Improvements of the Netherlands’ Greenhouse Gas

Inventory & resulting (lower) uncertainties ?

Uncertainty Workshop, Helsinki 5-6 September 2005H.H.J. Vreuls, SenterNovem

Outline

• Dutch GHG emissions

• Recalculations of GHG emissions

• Uncertainty analysis– TIER 1 uncertainty assessment– TIER 2 uncertainty assessment

• Conclusions

GHG Emissions Netherlands

1990: 211,7 Tg 2003: 214,8 Tg

CO2: sectoral trends and shares in 1990

0.30- 0.10- 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.90

1A1a Electricity and heat production

1A1c Other transformation

1A2 INDUSTRY

1A3 TRANSPORT

1A4a Commercial / Institutional

1A4b Residential

1A4c Agriculture / Forestry / Fishing

5 LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY

6 WASTE

Difference 2003-1990

Share in 1990

Reasons for recalculation 2005

• IPCC reporting requirements– Transparency– Completeness– Consistency in time series– Compliance with the IPCC guidelines– Accuracy

• Results from improvement programme

• Input from uncertainty analysis

Recalculations and emission data in the base year 1990

CO2: - 2,6 Tg (excluding LUCF)

+ 1,7 Tg (including LUCF)

CH4: - 1,5 Tg CO2-eq

N20: + 3,8 Tg CO2-eq

F-gases – 0,04 Tg CO2-eq

(1995)

Differences between NIR 2004 and NIR 2005 for the emission trends 1990-2002

GasCO2-eq. [Gg]

1)

NIR 2004 NIR 2005 Difference NIR 2004 NIR 2005 Difference

CO2 16.076 15.929 -146 10,0% 10,1% 0,1%

CH4 -8.633 -7.409 1.224 -31,6% -28,9% 2,7%

N2O -1.112 -3.341 -2.228 -6,8% -15,7% -8,9%HFCs -2.859 -2.865 -6 -64,5% -64,7% -0,1%PFCs -1.216 -699 517 -50,3% -33,1% 17,3%SF6 126 141 15 58,1% 65,1% 7,0%Total 2.381 1.756 -624 1,1% 0,8% -0,3%

Trend (percentage)Trend (absolute)

1) Excluding LUCF

TIER 1 Methodology uncertainties; assumptions

• All individual emissions sources are independent from each other

• The emission probability shows normal (Gaussian) distributions

• Uncertainties are smaller than + 60%

Top 12 sources in total annual uncertaintyIPCCcode

IPCC Source category Tg CO2-eq

1990

Tg CO2-eq

2003

Activity data

uncert.

Emissionfactor unc.

Total Uncertainty

1A1 CO2 from stationary combustion: energy industry 12.0 6.8 3% 2% 4%

1A2

CO2 emissions from stationary combustion : Manufacturing

Industries and Construction 32.8 27.1 3% 1% 3%

1A3 CO2 from stationary combustion: other sectors 38.0 40.6 10% 1% 10%

1A3b CO2 mobile from combustion: road vehicles 25.5 33.4 2% 2% 3%

2B N2O from nitric acid production 6.3 5.1 10% 50% 51%

4A1

CH4 from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock:

cattle 6.6 5.4 5% 20% 21%

4B CH4 from manure management: cattle 1.6 1.4 10% 100% 100%

4B CH4 emissions from manure management : swine 1.1 0.9 10% 100% 100%

4D Direct N2O from agricultural soils 4.6 4.8 10% 60% 61%

4D Indirect N2O from nitrogen used in agriculture 5.0 3.3 50% 200% 206%

5 CO2 from Land Use Change and Forestry 2.9 2.8 100% 100% 141%

6A CH4 from solid waste disposal sites 51.0 65.8 15% 30% 34%

Sum of emissions (percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions)

187.4 (87%)

197.3 (91%)

Adding uncertainty informationIPCC Source category Tg

CO2-eq.Activity data

uncert.Emission factor

uncert.Total

uncertainty

1A CH4 from stationary combustion0.5 3% 50% 50%

1A3d CO2 from mobile combustion: navigation0.6 50% 2% 50%

1B1 CO2 from coke production0.5 50% 2% 50%

1B2 CH4 from fugitive emissions oil/gas: gas

distribution 0.5 2% 50% 50%

2F SF6 from SF6 use 0.3 50% 25% 56%

4B N2O from manure management 0.6 10% 100% 100%

6B N2O from wastewater handling 0.4 20% 50% 54%

Sum of emissions (percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions)

3.4(2%)

Uncertainty in annual total national greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas NIR 2004calculated (reported)

uncertainty

NIR 2005calculated (reported)

uncertainty

Carbon dioxide ± 2% (± 3%) ± 4% (± 5%)

Methane ± 17% (± 25%) ± 18% (± 25%)

Nitrous oxide ± 34% (± 50%) ± 53% (± 50%)

F-gases ± 21% (± 50%) ± 11% (± 50%)

Total CO2-eq. ± 4% (± 5%) ± 6% (± 7%)

Trend in 1990-2002 emissions and IPCC Tier 1 trend uncertaintybefore and after recalculations

-62%

-7%

-32%

10%0.0%

-59%

-16%

-29%

10%0.1%

-80.0%

-60.0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

All 1) 2) CO2 1) CH4 N2O F-gases 2)

NIR 2004 NIR 2005 2) For F-gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) the base year is 1995.

1) Excluding CO2 from LUCF

No decrease of uncertainties after recalculations

• Application of new methods

• Uncertainties of newly identified key sources– CO2 emissions from LUCF

– Indirect N2O emissions from agricultural soils

• For F-gases higher quality activity data and more accurate emission data

Tier 2 uncertainty analysis

• Correlations between emission sources

• Specific probability density functions

Conducted in the Netherlands using 1990 and 1999 data– Using Monte Carlo method– Also qualitative uncertainty

Qualitative uncertainty:Typology of uncertainties

• Uncertainty due to variability– Natural randomness– Value diversity– Behavioral variability– Social randomness– Technological surprise

• Uncertainty due to limited knowledge– Measurable uncertainty– Structural uncertainty

Uncertainty due to limited knowledge

• Measurable uncertainty– Inexactness– Lack of observation/measurements– Practical immeasurable– Conflicting information

• Structural uncertainty– Reducible ignorance– Indeterminacy– Irreducible ignorance

Tier-1 and Tier-2 uncertainty assessment 1999

Greenhouse gas Tier 1 uncertainty

Tier 2 uncertainty

Carbon dioxide 2.7% 1.6%

Methane 16% 15%

Nitrous oxide 36% 29%

F-gases 20% 20%

Total CO2-eq. 4.5% 3.6%

Elements in the update TIER 2; about to start October 2005

• Updated and new information on expert judgment

• Key areas of interest for research

• Sensibility analysis using min/max values from EU member states

• Research on PDF and sources of uncertainty for selected areas

• TIER 2 uncertainty analysis 1990-2003

Conclusions

• Uncertainty assessments (TIER1 and 2) are used as a tool to prioritise improvements for GHG emission inventory

• More complex uncertainty assessments (TIER2) did not result in surprising, other insights

• Changes in methods resulting in recalculation did not result in ‘ better’ uncertainty values

Conclusions (continue)• Possible impact of methodological

changes seems not to be included in uncertainty assessments

• Update TIER 2 based on recalculated data and to justify no follow up of new TIER 2 for the next five years