meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
sector:waste:open_burning:start [2021/01/18 19:06] – created kotzulla | sector:waste:open_burning:start [2024/11/06 13:50] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== 5.C.2 - Open Burning of Waste ====== | ====== 5.C.2 - Open Burning of Waste ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^ Category Code ^ Method | ||
+ | | 5.C.2 | CS | ||
+ | ^ ^ NO< | ||
+ | | Key Category: | ||
+ | | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | Within NFR sub-category 5.C.2 - Open Burning of Waste, the German emissions inventory provides emissions from registered bonfires and other wooden materials burnt outdoors. Emissions from bonfires are key source for PM< | ||
+ | |||
+ | Please see chapter regarding farming/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Emissions from open burning of wood and green waste for traditional purposes, so-called bonfires such as Easter fires, are reported model-based. In addition to biogenic carbon dioxide, emissions of NO< | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | =====Method===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | For developing of a estimation frame a survey regarding the number of such bonfires was carried out by an expert work [(Wagner & Steinmetzer, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As discussed on Review 2020 regarding all relevant sources: A comparison shows that the volume of bonfires is significantly higher than the volume of campfires. In terms of number, however, the two types of fires are similar. Due to the large fluctuations of the minimum/ | ||
+ | In our view the estimation of bonfires emissions is conservative and completly. | ||
+ | ====Activity data==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Activity data for this category are based on data from a step by step calculation: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Two types of fires were already classified in the expert project: camp fires in the more private sector and, most importantly, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here, Easter fires follow an approach about general percentage decreases and additionally in 2019 five percentage points decrease corresponding to various cancels due to forest fire risk. In 2020, an additional 70 percent decrease was modeled due to cancellations for pandemic response (no complete cancellation in Germany because there were exceptions and follow-up events). | ||
+ | The following values are the result of evaluation: | ||
+ | |||
+ | __Table 1: Total annual mass of bonfires, in metric tonnes [t]__ | ||
+ | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ | ||
+ | | 431,394 | 414,276 | 397,157 | 380,038 | 362,919 | 345,800 | 135,170 | 134.297 | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Emission factors==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | As discussed on Review 2020 regarding EF used and referenced: We use different EF from different references instead the EF of Table 3-1 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 5.C.2 Small-scale waste burning, because the Tier 1 EF seem not suitable for the burning of wooden wastes. We consider both fresh wood (garden and park waste) and dry wood (without coatings etc.). We have tried to find relevant parallels, especially because of the burning of fresh wood with regard to forest fires. But regarding the EF from GB 2019 we will evaluate the use as shown in the following table: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^ | ||
+ | ^ CO | 58.0 | ||
+ | ^ NO< | ||
+ | ^ SO< | ||
+ | ^ NMVOC | ||
+ | ^ TSP | ||
+ | ^ PM< | ||
+ | ^ PM< | ||
+ | ^ BC | 0.81 | ||
+ | ^ PCDD/ | ||
+ | ^ PAH | ||
+ | ^ B[a]P | ||
+ | ^ B[b]F | ||
+ | ^ B[k]F | ||
+ | ^ I[...]P | ||
+ | ^ Pb | 0.32 | ||
+ | ^ Cd | 0.13 | ||
+ | |||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | ===== Trends in emissions ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | All trends in emissions correspond to trends of AD. No rising trends are to identify. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{: | ||
+ | ===== Recalculations ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
+ | With **activity data and emission factors remaining unrevised**, | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ |