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:other_and_natural_sources:natural_sources:other [2025/03/07 15:26] – [Table] Update data to 2025 submission hausmann | sector:other_and_natural_sources:natural_sources:other [2025/04/24 14:05] (current) – [Emission Trend] kotzulla | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| | Other natural sources: Forest and grassland conversion | | Other natural sources: Forest and grassland conversion | ||
| | Other natural sources: Abandonment of managed land | | | Other natural sources: Abandonment of managed land | | ||
| - | | Other natural sources: | + | | Other natural sources: |
| | Other natural sources: Other | | | Other natural sources: Other | | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | As NFR 11.C is a memo item category, emissions reported here are not accounted for in the National Totals. | + | However, for the time being, from the natural sources listed above, only emissions from lightning is taken into account in the German emissions inventory. |
| + | |||
| + | NOTE: As NFR 11.C is a memo item category, emissions reported here are not accounted for in the National Totals. | ||
| ===== Other natural sources: Lightning | ===== Other natural sources: Lightning | ||
| Line 54: | Line 56: | ||
| __Table 1: Annual number of lightning strikes in Germany, as 1990, in [1,000 strikes]__ | __Table 1: Annual number of lightning strikes in Germany, as 1990, in [1,000 strikes]__ | ||
| - | ^ 1990 | + | ^ 1990 |
| - | ^ | + | | |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | | 2011 | 687 | | + | |
| - | | 2012 | 656 | | + | |
| - | | 2013 | 542 | | + | |
| - | | 2014 | 623 | | + | |
| - | ^ | + | |
| - | | | + | |
| - | | | + | |
| - | | | + | |
| - | | | + | |
| - | ^ 2020 | + | |
| - | | 2021 | + | |
| - | | 2022 | + | |
| - | ^ 2023 | + | |
| ===Emission factor(s)=== | ===Emission factor(s)=== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 69: | ||
| Figure 1: NFR 11.C, NO< | Figure 1: NFR 11.C, NO< | ||
| - | {{ : | + | {{ : |
| ===== Recalculations ===== | ===== Recalculations ===== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 80: | ||
| The AD from BLIDS does have a low uncertainty of ± 3%. The uncertainties for the emission factors are estimated to be relatively high, being a default value. Hence the overall uncertainty for the emission estimation of NO< | The AD from BLIDS does have a low uncertainty of ± 3%. The uncertainties for the emission factors are estimated to be relatively high, being a default value. Hence the overall uncertainty for the emission estimation of NO< | ||
| - | ====Quality checks==== | ||
| - | |||
| - | No sector-specific quality checks are done. | ||
| ====Planned Improvement==== | ====Planned Improvement==== | ||
| - | <WRAP center round info 60%> | + | <WRAP center round info 45%> |
| - | Currently, no source-specific improvements are planned. | + | At the moment, no source-specific improvements are planned. |
| </ | </ | ||
| [(EMEP2023> | [(EMEP2023> | ||