meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
sector:waste:cremation:start [2021/04/15 10:54] – [Trends in emissions] kludt | sector:waste:cremation:start [2022/02/24 06:45] – [Table] Formats optimized gniffke | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Activity data for this category are based on data from the statistics of the " | Activity data for this category are based on data from the statistics of the " | ||
+ | ^ unit ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2020 ^ | ||
+ | | kt | 13.55 | 25.32 | 26.24 | 29.22 | 34.18 | 45.88 | 56.77 | | ||
+ | Source: own calculation, | ||
====Emission factors==== | ====Emission factors==== | ||
Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
In 2018 the TERT noted that the German Hg EF is 100 times smaller than the default value proposed in the 2016 EMEP/EEA Guidebook and the Cd and Pb EF are 1000 times smaller than the default values proposed in the 2016 EMEP/EEA Guidebook. However, the EF for Pb and Cd are based on national expert judgement: assumption that a) the emissions behave similarly to dust and b) the dust limit value of the air pollution control specification (27th BImSchV) is complied with (to be confirmed on the basis of the new measurement data from 5 crematoria with different exhaust gas cleaning systems). The Hg EF was calculated on the basis of the German report on “OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on controlling the dispersal of mercury from crematoria", | In 2018 the TERT noted that the German Hg EF is 100 times smaller than the default value proposed in the 2016 EMEP/EEA Guidebook and the Cd and Pb EF are 1000 times smaller than the default values proposed in the 2016 EMEP/EEA Guidebook. However, the EF for Pb and Cd are based on national expert judgement: assumption that a) the emissions behave similarly to dust and b) the dust limit value of the air pollution control specification (27th BImSchV) is complied with (to be confirmed on the basis of the new measurement data from 5 crematoria with different exhaust gas cleaning systems). The Hg EF was calculated on the basis of the German report on “OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on controlling the dispersal of mercury from crematoria", | ||
- | Nevertheless a current analysis of measured data could decrease the country specific EF for POP further. | + | After the finalization of a research Project [(FKZ 3716 53 3021 „Umweltrelevanz und Stand der Technik bei Einäscherungsanlagen“ (Environmental relevance and state of the art for cremation plants); URL: https:// |
+ | This results in the following weighted mean value: | ||
+ | 0.9*0.0225 g/h + 0.1*0.2468 g/h = 0.0449588207 g/h. | ||
+ | Since the cremation duration is approximately one hour, the mean value per hour corresponds to the Hg load per cremation and is used accordingly in the inventory calculation. Values are interpolated between the two endpoints 2010 and 2018. | ||
EF for TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 derive from the research study " | EF for TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 derive from the research study " | ||
===== Trends in emissions ===== | ===== Trends in emissions ===== | ||
- | All trends in emissions correspond to trends of xxx. | + | Most emission |
- | [{{: | + | |
- | \\ | + | [{{: |
===== Recalculations ===== | ===== Recalculations ===== | ||
Line 34: | Line 39: | ||
<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 [[general: | + | For pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2019, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
</ | </ |