1 / 16

French PM Inventory: Challenges and Progress

An overview of the French PM inventory, challenges faced, sector comparisons, inventory results, and the need for additional sources and data transparency. The text emphasizes the importance of refining PM inventories for effective policy-making. The document also discusses the revision and future initiatives to enhance the French Inventory.

hoai
Télécharger la présentation

French PM Inventory: Challenges and Progress

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. FRENCH PM WORK IN PROGRESS Jean-Pierre Fontelle With the contribution of: Sonia Babu, Jean-Pierre Chang, Carole Levy, Bénédicte Oudart, Emanuel Rivière

  2. PM INVENTORY • Previous inventory : (before mid 90s) • TSP only • Limited number of sources • New inventory : (supported by the French Ministry of Environment ) • Geographical area : France • TSP, PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0 (primary sources) • Annual time series from 1990 to 1998 • 200 types of sources : all defined in SNAP 97+ additional sources

  3. road transport : • exhaust, brake, tyre and clutch wear. SECTORS CONSIDERED Mobile sources : • other mobile sources : • air traffic, railways, inland waterways, sea transport, machinery, household and gardening. Stationary sources : • Combustion – industrial and non industrial • Agriculture • Nature • Waste incineration

  4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES Goal : to complete and to validate the French PM inventory Observations : high discrepancies in • source coverage • methodologies • emission factors • emissions by sectors • total emissions

  5. SECTORS CONSIDERED • Industrial processes : • iron and steel industries, • cement, lime, plaster, glass production, • road paving, • bricks and tiles, fine ceramic materials, • non-ferrous metal industries, aluminium, lead and zinc, • adipic acid, chipboard, • sugar and flour production, • storage and transport of cereals, etc...

  6. RESULTS IN BRIEF

  7. TEACHINGS • Problem in defining the inventory fields (eg : resuspension ?) • Not complete (missing sources) • Lack of knowledge (missing and obsolete data) • Data from foreign studies possibly misused • Large discrepancies between various sources of information • Extremely high uncertainty

  8. Comparison between TNO (edit.1997), IIASA (edit.2000) results and other national inventories COMPARISON OF INVENTORIES * related to a limited number of sources (35% of sources considered for TSP)

  9. EF TSP (g/GJ) Heavy fuel oil Wood CITEPA 3515 OFEFP / BUWAL 2380 EF wood (g/GJ) TSP PM10 CITEPA 500175 OFEFP / BUWAL 150 ITALY 1560 IIASA 150 EPA 870 SOME EXAMPLES • Combust. in manufac. industry : combustion plants > 50MW • Combustion in households :

  10. EF TSP (g/GJ) Coal CITEPA 100 OFEFP / BUWAL 50 EF (kg/t) TSP PM10 CITEPA 95 OFEFP / BUWAL 2 ITALY 1 IIASA (uncontrolled) 25 TNO (Eastern Europe) 7 TNO (Western Europe) 3 SOME EXAMPLES • District heating plants : combustion plants < 50MW • Aluminium production (electrolysis) :

  11. Road transport : gasoline diesel oil EF mg/km PC LD Moto. HD CITEPA highway 11 13 7 525 TSP rural 12 14 6 634 urban 21 20 7 1141 Total 6 650 IIASA 4-stroke 55 970 PM10 2-stroke 610 SOME EXAMPLES

  12. NB : 1990 TSP mass emissions are indicated in ( ) % refer to TSP EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES IN SOURCE COVERAGE

  13. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SOURCES • Sugar production • Charcoal manufacture • Flour production • Smoking • Fireworks • Tilling of arable land crops • Explosives production • Construction • Wood work • Road abrasion • Cereals handling • Quarrying • Smoking meat • Harvesting • Shoe’s sole wear • Use of BBQ Conclusion : SNAP and other nomenclatures to be revised ?

  14. OBSERVATIONS From discussion between experts : • limited knowledge in most countries • very limited number of available inventories • need for more monitoring campaigns • fugitive emissions much more complex to estimate and probably represent a significant amount of total emissions • stress politicians on the high level of uncertainties and risk to use irrelevant information when elaborating regulation involving high economic impact

  15. CONCLUSION • French inventory to complete and to improve • Need for exchange of knowledge between experts, initiatives for cooperation is welcome, especially regarding transparency of data • As primary sources represent a minor part of total PM, would it not more efficient to focus essentially on secondary sources ? • Need to consolidate PM inventories before use by policy makers Further French work : • Revision of the French Inventory in 2001 by CITEPA • Comparison study on methodology used by different countries to carry out PM inventories (final report expected for September 2001) by CITEPA • Projection study, 2015-2020 (expected for October 2001) by CITEPA and INERIS

  16. CITEPA’s web sitewww.citepa.org

More Related