Appendix D Comparison of Emissions Data with GAINS

Transcription

1 1 Appendix D Comparison of Emissions Data with

2 2 Comparison of Emissions Data with This section presents a comparison of emissions data from the Installation Database developed in this study and the data in the model.

3 3 Comparison of NO X Emissions with Data NOx emissions (kt) comparison NOx emissions (kt) NOx emissions (kt)2 AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

4 4 Comparison of SO2 Emissions with Data SO2 emissions (kt) comparison SO2 emissions (kt) SO2 emissions (kt)2 AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

5 5 Summary of 2020 BAU Emissions Data in Installation Database MS SO 2 emissions (kt) SO 2 emissions (kt) NOx emissions (kt) NOx emissions (kt) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Total 2,758 2,832 2,718 2,710

6 6 Table D1.3 describes the differences between s and data for selected MS CZ, ES, FR, IT, PL, RO and UK as these were deemed to have the most significant differences when assessed at a MS level. The analysis has been undertaken by comparing SNAP code emissions with equivalent emissions from the database, as shown in Table D1.1. The analysis shows that some of the differences between the two data sources are explainable at a MS-level, but that no clear trends are apparent across MS. Additionally, the PRIMES data on capacity and activity for electricity generation have been compared to s database too (public power only); this comparison is undertaken as described in Table D1.2. The BAU baseline in 2020 has been compared to the CLE scenario and the reference scenario (IED) has been compared to the CP scenario. A graphical comparison of the BAU emissions, reference scenario emissions and capacity and activity data are found below Table D1.3. Table D1.1 SNAP codes compared to plants SNAP code equivalent 01 All public power LCPs. 03 All LCPs from all sectors except public power, recovery boilers in paper plants and non-lcp combustion units in refineries. 04 All non-combustion plant: processes. Table D1.2 PRIMES capacity and activity data Datum Comparison Capacity PRIMES data taken from sheet Summary Energy Balance and indicators (B) Electricity and steam generation Net Generation Capacity in MW e. Converted to MW th using the Indicators for gross electricity production: Efficiency for thermal electricity production (%) and compared directly to s listed capacity (MW th ) Activity PRIMES data taken from sheet Power Generation Sector, data summed from both Fuel input in thermal power plants (in ktoe) and Fuel input in district heating units (in ktoe). s fuel input data converted to ktoe using standard conversion factors.

7 7 Table D1.3 Comparison between s and data MS Assessment / comparison CZ Summary Baseline SNAP 01: lists much greater SO 2 (2.3x) and greater NOx (1.6x) than. SNAP 03: and list similar SO 2, but lists much greater (2.2x) NOx than. This discrepancy indicates that coverage of installations is not necessarily the underlying issue. SNAP 04: and list similar SO 2, but lists much greater NO X (2.5x) than. This discrepancy indicates that coverage of installations is not necessarily the underlying issue. SNAP 01: lists much greater SO 2 (1.9x) and NOx (1.7x) than. SNAP 03: lists much greater SO 2 (1.8x) than ; whereas lists much greater (2.2x) NOx than. This discrepancy indicates that coverage of installations is not necessarily the underlying issue. SNAP 04: lists much greater SO 2 than (1.9x), whereas lists much greater (2.5x) NOx than. This discrepancy indicates that coverage of installations is not necessarily the underlying issue. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations SNAP 01: lists ~2x the solid fuel fired public power capacity as (other fuels approx similar). This may be due to plant-specific information received during this project. may assume different plant closure than. The summary comparison or snap code 03 and 04 emissions (above) does not indicate that and have different coverage of installations. Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions lists ~2x the solid fuel fired public power activity as (other fuels approx similar). This is as per the capacity comparison. It reflects the fact that the SNAP 01 emissions are greater listed by than in. may have assumed a higher NOx EF than for SNAP 03 sector. may have assumed a lower NOx abatement than for SNAP 03 sector. has assumed more SO 2 abatement for the IED than (as reduces SO 2 from baseline to reference scenario more than (relative)). does not apply SCR to some PP plants as they actually have SNCR, which may overstate emissions. assumes no impact on new GTs and on refinery LCPs.

8 8 Table D1.3 (continued) Comparison between s and data MS Assessment / comparison FR Summary Baseline SNAP 01: and list similar SO 2 emissions; lists greater (1.4x) NOx than. SNAP 03: and list similar SO 2 emissions; lists much greater (3.3x) NOx than. SNAP 04: lists much greater SO 2 (2.8x) and NOx (2.4x) than. SNAP 01: lists much greater (2x) SO 2 than. lists greater (1.3x) NO X than. SNAP 03: and list similar SO 2 emissions, while lists much greater NOx emissions than (3x). SNAP 04: lists much greater (2.3x) SO 2 and (2.2x) NOx than. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors lists ~2x the solid fuel fired public power capacity as (other fuels closely matched). This may be due to plant-specific information received during this project. It was sometimes unclear what FR capacity was opted out due to partial plant opt-outs. may have assumed different plant closures than. lists overall higher activity levels than PRIMES, particularly regarding biomass and solid-fuel fired activity. This supports the fact that s SNAP 01 NOx emissions are higher than. may have assumed a higher NOx EF than for SNAP 01 sector. may have assumed a higher NOx EF than for SNAP 03 sector. may have assumed higher SO 2 and NOx EFs than for SNAP 04 sector. BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions is top-down and so does not consider plant-level abatement equipment. received very little plant-specific abatement techniques from stakeholders, but did receive guidance on measures likely to be implemented to each fuel-type plant from stakeholders. assumes no impact on new GTs and on refinery LCPs.

9 9 MS Assessment / comparison ES Summary Baseline SNAP 01: and list similar SO 2 and NOx emissions. SNAP 03: lists greater SO 2 emissions (1.3x) than ; lists much greater (4.2x) NOx than. SNAP 04: lists greater SO 2 emissions (1.8x) than ; lists much greater NOx (3.8x) than. SNAP 01: lists much greater (1.9x) SO 2 and (1.7x) NOx than. SNAP 03: lists greater (1.4x) SO 2 than, while lists much greater NOx emissions than (4.7x). SNAP 04: lists much greater (2.1x) SO 2 than, whilst lists much greater (3.7x) NOx than. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors Total capacity: PRIMES lists 25% greater thermal capacity than. This is not distributed evenly among fuel types: PRIMES lists significantly more gas-fired capacity and significantly less solid fuel-fired capacity than. This may be due to plant-specific information received during this project; for Spain the base plant database is from a mixture of 2006, 2007 and 2008 data. may have assumed different plant closures than. Total activity levels, and split by fuel type, agree well between and PRIMES, which reflects the closely matching SNAP 01 emissions. SNAP 01 sector has closely matching emission factors between and. may have assumed higher SO 2 and NOx EFs than for SNAP 03 sector. has assumed a higher SO 2 EF than, but a lower NOx EF for the SNAP 04 sector. BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions is top-down and so does not consider plant-level abatement equipment. received plant-specific abatement information for some plants (including information from the IEA Coal Power Database) but not all. s reference scenario abates both SO 2 and NOx more than, as the two databases list similar BAU emissions, but they diverge for the reference scenario. assumes no impact on new GTs and on refinery LCPs.

10 10 MS Assessment / comparison IT Summary Baseline SNAP 01: lists greater SO 2 emissions than (2x); and list similar NOx emissions. SNAP 03: lists greater SO 2 emissions (1.3x) than ; lists much greater (3.2x) NOx than. SNAP 04: lists greater SO 2 emissions (1.5x) than and significantly more NOx emissions (14x) than. SNAP 01: and list similar SO 2 emissions; lists greater (1.3x) NOx emissions than. SNAP 03: lists greater (1.7x) SO 2 emissions and much greater (3.8x) NO X emissions than. SNAP 04: lists greater SO 2 emissions (1.3x) than and significantly more NOx emissions (14x) than. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors and PRIMES assumed similar capacities for biomass, gas and solid-fired plants. However, lists twice the liquid-fired capacity as PRIMES, leading to an overall difference of 12%. This may be due to plant-specific information received during this project; for Italy the base plant database is from 2006 data. may have assumed different plant closures than. Despite the similarities in capacity assumptions, PRIMES assumes ~35% less activity than, which is approximately evenly distributed among each fuel type, which suggests that the PRIMES load factor for liquid fired plants is low. The higher activity levels have not necessarily been associated with higher emission levels as lists higher emissions for SNAP 01. Given that PRIMES lists greater activity but lists lower emissions than, the SNAP 01 EF is much lower than that assumed by. may have assumed higher SO 2 and NOx EFs than for SNAP 03 sector. may have assumed higher SO 2 and NOx EFs than for SNAP 04 sector. BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions is top-down and so does not consider plant-level abatement equipment. received plant-specific abatement information for some plants but not all. s reference scenario abates SO 2 more than. assumes no impact on new GTs n on refinery LCPs. PL Summary Baseline SNAP 01: lists greater SO 2 (1.7x) and NOx (1.8x) emissions than. SNAP 03: lists greater SO 2 (2.1x) and NO X (3.1x) emissions than. SNAP 04: lists much greater (3.2x) SO 2 emissions than ; whilst lists much greater NOx emissions (9x) than. SNAP 01: lists greater SO 2 emissions than (1.7x); and show comparable NOx emissions. SNAP 03: lists greater SO 2 (2.6x) and NO X (3.4x) emissions than. SNAP 04: lists much greater (4.1x) SO 2 emissions than ; whilst lists much greater NOx emissions (9x) than.

11 11 MS Assessment / comparison Differences in capacity / coverage of installations Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions The consistent difference between and for snap code 01 would normally suggest that the coverage of the two databases are different, but the capacity analysis shows that assumes greater solid fuel-fired capacity than. s database has removed those plants expected to close (opted out under LCPD; Accession Treaty) where they have been identifiable. Approximately in-line with the capacity comparison, assumes greater solid fuel-fired activity than. s BAU SO 2 and NOx emission factors for solid-fuel fired public power LCPs are much lower than : lists higher emissions but lower capacity than. may assume greater SO 2 and NO X abatement under BAU than (although given that is not plant-based this is difficult to assess) takes into account that many of the derogations under the Accession treaty, although lying beyond the date of the underlying emission data, will expire by 2016 such that they should be LCPD-compliant. In comparison with the BAU figures, the NOx emissions under the reference scenario are fairly closely aligned between the two sources, which indicates that, considering under BAU lists much higher emissions, may assume much higher emission reductions are required to comply with the IED. However the difference in SO 2 emissions is similar, indicating that both and assume similar % reductions for SO 2 from public power plants in Poland meeting the IED. RO Summary Baseline SNAP 01: and list similar SO 2 emissions; lists ~40% higher NOx emissions than. SNAP 03: lists much greater SO 2 (4.6x) and NO X (7.4x) emissions than. SNAP 04: and list similar SO 2 and NO X emissions. SNAP 01: lists greater SO 2 emissions than (1.7x); and show comparable NOx emissions. SNAP 03: lists much greater SO 2 (7.6x) and NO X (7.5x) emissions than. SNAP 04: lists greater SO 2 emissions than (1.7x); and show comparable NOx emissions. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations The baseline emissions comparison suggests that the coverage of SNAP 03 is inconsistent between and, but is consistent for SNAP 04. For SNAP 01 the capacity comparison indicates that assumes ~35% greater capacity than (differences in gas capacity and solid fuel capacity), which is consistent with the NO X comparison. Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors Approximately in-line with the capacity comparison, assumes greater solid fuel-fired activity than. SNAP 01: Although and list similar SO 2 emissions, activity rates are different such that SO 2 EF is higher than s. The NO X emission factors may be more comparable as lists higher BAU NO X emissions and increased activity levels.

12 12 MS Assessment / comparison BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions may have a lower BAU SO 2 EF than which may suggest a higher level of SO 2 abatement under BAU. It is not possible to conclude on this as received a considerable amount of recent plant-level emissions data and abatement equipment for Romanian plants (dated 2008). SNAP 01: assumes greater SO 2 and NO X emission reductions to meet the IED than. This may be influenced by the very recent plant-level data (from 2008) that was received and used for the vast majority of solid-fuel fired activity in Romanian LCPs. UK Summary Baseline SNAP 01: lists greater SO 2 emissions than (1.7x) and NOx (1.3x) emissions than. SNAP 03: and list similar SO 2 and NO X emissions. SNAP 04: lists much greater SO 2 (2.6x) and NOx (2.9x) emissions than. SNAP 01: lists greater (1.5x) SO 2 emissions than ; both list similar NOx emissions. SNAP 03: and list similar SO 2 emissions, whereas lists greater (1.8x) NOx emissions than. SNAP 04: lists greater SO 2 (1.9x) and NOx (2.6x) emissions than. Differences in capacity / coverage of installations Snap 01: total capacities are similar in and PRIMES, although the split by fuel type differs: lists greater gas- and liquid-fired capacity, and less solid-fired capacity. The BAU emissions for SNAP 03 suggest that this sector may hold similar coverage in the two sources, whilst this is not the case for SNAP 04. Activity levels of public power BAU emission factors BAU abatement assumptions abatement assumptions SNAP 01: lists greater gas- and biomass-fired activity and significantly more solid fuel fired activity than. The 2020 activity data have been extrapolated from recent activity data from (approximately half of each) and the basis of the estimates is quite recent. The fact that both s emissions and activity are higher than may suggest broadly similar emission factors for snap 01. It is difficult to determine if the emission factors or scope coverage are behind the BAU SNAP 03 and 04 emission differences. The fact that both s emissions and activity are higher than may suggest broadly similar emission factors for snap 01, which may suggest similar abatement assumptions. s abatement assumptions for the UK reflect the more detailed work undertaken by for the UK sector. SNAP 01: assumes greater % reductions to meet the IED than, shown by the convergence of differences in emissions from BAU to the reference scenario. SNAP 03: assumes greater NOx reductions are required to meet IED than for the 03 sector.

13 13 Figure D1 SO 2 emissions under BAU in 2020 for selected MS and for SNAP codes 01, 03 and 04, as listed in the database and with comparable data 250 BAU SO2 200 SO2 emissions (kt) CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK Figure D2 NOx emissions under BAU in 2020 for selected MS and for SNAP codes 01, 03 and 04, as listed in the database and with comparable data 250 BAU NOx 200 NOx emissions (kt) CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK

14 14 Figure D3 SO 2 emissions under the reference scenario (IED) in 2020 for selected MS and for SNAP codes 01, 03 and 04, as listed in the database and with comparable data SO2 140 SO2 emissions (kt) CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK Figure D4 NO X emissions under the reference scenario (IED) in 2020 for selected MS and for SNAP codes 01, 03 and 04, as listed in the database and with comparable data NOx 140 NOx emissions (kt) CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK

15 15 Figure D5 Public power capacity data in 2020 for selected MS, split by fuel type, as listed in the database and with comparable PRIMES data 200 Capacity GWth Solid Liquid Gas Biomass CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK

16 16 Figure D6 Public power activity data in 2020 for selected MS, split by fuel type, as listed in the database and with comparable PRIMES data 100 Activity Mtoe Solid Liquid Gas Biomass CZ ES FR IT PL RO UK