1 / 19

Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk

A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measures Phase II - Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of the Protocols. Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk TNO Built Environment and Geosciences

colm
Télécharger la présentation

Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A study to the effectiveness of the HM & POP Protocols and costs of additional measuresPhase II - Emission reduction and cost of a possible revision of the Protocols Hugo Denier van der Gon, Maarten van het Bolscher & Antoon Visschedijk TNO Built Environment and Geosciences Presented by: Johan Sliggers, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Report requests: hugo.deniervandergon@tno.nl

  2. Aims of the project Phase I • Fully “filled” emission database (Official reporting + TNO defaults) • Increase quality of emission inventories and projections (in countries) • Evaluate the emission reductions achieved by the protocols • Identify the (relative) importance of sources for a second step in reducing the release of HM / POP into the environment • Provide input to explore further options for emission reductions including costs of measures Phase II • Select measures for a possible revision of the HM / POP Protocol • Calculate emission reduction and associated costs in 2020 upon a possible revision of the HM / POP protocol • Estimate costs of a possible revision of the HM / POP Protocol Phase I + II • Provide input for predictive modeling of environmental distribution, exposure of ecosystems, source–receptor relationships

  3. Contents- Heavy Metals • Summary Output Phase I • Methodology Phase II - HM • Selected measures and Costs • Results Phase II - HM • Conclusions • Recommendations

  4. Output of the project – Phase I - HM • For Cd, Pb, Hg + 6 other HM (As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se and Zn) • For European UNECE Member States. • Emission inventory for 2000 (base year) • projections for 2010, 2015 and 2020 following two scenarios • Current Legislation and Current Ratification of HM protocol (CRHM) • Current Legislation and Full Implementation of HM protocol (FIHM) • Quantify emission reduction due to implementation of the HM Protocol • Preliminary list of possible measures to further reduce HM emissions Denier van der Gon, HAC et al.,Study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and costs of possible additional measures Phase I: Estimation of emission reduction resulting from the implementation of the HM Protocol, TNO report B&O-A R 2005/193, August 2005.

  5. Methodology phase II HM • Starting point: HM emissions in 2020 FIHM • Key source analysis of remaining emissions upon FIHM • Selection of sources for a possible revision of the HM Protocol • Contribution to the total emission of Cd, Hg and/or Pb > 5% • Contribution to emission of one or more of other HM > 15% • Domestic / residential sources not selected • Sources scheduled for re-evaluation by the Protocol included (Chlor-alkali industry and Medical Waste Incineration ) • Select source-specific measures and their associated costs • Package 1 – dust control oriented (all HM) • Package 2 – gaseous emission control (more specific Hg) • Calculate emission reduction upon revision and quantify associated costs • Distribute emissions to make emission maps for modelling Note: Detailed (country) emission data available on CD ROM inside report.

  6. Selected source categories for possible further HM emission reduction

  7. Sources not in the HM Protocol % HM Europe 2020 after FI

  8. Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 1 Note: Complete list of measures; see accompanying report

  9. Selected Measures and Costs Examples Package 2 Note: Complete list of measures; see accompanying report

  10. Results HM PHASE II • Avoided emission by country, by measure for 2020 *) • Annual costs by country, by measure for 2020 *) • Here aggregated results for UNECE-Europe are presented and put in perspective to 2000, 2010 and 2020 emissions with current ratification (CR) and/or full implementation (FI) of the HM Protocol • *)Detailed breakdown available in annex, addendum and CD of the TNO report

  11. Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after possible revision of the HM Protocol, achieved emission reductions and costs for package 1+2

  12. Emission in UNECE Europe in 2020 before and after possible revision of the HM Protocol package 1+2, achieved emission reductions

  13. HM emissions 2000-2020 with different scenarios - 1 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures

  14. HM emissions 2000-2020 with different scenarios - 2 CR = current ratification; FI = full implementation; AM = additional measures

  15. Emissions are available as input for modeling Example: Gridded emission map for Cd 2020 FIHM+AM Total Cadmium kg/ 50x50 km

  16. Relative change HM emissions 1990-2020 with different scenarios (year 2000 = 100%)

  17. Conclusions -1 • Total Costs of AM Package 1 (dust reduction) ~9 billion € • mostly (85%) in Non-EU25+ • Note: costs will also be made in EU but are attributed to autonomous measures (e.g. IPPC) • Total Costs of AM Package 2 (Hg reduction) ~18.5 billion € • equally distributed in EU25+ and non-EU25+ • Hg is not covered by autonomous measures; • Co-benefit of Package 2 may be reduction other gaseous pollutants e.g. PCDD/F • Co-benefit for PM is mostly by FIHM (~ 3.7 Mt TSP, 1.2 Mt PM10 and 0.28 Mt PM2.5). FIHM+AM has limited impact because (partly) focus on gaseous emissions.

  18. Conclusions-2 • Additional Measures (AM) (~27000 M €) are expensive compared to the 1998 HM protocol (estimated at ~440 MECU (1995); Berdowski et al., 1998), but probably well below costs of implementation 2nd S Protocol (roughly estimated at ~ 50-60,000 M € ) • Full implementation of the 1998 HM Protocol brings about the biggest step in reduction of HM emissions; a possible revision of the HM protocol is a further improvement and should be seen in this perspective.

  19. Recommendations • The projections are scaled from 2000 emissions – these emissions are a mix of official reporting and defaults. Errors / uncertainties propagate into the projected emissions. • Mismatch between Emissions – Modeled concentrations - Measurements –> Suggests underestimated emissions. To address the above problems we need • In-depth screening of reported emissions & consistency of reporting • Improve emission factors • Case studies to validate the mass balance of the causal chain (emission, atmospheric transport, deposition).

More Related