Transcript Environment and Energy Statistics

Effects of ETS data and methodology on
GHG inventory time series in Finland
Kari Grönfors
10.02.2006
Contents
Organisations involved in ETS /NAP /GHG inventory in Finland
 Calculation of GHG emissions in CRF sectors 1 and 2
 Confidentiality
 Data flows in ETS and GHG inventory
 Recalculation of time series
 Use of ETS / NAP data in recalculation
 Emission factors & oxidation factors
 Effects of recalculation on 1990 emissions
 Methodological issues
 Comparison of mass balance approach & energy approach in Iron &
Steel industry
 Conclusions:
non-problems
problems

10.02.2006
2
Organisations involved in ETS /NAP /GHG inventory
in Finland
Energy Market Authority (EMV):
- main responsibility of emission trading data and register
- collects data from ETS plants, database (almost) ready
Ministry of trade and industry (MTI) / Energy department
- collected 1998-2003 data from operators for preparation of NAP1
- the same data will be used for NAP2
- database not directly linked to other systems
StatFi/Greenhouse gas inventory unit:
- main responsibility of GHG inventory
- compilation of CRF tables and NIR
- calculation of emissions from sector Energy (1AB) and Industrial processes (2A-D)
10.02.2006
3
Calculation of GHG emissions in CRF sectors 1 and 2
ILMARI calculation system for energy based emissions
- bottom up data (~2000 point sources)
- primary data from national emissions register VAHTI
- supporting data from energy production and fuel consumption surveys and
industrial statistics and from many other sources
- special inquiries for certain plants (refineries, iron & steel plants)
Bottom up data covers almost all fuel combustion in energy and industrial sectors.
Also process emissions are calculated using plant level data, taken either from VAHTI,
industrial statistics or in some cases directly from operators.
10.02.2006
4
Confidentiality
StatFi has legally access to all data collected by authorities; also data collected
by branch organisations is widely used in e.g. Energy statistics (based on
agreements).
All data collected by StatFi is defined as confidential, also the data received from
other authorities and organisations; plant or enterprise level data can
not be published nor delivered to other authorities; thus only summary reports
can be published.
There are some subcategories in GHG inventory in CRF 1 and 2 sectors (and also
in Energy statistics), where less than 3 enterprises are included. In these cases
enterprises could prevent reporting of data, but they have not requested that.
Published data (in CRF and NIR) includes the same type of information that is
available in their environmental reports. The detailed calculation sheets used in
GHG inventory will not be published.
In F-gases there are sub-sectors with confidential data.
10.02.2006
5
Data flows in ETS and GHG inventory






Operators report annual fuels and emissions, including fossil and non-fossil CO2,
to VAHTI emission register maintained by regional environment offices
Operators report annual fuels and CO2 emissions to ETS database maintained by
Energy Market Authority (EMV)
StatFi imports data from VAHTI and in the future also from ETS database to
ILMARI system
In ILMARI CO2 emissions are calculated from each fuel batch using national or
plant specific emissions factors
Calculated CO2 is compared to reported figures and may be corrected if
necessary
Thus ILMARI includes original reported CO2 from VAHTI, final CO2 and from
2005 on also reported CO2 from ETS
10.02.2006
6
Data flows in ETS and GHG inventory 2
Fuel consumption and emission data flows (point sources)
in Finland
Operators
installation
Regional environment offices
VAHTI emission register
fuels and emissions
Finnish environment institute
Emission database
ECE
EPER/PRTR
primary data
local plant
(statistical unit)
installation (or
plant or site)
StatFi surveys
Electricity and heat
production, fuels
Consumption of fuels,
electricity, heat
comparison of fuel
and emission data
(aggregate level)
supporting data ILMARI (Stat Fi)
calculation system for
energy based emissions;
internal checking &
comparison of data,
linking of units
primary data for ETS plants
EMV
ETS database
fuels and CO2
MTI/Energy department
Data for NAP
fuels and CO2
GHG
inventory
ETS reports
NAP1
NAP2
10.02.2006
7
Recalculation of time series
Recalculation of time series during 2005 (partly still going on)
- fuel consumption data: 14 years, ~40000 fuel records
- fuel codes (updated fuel classification)
- technical data (combustion techniques, fuel capacity, etc.)
- CRF categories, NACE classification
- non-CO2 emission factors (from separate study by VTT)
- CO2 emission factors (national or plant specific); the same EFs for 1990-2003
- oxidation factors
- reallocation of iron & steel process emissions
- more accurate system for non-energy use + reallocation
10.02.2006
8
Use of NAP / ETS data in recalculation
Data collected for NAP1 by MTI was used for checking/identifying missing point
sources of process emissions, mainly use of carbonates (in the 2005 submission)
Certain plants have produced either latest years’ calculations or time series using mass
balance approach; this data was used in recalculation and reallocation of Iron and
Steel process emissions
Some non-conventional fuel types were identified from ETS monitoring plans (industrial
residues or wastes, mixed fuels, non-specified gases)
Some plants’ technical data was corrected using ETS monitoring plans
10.02.2006
9
Emission factors & oxidation factors 1
National fuel classification (official version 4-digit level) was revised to take into
account ETS demands (in co-operation with EMV)
Especially group ‘mixed fuels’ is now more detailed than in the previous version;
includes 4 sub-categories
The list of fuels and definitions is published in website of Stat Fi; it includes default
NCVs and CO2 emission factors (www.tilastokeskus.fi/polttoaineluokitus)
The same classification will be taken to VAHTI emission register from 2005 (some fuel
categories are further divided to 5-digit level subcategories)
Stat fi updates the list annually, taking into account changes in NCVs and EFs
When preparing their ETS monitoring plans, enterprises are obliged to use this fuel
classification and published default EFs in the case of lower Tiers
For solid fuels, default EFs can be used in any case in the first period of ETS (national
decision)
10.02.2006
10
Emission factors & oxidation factors 2
Default oxidation factors from MRG were chosen instead of IPCC Guidelines to
avoid inconsistency in time series
Only a small number (< 5) of plants will be using plant specific oxidation factors
Country specific emission factors were developed for certain fuels (natural gas,
LPG, peat, heavy fuel oil) instead of IPCC defaults
Plant specific emission factors were checked from calculations prepared for ETS
(coke, BF gas, coke oven gas)
Some non-conventional fuel types have been reallocated to fossil/mixed/nonfossil (e.g. hydrogen may have been reported as either ‘other fossil gas’ or
‘other non-fossil gas’)
10.02.2006
11
Effects of recalculation on 1990 emissions
Total GHG emissions in 1990 (after recalculation) 71,5 Mt CO2-eq.
of which 53,3 Mt CO2 from fuel combustion.
- oxidation factor of solid fuels:
0,98 => 0,99
- oxidation factor of liquid fuels
0,99 => 0,995
- emission factor of heavy fuel oil
77,4 => 78,8
- emission factor of natural gas
56,1 => 55,04
- corrections in peat consumption
- fuels that had not been reported (pet coke etc.)
- removal of double counting (non-energy use of fuels)
(total
+ 0,15 Mt
+ 0,14 Mt
+ 0,1 Mt
- 0,1 Mt
- 0,1 Mt
+ 0,6 Mt
- 0,3 Mt
+ 1,1 Mt)
10.02.2006
12
Methodological issues
In general there are no big surprises in monitoring plans; some plants have
suggested their own monitoring methodologies.
Only a very few plants (<5) use continuous measurement.
All Iron and Steel plants use mass balance approach in ETS.
In the previous inventories emissions in this sector were calculated using energy
approach (starting from coke input in blast furnaces); no calculations were made
from other material input and outputs of carbon than limestone
Refineries use energy approach in ETS, except for certain processes
Some special cases can be seen in refineries: e.g. emissions from catalytic
regeneration - TCC coke and FCC coke - have been treated as combustion
emissions in the previous inventories (0,5 % of total fuel combustion);
comparison RA-SA?
All cement kilns use the same methodology (clinker production)
Lime kilns use either A or B method
10.02.2006
13
Comparison of mass balance approach & energy
approach in Iron & Steel industry
Old methodology: for each process
energy emissions:
CO2 = fuel inputs * OF * EF
4,51 Mt
process emissions:
CO2 = 0,44 * limestone use 0,28 Mt
total emissions:
4,79 Mt
fuels including:
coke and heavy oil for blast furnace (reducing agents)
coke oven gas & conventional fuels for each process
but excluding:
blast furnace gas (to avoid double counting)
New methodology:
total emissions:
CO2 from mass balance approach
reported by each process
4,94 Mt
energy emissions: CO2 = fuel inputs * OF * EF
2,89 Mt
process emissions: total CO2 - energy emissions
2,05 Mt
fuels including:
conventional fuels, coke oven gas & blast furnace gas
but excluding:
coke and heavy oil for blast furnace (reducing agents)
Difference between the old and new methodology:
0,15 Mt (3,0 %)
10.02.2006
14
Conclusions: non-problems
in our case (but to be considered)
Access to ETS data; close co-operation between EMV and StatFi
Using ETS data; no major problems identified so far
Confidentiality in publishing CRF tables
(except F-gases and military use of fuels)
Balancing top-down and bottom-up approaches
Consistency between Energy balance / GHG inventory / ETS data
(some fine tuning needed)
Coverage: in all sectors emissions in ETS <= emissions in GHG inventory
10.02.2006
15
Conclusions: problems
Different default oxidation factors in IPCC96, MRG1, MRG2, IPCC2006:
inventory, AAU reporting, NAP2
Time schedules: NAP2, MRG, AAU, 2006 submission
Continuous improvement or stable emission factors during NAP period?
Confidentiality in publishing background data of ETS (problem for other
emission reporting than GHG inventory)
Uncertainty assessment in GHG and ETS: similar or comparable?
Minor technical and (slightly bigger) time schedule problems in developing a
new module in ILMARI for ETS data
10.02.2006
16
Conclusions: more problems
Minor problems in getting ETS data and inventory data consistent and
comparable:
 transferred CO2 (depends on the use)
 different level of reporting in some cases (installation/plant/site)
 different CRF codes (for example coking plant)
 continuous measurement: no fuel data reported to ETS database
 updated default emission factors (2005 ETS data is based on older set)
What is the acceptable difference between GHG and ETS data in plant level?
Differences in sectoral data between ETS and CRF need to be documented in the
NIR, as well as reasons for these differences.
10.02.2006
17
Thank you for your attention!
10.02.2006
18