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
sector:energy:fuel_combustion:transport:civil_aviation:start [2021/04/08 08:35] – kotzullasector: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, 2020) [(AGEB2020)]. For very recent years with no AGEB data available (Normally the last year of the period reported.) data provided by the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) is being used.+Emissions estimation is mainly based on consumption data for jet kerosene and aviation gasoline as provided in the national Energy Balances (AGEB, 2020) [(AGEB2020)]. For very recent years with no AGEB data available (Normally the last year of the period reported.) data provided by the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) [(BAFA2020)] is being used.
  
 Table 1: Sources for 1.A.3.a activity data Table 1: Sources for 1.A.3.a activity data
Line 118: Line 118:
 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.  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) [(UBA2009)].+**Ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>)** emissions were estimated using an EF of 0.173 g/kg kerosene for both flight stages (UBA, 2009) [(UBA2009)].
  
 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</sub>). 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</sub>).
  
 **Particulate Matter** **Particulate Matter**
-Within the IPCC EF data base, there are no default data provided for emissions of particulate matter (TSP, PM<sub>10</sub>, and PM<sub>2.5</sub>). 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</sub>, and PM<sub>2.5</sub>). Therefore, the EF for dust (**T**otal **S**uspended **P**articulate Matter – **TSP**) are taken over from Corinair (2006) [(CORINAIR2006)], 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.
  
-The EF for **water vapor (H<sub>2</sub>O)** provided by Eurocontrol (2004) is about 1,230g H<sub>2</sub>O / kg kerosene, whereas in Corinair (2006) [(CORINAIR2006)] 1,237g H<sub>2</sub>O /kg is assumed. Based on the stoichiometric assumptions mentioned above a EF(CO<sub>2</sub>) 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</sub>O)** provided by Eurocontrol (2004) is about 1,230g H<sub>2</sub>O / kg kerosene, whereas in Corinair (2006) [(CORINAIR2006)] 1,237g H<sub>2</sub>O /kg is assumed. Based on the stoichiometric assumptions mentioned above a EF(CO<sub>2</sub>) of 1.24 kg H<sub>2</sub>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.
  
 As for **polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons** (PAH), tier1 EF from (EMEP/EEA, 2019) [(EMEPEEA2019)] have been apllied here. As the EMEP guidebook does not provide original EF for jet kerosene, values provided for gasoline in road transport have been used here as a proxy and will be replaced by more appropriate data as soon as this is available. As for **polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons** (PAH), tier1 EF from (EMEP/EEA, 2019) [(EMEPEEA2019)] have been apllied here. As the EMEP guidebook does not provide original EF for jet kerosene, values provided for gasoline in road transport have been used here as a proxy and will be replaced by more appropriate data as soon as this is available.
Line 133: Line 133:
 === 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</sub>**, **CO** and **HC** have been taken from the calculations carried out within TREMOD AV. Here, for calculating aircraft specific NO<sub>x</sub>, 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.
  
-With respect to fuel characteristics, there are no big differences between avgas and gasoline used in passenger cars (PC). Therefore, specific **sulphur dioxide (SO,,2,,)** emissions from PC gasoline can be carried forward to avgas. - Following the expert committee for the standardization of mineral oil and fuels (FAM), the critical value of sulfur content for gasoline sold at gas stations is 10 mg/kg, i.e. 0,001 % of weight - or one tenth of the kerosene value. Therefore, the EF(SO,,2,,) used for avgas equals the EF used for kerosene reduced by 90 %.+With respect to fuel characteristics, there are no big differences between avgas and gasoline used in passenger cars (PC). Therefore, specific **sulphur dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>)** emissions from PC gasoline can be carried forward to avgas. - Following the expert committee for the standardization of mineral oil and fuels (FAM), the critical value of sulfur content for gasoline sold at gas stations is 10 mg/kg, i.e. 0,001 % of weight - or one tenth of the kerosene value. Therefore, the EF used for avgas equals the EF used for kerosene reduced by 90 %.
  
 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 144: Line 144:
  
 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,,x,, ||> 11.76 || estimated within TREMOD AV || 
-|| NMVOC ||> 7.98  || estimated within TREMOD AV from EF(HC) minus EF(CH,,4,,) || 
-|| SO,,2,, ||> 0.02 || equals 1/10 of the EF used for kerosene, cruise/domestic/2008 || 
-|| CO ||> 661 || estimated within TREMOD AV || 
-|| TSP ||> 1.18 || estimated from lead content AvGas 100 LL || 
-|| Pb ||> 0.75 || estimated from lead content of AvGas 100 L || 
  
 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 158: 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**, please refer to [[[ appendix2.3-HM-from-mobile-sources | Appendix 2.3 - Heavy Metal (HM) exhaust emissions from mobile sources]]] and [[[ appendix2.4-POPs-from-mobile-sources | Appendix 2.4 - Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) exhaust emissions from mobile sources ]]].+> For information on the **emission factors for heavy-metal and POP exhaust emissions**, please refer to Appendix 2.3 - Heavy Metal (HM) exhaust emissions from mobile sources and Appendix 2.4 - Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) exhaust emissions from mobile sources.
  
 =====Recalculations===== =====Recalculations=====
Line 215: 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, the partial uncertainties (U,,1,, to U,,n,,) of the components incorporated in emission calculations have to be quantified. +For estimating uncertainties, the partial uncertainties (U<sub>1</sub> to U<sub>n</sub>) of the components incorporated in emission calculations have to be quantified. 
-By additive linking of the squared partial uncertainties the overall uncertainty (U,,total,,) can then be estimated (IPCC, 2000) [(IPCC2000)].+By additive linking of the squared partial uncertainties the overall uncertainty (U<sub>total</sub>) can then be estimated (IPCC, 2000) [(IPCC2000)].
  
 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 226: Line 217:
 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)]. 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 and particulate matter within the above-mentioned project, values from the PAREST research project mentioned for most over mobile sources were used. Here, the final report has not yet been published.
-[[gallery size="medium"]] +
-: Uncertainties.png +
-[[/gallery]] +
- +
-As no uncertainty estimates were carried out for NH,,3,, and particulate matter within the above-mentioned project, values from the PAREST research project mentioned for most over mobile sources were used. Here, the final report has not yet been published.+
  
  
 ===== FAQs ===== ===== FAQs =====
  
-**//Whereby does the party justify the adding-up of the two amounts given in BAFA table 7j as deliveries 'An die Luftfahrt' and 'An Sonstige' ?//**+**Whereby does the party justify the adding-up of the two amounts given in BAFA table 7j as deliveries 'An die Luftfahrt' and 'An Sonstige' ?**
  
 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: 'Luftverkehr' equates to the amount added from both columns in BAFA table 7j. 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: 'Luftverkehr' equates to the amount added from both columns in BAFA table 7j.
  
-**//Why is there no aviation gasoline reported under 1.A.3.a i - International Civil Aviation?//**+**On which basis does the party estimate the reported lead emissions from aviation gasoline?**
  
-Due to the lack of further information, the party assumes that aviation gasoline is only being used for domestic civil aviation. - Furthermore, the party also assumes that the use of aviation gasoline in domestic civil aviation takes place below 3,000 feet only - and therewith only within the LTO-range (1.A.3.a ii (i)).+assumption by party: aviation gasoline = AvGas 100 LL 
 +(AvGas 100 LL is the predominant sort of aviation gasoline in Western Europe)1 
 +lead content of AvGas 100 LL: 0.56 g lead/liter (as tetra ethyl lead)2
  
 +The applied procedure is similar to the one used for calculating lead emissions from leaded gasoline used in road transport. (There, in contrast to aviation gasoline, the lead content constantly declined resulting in a ban of leaded gasoline in 1997.)
 +
 +**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>AGEB, 2020: Working Group on Energy Balances (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (Hrsg.), AGEB): Energiebilanz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland; URL: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/7-0-Bilanzen-1990-2018.html, (Aufruf: 29.11.2020), Köln & Berlin, 2020.)]
 +[(BAFA2020>BAFA, 2020: Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA): Amtliche Mineralöldaten für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland;
 +URL: https://www.bafa.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Energie/Mineraloel/moel_amtliche_daten_2018_dezember.html, Eschborn, 2020.)]
 [(KNOERR2010> Knörr, W., Schacht, A., & Gores, S. (2010): Entwicklung eines eigenständigen Modells zur Berechnung des Flugverkehrs (TREMOD-AV) : Endbericht. Endbericht zum F+E-Vorhaben 360 16 029, URL: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/entwicklung-eines-modells-zur-berechnung; Berlin & Heidelberg, 2012.)] [(KNOERR2010> Knörr, W., Schacht, A., & Gores, S. (2010): Entwicklung eines eigenständigen Modells zur Berechnung des Flugverkehrs (TREMOD-AV) : Endbericht. Endbericht zum F+E-Vorhaben 360 16 029, URL: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/entwicklung-eines-modells-zur-berechnung; Berlin & Heidelberg, 2012.)]
 [(KNOERR2020c> Knörr et al. (2020c): Knörr, W., Schacht, A., & Gores, S.: TREMOD Aviation (TREMOD AV) 2018 - Revision des Modells zur Berechnung des Flugverkehrs (TREMOD-AV). Heidelberg, Berlin: Ifeu Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH & Öko-Institut e.V., Berlin & Heidelberg, 2020.)] [(KNOERR2020c> Knörr et al. (2020c): Knörr, W., Schacht, A., & Gores, S.: TREMOD Aviation (TREMOD AV) 2018 - Revision des Modells zur Berechnung des Flugverkehrs (TREMOD-AV). Heidelberg, Berlin: Ifeu Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH & Öko-Institut e.V., Berlin & Heidelberg, 2020.)]
Line 259: Line 257:
 [(IPCC2000> IPCC, 2000: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC Secretariat, 16th Session, Montreal, 1-8 May 2000, URL: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/ )] [(IPCC2000> IPCC, 2000: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC Secretariat, 16th Session, Montreal, 1-8 May 2000, URL: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/ )]
 [(EUROCONTROL2006> EUROCONTROL, 2006 – The Advanced Emission Model (AEM3) - Validation Report, Jelinek, F., Carlier, S., Smith, J., EEC Report EEC/SEE/2004/004, Brüssel 2004 URL: http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/DOC_Report_2004_016.html http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/DOC_Report_2006_030.html )] [(EUROCONTROL2006> EUROCONTROL, 2006 – The Advanced Emission Model (AEM3) - Validation Report, Jelinek, F., Carlier, S., Smith, J., EEC Report EEC/SEE/2004/004, Brüssel 2004 URL: http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/DOC_Report_2004_016.html http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/DOC_Report_2006_030.html )]
- 
-  
-[(UBA2001> UBA, 2001a: Umweltbundesamt: UBA-Text 17/01: Maßnahmen zur verursacherbezogenen Schadstoffreduzierung des zivilen Flugverkehrs )] 
-: 6 : ÖKO-INSTITUT, 2009: Überarbeitung des Emissionsinventars des Flugverkehrs, vorläufiger Endbericht zum F+E-Vorhaben 360 16 019, Berlin, August 2009. 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
-