted [kg pollutant/ | The conversion of EF representing emissions per kilo fuel combusted [kg pollutant/ | ||
- | == Aviation gasoline== | + | === Aviation gasoline |
- | For aviation gasoline (avgas) a deviation onto LTO and cruise is assumed to be unnecessary. Therefore, there are no such specific EF used here. As for kerosene, the EF for **NO,,x,,**, **CO** and **HC** have been taken from the calculations carried out within TREMOD AV. Here, for calculating aircraft specific NO,,x,,, CO, and HC emissions corresponding EF from the EMEP-EEA data base have been used that have than been divided by the annual avgas consumption to form annual average EF for emission reporting. | + | For aviation gasoline (avgas) a deviation onto LTO and cruise is assumed to be unnecessary. Therefore, there are no such specific EF used here. As for kerosene, the EF for **NO<sub>x</ |
- | With respect to fuel characteristics, | + | With respect to fuel characteristics, |
There are different sorts of avgas sold with different **lead (Pb)** contents. As an exact annual ration of the sorts sold is not available, the most common type of avgas (AvGas 100 LL (Low Lead)) with a lead content of 0.56 g/l is set as an approximation. This value lies slightly below the value of 0.6 g/l as proposed in the EMEP Guidebook 2009. – For estimating lead emissions here the value provided for AvGas 100 LL has been converted into an EF of about 0.75 g lead/kg avgas using a density of 0.75 kg/l. | There are different sorts of avgas sold with different **lead (Pb)** contents. As an exact annual ration of the sorts sold is not available, the most common type of avgas (AvGas 100 LL (Low Lead)) with a lead content of 0.56 g/l is set as an approximation. This value lies slightly below the value of 0.6 g/l as proposed in the EMEP Guidebook 2009. – For estimating lead emissions here the value provided for AvGas 100 LL has been converted into an EF of about 0.75 g lead/kg avgas using a density of 0.75 kg/l. | ||
Line 140: | Line 141: | ||
The **EF(TSP)** were calculated from the lead content of AvGas 100 LL by multiplication with a factor 1.6 as used for leaded gasoline in road transport in the TREMOD system. | The **EF(TSP)** were calculated from the lead content of AvGas 100 LL by multiplication with a factor 1.6 as used for leaded gasoline in road transport in the TREMOD system. | ||
- | For **NMVOC**, an EF from the Revised IPCC Guidelines 1996 (pages I 42 and 40) [((bibcite 10))], [((bibcite 11))], have been used. | + | For **NMVOC**, an EF from the Revised IPCC Guidelines 1996 (pages I 42 and 40) [(IPCC1996a)], [(IPCC1996b)], have been used. |
All other EF are not available specifically for small aircraft and therefore have been equalized with the EF used for kerosene, national, cruise. | All other EF are not available specifically for small aircraft and therefore have been equalized with the EF used for kerosene, national, cruise. | ||
- | |||
- | __Table 6: EF,,2018,, used for emission estimation from avgas use in aircraft, in g/kg__ | ||
- | ||~ Pollutant ||~ EF ||~ Source or estimation info || | ||
- | || NO,, | ||
- | || NMVOC ||> | ||
- | || SO,, | ||
- | || CO ||> 661 || estimated within TREMOD AV || | ||
- | || TSP ||> | ||
- | || Pb ||> | ||
The conversion of the EF from [kg emission/kg avgas consumed] into [kg emission/TJ energy converted] has been carried out using a net calorific value of 44,300 kJ/kg. | The conversion of the EF from [kg emission/kg avgas consumed] into [kg emission/TJ energy converted] has been carried out using a net calorific value of 44,300 kJ/kg. | ||
Line 157: | Line 149: | ||
> **NOTE:** For the country-specific emission factors applied for particulate matter, no clear indication is available, whether or not condensables are included. | > **NOTE:** For the country-specific emission factors applied for particulate matter, no clear indication is available, whether or not condensables are included. | ||
- | > For information on the **emission factors for heavy-metal and POP exhaust emissions**, | + | > For information on the **emission factors for heavy-metal and POP exhaust emissions**, |
=====Recalculations===== | =====Recalculations===== | ||
- | With the total kerosene inland deliveries remainig unchanged within the National Energy Balances, the domestic share of total kerosene consumption was revised based on revised fuel-consumption estimates for the LTO-cycle as derived from the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 [((bibcite 12))]. | + | With the total kerosene inland deliveries remainig unchanged within the National Energy Balances, the domestic share of total kerosene consumption was revised based on revised fuel-consumption estimates for the LTO-cycle as derived from the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 [(EMEPEEA2019)]. |
__Table 7: Revised percental shares of kerosene used for domestic flights, in %__ | __Table 7: Revised percental shares of kerosene used for domestic flights, in %__ | ||
Line 202: | Line 193: | ||
^ absolute change | ^ absolute change | ||
^ relative change | ^ relative change | ||
- | |||
<WRAP center round info 60%> | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
Polltutant-specific recalculations result from changes in the emission factors applied which are discussed further in the reffering sub-chapters. | Polltutant-specific recalculations result from changes in the emission factors applied which are discussed further in the reffering sub-chapters. | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | |||
- | |||
===== Planned improvements ===== | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
Line 218: | Line 206: | ||
Information on uncertainties is provided here with most data representing expert judgement from the research project mentioned above. | Information on uncertainties is provided here with most data representing expert judgement from the research project mentioned above. | ||
- | For estimating uncertainties, | + | For estimating uncertainties, |
- | By additive linking of the squared partial uncertainties the overall uncertainty (U,,total,,) can then be estimated (IPCC, 2000) [((bibcite 13))]. | + | By additive linking of the squared partial uncertainties the overall uncertainty (U<sub>total</ |
The uncertainties given here have been evaluated for all time series and flight stages as average values. | The uncertainties given here have been evaluated for all time series and flight stages as average values. | ||
Line 227: | Line 215: | ||
Several partial uncertainties are based on assumptions. For example, the uncertainty given for the entire time series of the split factor domestic: | Several partial uncertainties are based on assumptions. For example, the uncertainty given for the entire time series of the split factor domestic: | ||
- | For the years 1990 to 2002 data is based upon estimations carried out within TREMOD AV which themselves are based on data from the Federal Statistical Office and EF from the EMEP-EEA data base. For 2003 to 2011 data from Eurocontrol are being used, that are calculated within ANCAT. Comparing results from the ANCAT model with actual consumption data show aberrations of ±12 %. Here, data calculated with AEM 3 model would have an uncertainty of only 3 to 5 % (EUROCONTROL 2006) [((bibcite 14))]. | + | For the years 1990 to 2002 data is based upon estimations carried out within TREMOD AV which themselves are based on data from the Federal Statistical Office and EF from the EMEP-EEA data base. For 2003 to 2011 data from Eurocontrol are being used, that are calculated within ANCAT. Comparing results from the ANCAT model with actual consumption data show aberrations of ±12 %. Here, data calculated with AEM 3 model would have an uncertainty of only 3 to 5 % (EUROCONTROL 2006) [(EUROCONTROL2006)]. |
- | The image below shows the partial uncertainties and correlations used for uncertainty estimations carried out during the research project. Mouseclick to enlarge! | + | As no uncertainty estimates were carried out for ammonia |
- | [[gallery size=" | + | |
- | : Uncertainties.png | + | |
- | [[/ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | As no uncertainty estimates were carried out for NH,, | + | |
===== FAQs ===== | ===== FAQs ===== | ||
- | **//Whereby does the party justify the adding-up of the two amounts given in BAFA table 7j as deliveries 'An die Luftfahrt' | + | **Whereby does the party justify the adding-up of the two amounts given in BAFA table 7j as deliveries 'An die Luftfahrt' |
For mineral oils, German National Energy Balances (NEBs) - amongst other sources - are based on BAFA data on the amounts delivered to different sectors. A comparison with consumption data from AGEB and BAFA shows that data from NEB line 76 /63: ' | For mineral oils, German National Energy Balances (NEBs) - amongst other sources - are based on BAFA data on the amounts delivered to different sectors. A comparison with consumption data from AGEB and BAFA shows that data from NEB line 76 /63: ' | ||
- | **//Why is there no aviation gasoline | + | **On which basis does the party estimate the reported lead emissions from aviation gasoline? |
+ | |||
+ | assumption by party: aviation gasoline = AvGas 100 LL | ||
+ | (AvGas 100 LL is the predominant sort of aviation gasoline | ||
+ | lead content of AvGas 100 LL: 0.56 g lead/liter (as tetra ethyl lead)2 | ||
- | Due to the lack of further information, | + | The applied procedure is similar |
+ | **On which basis does the party estimate the reported TSP emissions from aviation gasoline?** | ||
+ | |||
+ | The TSP emissions calculated depend directly on the reported lead emissions: The emission factor for TSP is 1.6 times the emission factor used for lead: EF(TSP) = 1.6 x EF(Pb). | ||
+ | The applied procedure is similar to the one used for calculating TSP emissions from leaded gasoline used in road transport. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [(AGEB2020> | ||
+ | [(BAFA2020> | ||
+ | URL: https:// | ||
[(KNOERR2010> | [(KNOERR2010> | ||
[(KNOERR2020c> | [(KNOERR2020c> | ||
Line 254: | Line 249: | ||
[(IPCC2006a> | [(IPCC2006a> | ||
[(AGEB2020> | [(AGEB2020> | ||
- | [(BAFA2020> | + | [(BAFA2020> |
URL: https:// | URL: https:// | ||
- | + | [(DOEPELHEUER2002> | |
- | : 5 : UBA, 2001a: Umweltbundesamt: | + | [(CORINAIR2006> |
- | : 6 : ÖKO-INSTITUT, | + | [(IPCC1996a> |
- | + | [(IPCC1996b> | |
- | : 8 : Döpelheuer (2002): Anwendungsorientierte Verfahren zur Bestimmung von CO, HC und Ruß aus Luftfahrttriebwerken, | + | [(IPCC2000> |
- | : 9 : CORINAIR, 2006 - EMEP/ | + | [(EUROCONTROL2006> |
- | : 10 : Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 3: Reference Manual, Chapter I: Energy; URL: http:// | + | |
- | : 11 : Revised | + | |
- | : 12 : EMEP/EEA, 2016: EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016, Copenhagen, 2017. | + | |
- | : 13 : IPCC, 2000: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, | + | |
- | : 14 : EUROCONTROL, | + | |
- | [[/ | + |