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:ippu:mineral_industry:lime_production:start [2021/01/26 14:10] – [Table] kotzullasector:ippu:mineral_industry:lime_production:start [2022/03/22 08:05] (current) – [Recalculations] kotzulla
Line 3: Line 3:
 ===== Short description ===== ===== Short description =====
  
-^  Method  ^  AD  ^  EF  ^  Key Category                  ^ +^ Category Code  ^  Method                                                                           ||||^  AD                                         ||||^  EF                               ||||| 
-|  T1      |  AS  |  CS  |  beyond the 80% level for all  |+| 2.A.2          |  T1                                                                               |||||  AS                                         |||||  CS                               ||||| 
 +^                ^  NO<sub>x</sub>  ^  NMVOC  ^  SO<sub>2</sub>  ^  NH<sub>3</sub>  ^  PM<sub>2.5</sub>  ^  PM<sub>10</sub>  ^  TSP  ^  BC  ^  CO   ^  Pb  ^  Cd  ^  Hg   ^  Diox  ^  PAH  ^  HCB  ^ 
 +| Key Category:  |  -/-             |  -/-    |  -/-             |  -               |  -/-               |  -/-              |  -/-  |  -   |  -/-  |  -   |  -   |  -/-  |  -     |  -    |  -    |
  
 +{{page>general:Misc:LegendEIT:start}}
 +\\
 The statements made below regarding source category 2.A.2 refer solely to the amounts of burnt lime and dolomite lime produced in German lime works.  The statements made below regarding source category 2.A.2 refer solely to the amounts of burnt lime and dolomite lime produced in German lime works. 
 Other lime-producing processes are included in NFR 2.C.1 and 2.H.2.  Other lime-producing processes are included in NFR 2.C.1 and 2.H.2. 
- 
-Information about the key source relevance can be found in [[[2-a-mineral-industry | 2.A - Mineral Industry]]]. 
  
 Because of the wide range of applications covered by the sector's products, lime production is normally more isolated from economic fluctuations than is production of other mineral products such as cement. Production has fluctuated relatively little since the end of the 1990s. Dolomite-lime production, of which significantly smaller amounts are produced, basically exhibits similar fluctuations. Because of the wide range of applications covered by the sector's products, lime production is normally more isolated from economic fluctuations than is production of other mineral products such as cement. Production has fluctuated relatively little since the end of the 1990s. Dolomite-lime production, of which significantly smaller amounts are produced, basically exhibits similar fluctuations.
Line 19: Line 21:
 ==== Activity data ==== ==== Activity data ====
  
-The German Lime Association (BVK) collects the production data for the entire time series on a plant-specific basis, and makes it available for reporting purposes. Production amounts are determined via several different concurrent procedures; their quality is thus adequately assured (Tier 2). Most companies are also required to report lime-production data within the framework of CO,,2,,-emissions trading. The EU monitoring guidelines for emissions trading specify a maximum accuracy of 2.5 %. It is additionally assumed that 2 % of the burnt lime is separated as dust in all years of the reporting period from 1990 onwards via appropriate exhaust gas purification systems and is not returned to the production process. This is taken into account by a potential 2 % increase in activity rates.+The German Lime Association (BVK) collects the production data for the entire time series on a plant-specific basis, and makes it available for reporting purposes. Production amounts are determined via several different concurrent procedures; their quality is thus adequately assured (Tier 2). Most companies are also required to report lime-production data within the framework of CO₂-emissions trading. The EU monitoring guidelines for emissions trading specify a maximum accuracy of 2.5%. It is additionally assumed that 2% of the burnt lime is separated as dust in all years of the reporting period from 1990 onwards via appropriate exhaust gas purification systems and is not returned to the production process. This is taken into account by a potential 2% increase in activity rates.
  
 ==== Emission factors ==== ==== Emission factors ====
 +
 +Due to recommendation during NEC-Review 2021 the calculation of CO emissions from lime production is allocated to process emissions based on default-EF. The other EF are country-specific values from different research projects.
  
 __Table 1: Emission factors for quick-lime production__ __Table 1: Emission factors for quick-lime production__
-||~ pollutant||~ Name of Category ||~ EF ||~ unit||~ Trend || +^ pollutant     ^ Name of Category     ^  EF       ^  unit     ^  Trend        | 
-|| NO,,x,, || quicklime ||> 0.61|| kg/t || falling || +^ NO<sub>x</sub>           | quicklime            |    0.59 |kg/t     |falling      | 
-|| SO,,2,, || quicklime ||> 0.12 || kg/t || falling || +^ SO<sub>2</sub>           | quicklime            |    0.12 |kg/t     |falling      | 
-|| NMVOC || quicklime ||> 0.041 || kg/t || constant || +^ NMVOC         | quicklime            |   0.041 |kg/t     |constant     | 
-|| TSP || quicklime ||> 0.055 || kg/t || falling || +^ CO         | quicklime            |   1.940 |kg/t     |default (( EMEP GB 2019: Table 3-23 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.2.f.i, Lime production)) | 
-|| PM,,10,, || quicklime ||> 0.043 || kg/t || falling || +^ TSP           | quicklime            |   0.050 |kg/t     |falling      | 
-|| PM,,2.5,, || quicklime ||> 0.025 || kg/t || falling || +^ PM<sub>10</sub>          | quicklime            |   0.038 |kg/t     |falling      | 
-|| Hg || quicklime ||> 2.88 || mg/t || falling ||+^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>      | quicklime            |   0.023 |kg/t     |falling      | 
 +^ Hg            | quicklime            |    2.62 |mg/t     |falling      |
  
 __Table 2: Emission factors for dolomite production__ __Table 2: Emission factors for dolomite production__
-||~ pollutant||~ Name of Category ||~ EF ||~ unit||~ Trend || +^ pollutant     ^ Name of Category     ^  EF       ^  unit     ^  Trend        | 
-|| NO,,x,, || dolomite ||> 1.81|| kg/t || falling || +^ NO<sub>x</sub>        | dolomite             |      1.73 |  kg/t     |  falling      | 
-|| SO,,2,, || dolomite ||> 0.59 || kg/t || falling || +^ SO<sub>2</sub>      | dolomite             |      0.58 |  kg/t     |  falling      | 
-|| NMVOC || dolomite ||> 0.041 || kg/t || constant || +^ NMVOC         | dolomite             |     0.041 |  kg/t     |  constant     | 
-|| TSP || dolomite ||> 0.038 || kg/t || falling || +^ CO         | dolomite             |   1.940 |kg/t     |default (( EMEP GB 2019: Table 3-23 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.2.f.i, Lime production))  | 
-|| PM,,10,, || dolomite ||> 0.029 || kg/t || falling || +^ TSP           | dolomite             |     0.034 |  kg/t     |  falling      | 
-|| PM,,2.5,, || dolomite ||> 0.017 || kg/t || falling || +^ PM<sub>10</sub>       | dolomite             |     0.026 |  kg/t     |  falling      | 
-|| Hg || quicklime ||> 2.94 || mg/t || falling ||+^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>     | dolomite             |     0.015 |  kg/t     |  falling      | 
 +^ Hg           | quicklime            |      2.63 |  mg/t     |  falling      | 
  
 ===== Trends in emissions ===== ===== Trends in emissions =====
  
 All trends in emissions correspond to trends of emission factors in table above. No rising trends are identified. All trends in emissions correspond to trends of emission factors in table above. No rising trends are identified.
-[[gallery size="medium" viewer="yes"]] +[{{:sector:ippu:mineral_industry:em_2a2_since_1990.png|**Emission trends in NFR 2.A.2**}}]
-:  EM_2A2_since_1990.PNG +
-[[/gallery]]+
  
 =====Recalculations===== =====Recalculations=====
  
-Due to some corrections of AD since year 2013 small recalculations were neccessary with respect of all pollutants. +With **activity data** and all already used **emission factors** remaining unrevised, no recalculations have been carried out compared to last year's submission for this pollutants. 
-[!--No recalculation activities were necessary.--]+ 
 +However, due to recommendation during NEC-Review 2021, the calculation of CO emissions from lime production is allocated to process emissions and estimated and reported here for the first time. So emission trend show the recalculation in total.
  
 <WRAP center round info 60%> <WRAP center round info 60%>
-For pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2018, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following chapter [[general:recalculations:start | 8.1 - Recalculations]].+For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2019**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general:recalculations:start|chapter 8.1 - Recalculations]].
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
- 
  
 ===== Planned improvements ===== ===== Planned improvements =====
  
 At the moment, no category-specific improvements are planned. At the moment, no category-specific improvements are planned.
- 
- 
-[!-- **FAQ** 
-No comments! 
-...--]