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:waste:open_burning:start [2026/03/11 10:49] – [Table] kotzulla | sector:waste:open_burning:start [2026/03/16 13:58] (current) – [Table] mielke | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | ^ NO< | + | ^ NO< |
| - | | -/- | -/- | -/- | + | | -/- | -/- | -/- |
| - | | {{page> | + | | {{page> |
| Within NFR sub-category 5.C.2 - Open Burning of Waste, the German emissions inventory provides only emissions from allowed bonfires and from other wooden materials burnt outdoors. Emissions from bonfires are key source for PM< | Within NFR sub-category 5.C.2 - Open Burning of Waste, the German emissions inventory provides only emissions from allowed bonfires and from other wooden materials burnt outdoors. Emissions from bonfires are key source for PM< | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| =====Method===== | =====Method===== | ||
| - | For developing of a estimation frame a survey regarding the number of such bonfires was carried out by an expert work [(Wagner & Steinmetzer, | + | For developing of a estimation frame a survey regarding the number of such bonfires was carried out by an expert work [(WAGNERSTEINMETZER2018)]. As the result, questionnaires from municipalities and statistical projections for Germany for the year 2016 were checked. The project has shown a declining trend since 1990. On the basis of expert judgement, a further reduction of emissions in the future is expected. |
| 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/ | 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. | + | |
| + | In our view, the estimation of bonfires emissions is conservative and complete. | ||
| + | |||
| ====Activity data==== | ====Activity data==== | ||
| Line 30: | Line 33: | ||
| Two types of fires were already classified in the expert project: camp fires in the more private sector and, most importantly, | 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 | + | Here, Easter fires follow an approach |
| + | Apart from this general approach, | ||
| + | Furthermore for 2020 and 2021, an additional | ||
| + | For all years as of 2022 no such additional | ||
| The following values are the result of evaluation: | The following values are the result of evaluation: | ||
| Line 36: | Line 43: | ||
| ^ 1990 | ^ 1990 | ||
| | 431, | | 431, | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| ====Emission factors==== | ====Emission factors==== | ||
| - | As discussed on Review 2020 regarding EF used and referenced: We use different EF from different references 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, for example because of the burning of fresh wood with regard to forest fires. | + | As discussed on Review 2020 regarding EF used and referenced: We use different EF from different references 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, for example because of the burning of fresh wood with regard to forest fires. |
| - | ^ | + | However, the majority of emission factors is derived from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2023 for 5.C.2, evaluated and corrected in use, as shown in the following table: |
| - | ^ CO | 48.8 | + | |
| - | ^ NO< | + | __Table 2: Emission factors applied for emissions from bonfires__ |
| - | ^ SO< | + | ^ |
| - | ^ NMVOC | + | ^ CO | 48.8 |
| - | ^ TSP | + | ^ NO< |
| - | ^ PM< | + | ^ SO< |
| - | ^ PM< | + | ^ NMVOC |
| - | ^ BC | 1,05 | + | ^ TSP |
| - | ^ PCDD/ | + | ^ PM< |
| - | ^ PAH | + | ^ PM< |
| - | ^ B[a]P | + | ^ BC | 1,05 |
| - | ^ B[b]F | + | ^ PCDD/ |
| - | ^ B[k]F | + | ^ PAH |
| - | ^ I[...]P | + | ^ B[a]P |
| - | ^ Pb | 0.32 | + | ^ B[b]F |
| - | ^ Cd | 0.13 | + | ^ B[k]F |
| + | ^ I[...]P | ||
| + | ^ Pb | 0.32 | ||
| + | ^ Cd | 0.13 | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| ===== Trends in emissions ===== | ===== Trends in emissions ===== | ||
| - | All trends in emissions | + | With no annual emission factors (no emission reduction measures implemeted or to be expected), emission development |
| + | Accordingly, | ||
| [{{: | [{{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| ===== Recalculations ===== | ===== Recalculations ===== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 92: | ||
| At the moment, no category-specific improvements are planned. | At the moment, no category-specific improvements are planned. | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | [(WAGNERSTEINMETZER2018> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [(EMEPEEA2023> | ||