Uncertainties in the Norwegian emission inventories of acidifying pollutants and volatile organic compounds |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA;2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504, USA;3. California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA 90747, USA;4. Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, USA;5. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA;6. Catholic University of America, Washington DC 20064, USA;7. CEA, Centre de Saclay, Irfu/Service de Physique Nucléaire, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France;8. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA;9. Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 06824, USA;10. Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA;11. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA;12. Università di Genova, 16146 Genova, Italy;13. The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA;14. Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA;15. INFN, Sezione di Ferrara, 44100 Ferrara, Italy;p. INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, 00044 Frascati, Italy;q. INFN, Sezione di Genova, 16146 Genova, Italy;r. INFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy;s. INFN, Sezione di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy;t. Institut de Physique Nucléaire, CNRS/IN2P3 and Université Paris Sud, Orsay, France;u. Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259, Russia;v. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA;w. Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Republic of Korea;x. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA;y. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD 20850, USA;z. NRC “Kurchatov Institute”, PNPI, 188300, Gatchina, Russia;11. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824-3568, USA;12. Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 23504, USA;13. Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA;14. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA;15. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590, USA;16. Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy;17. Universität Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany;18. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119234 Moscow, Russia;19. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA;110. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA;111. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA;112. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Casilla 110-V Valparaíso, Chile;113. Edinburgh University, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom;114. University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom;115. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0435, USA;1p. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901, USA;1q. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA;1r. Yerevan Physics Institute, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia;1. Indigo BioSystems, 7820 Innovation Boulevard, Suite 250, Indianapolis, IN 46278, United States;2. Andor Labs, 4134 South Alston Avenue, Suite 107, Durham, NC 27713, United States;1. Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China;2. Beijing Engineering Research Center of Sustainable Urban Sewage System Construction and Risk Control, Beijing 100044, China;3. Power China Beijing Engineering Corporation Limited, Beijing 100024, China;4. Beijing Center for Physical & Chemical Analysis(BCPCA), Beijing 100089, China;1. Applied Microwave Nondestructive Testing Laboratory (amntl), Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA;2. Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The uncertainties in the Norwegian emission inventory data for SO2, NOx, NH3 and non-methane volatile organic compound (NMVOC) have been estimated based on expert judgements of uncertainties in input data and stochastic simulations. The SO2 inventory is uncertain by about 4%, the NOx inventory by about 12% and the NMVOC and NH3 inventories by about 20%. Several possible systematic errors were identified; the SO2 inventory is most likely overestimated, while the NH3 and NMVOC inventories can be underestimated. Domestic shipping (for SO2 and NOx), crude oil loading (for NMVOC) and manure (for NH3) are the sources that are most important for the overall uncertainty. These findings indicate that the inventory methodologies can be improved, leading to changes in the whole time series (recalculations). The robustness of emission obligations formulated as emission ceilings and percentage reductions have been compared with respect to uncertainties in input data. The formulation of obligations as emission ceilings is not very robust for any methodological improvements influencing the end year estimates. Relatively, small changes in the emission estimates can mean that obligations apparently are met without measures or that obligations hardly can be met at all. Obligations formulated as percentage reductions are on the other hand more robust, except when recalculations unequally affect the base and end year. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
