Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories Decision tool to guide consistent application of decisions based on available information on the sample of facilityspecific data Given the broad nature of the IPCC guidance in this field, Australia has developed an approach to the use of plant specific data that is consistent with the IPCC guidelines and which attempts to provide a more explicit framework for the consistent determination as to how these data are used within the inventory. With the preparation of Australia’s future inventories in mind, the framework incorporates a decision tree to guide decision making to encourage consistent and coherent use of plant specific data throughout the inventory (see figure 1). In particular, conditions have been established that should be satisfied before plant specific data is incorporated into the national inventory. These conditions include: 1) the sample of the population reporting plant specific data must be significant – both absolutely and relative to the overall population (the IPCC Guidelines refer to a ‘reasonable proportion’); 2) the sample must be representative; and 3) the sample must be approximately normally distributed and homogenous. Plant specific data are used to revise the tier 2 country-specific emission factor for the portion of the inventory with no measurement data available when the conditions (1) – (3) above are satisfied while also taking into account whether: (4) the mean of the sample of plant specific data is significantly different to the country-specific tier 2 factor. If these conditions hold, then the NGER EF data will be used a) for those plants reporting measured emission factors and b) to construct an NGER determined emission factor that is applied to all facilities for which there is no information available in relation to their actual plant-specific factor (the uncovered portion of the source). If conditions (1) – (3) hold but (4) does not, then the NGER data is taken to be valid for those plants reporting data and, in relation to the unmeasured portion of the source, to have confirmed the pre-existing value of the country-specific emission factor. In this case, the pre-existing representative country-specific emission factor will be maintained for those facilities where no information is available on facility-specific factors. If conditions (1) – (3) do not hold, further information is required to decide how the plant specific data should be used. What if condition (1) is not maintained? – ie what if the sample of NGER EF data is not sufficiently large? In this case, NGER data is taken to be insufficient to justify re-estimation of the country-specific emission factor for any part of the whole population. The pre-existing representative country-specific emission factor will be maintained for all facilities – ie the inventory will maintain a tier 2 method. The NGERs EF data will not be used in the inventory directly but will be used as a QC tool to check the reasonableness of the country-specific factor. What if condition (2) is not maintained? – ie what if the sample is not representative? Under NGERs – like the EU ETS or the US EPA mandatory reporting rule – reporters are sometimes offered the opportunity to select their method of emission estimation (under NGERs this is true in all cases except for electricity generation or underground coal mines). Consequently, it is possible that reporters have self selected an emission factor that minimises their emissions i.e. where a higher order method results in an emission factor that is higher than the default a reporter has no incentive to use the higher order method. Due to this possible ‘choice bias’ the sample will not necessarily be representative of the overall population in these cases and needs to be assessed in every case. This ‘choice bias’ is removed where higher order methods are mandated. If a non-representative sample is detected, then the new information is not considered sufficient to justify a re-estimation of the national implied emission factor. While the reported EFs may be incorporated for facilities for which they are known, the emission factor applied to those facilities without EF information is amended to compensate. In this case, the tier 2 /3 method produces a national inventory estimate that is equivalent to the tier 2 method. What if condition (3) is not maintained? – ie what if the population is determined to be not homogenous? In some cases, it is possible that sub-populations may exist for which representative samples may be obtained. Within the NGER data obtained for the combustion of black coal, for example, two sub-populations were able to be distinguished. In this case, the general approach identified above would be able to be applied to the sub-population – ie IPCC Expert Meeting Report 104 TFI
Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories if the sample was sufficiently large, representative and homogenous within the sub-population then the reported EF data may be utilised for that segment of the inventory. Start Facility Level Activity Data Does the facility level data provide full coverage of the sector? YES Use Facility level data set in national inventory NO Use Facility data for portion covered Use output of EF decision tree for uncovered portion. Start Facility Level Emission Factors Can it be demonstrated that the coverage and sample size of the facility data sample is sufficient NO YES Is the sample unbiased? NO YES Does the facility data sample have an approximate normal distribution? YES Is the mean EF of the facility data significantly different to the method 1 default EF? NO Can the sample be divided into homogenous groups (e.g. technology type, region, coal basin) such that bias is not present? YES Does the sub sample cover more than X% of the sub group population? YES NO NO Should a part of the data be applied to the inventory? (Can the new data improve the old?) YES NO Do not use facility data directly in inventory but for QA/QC checks. YES NO Extrapolate sub group data to sub group residual. Use facility specific EF data. Apply IEF for facility data to uncovered portion of sector. Review in light of QA/QC plan. Use facility specific EF data. Use existing inventory default EF for the uncovered portion. Apply an EF to the uncovered portion that maintains the previous IEF for the whole sector. IPCC Expert Meeting Report 105 TFI
Page 1:
Use of Models and Facility-Level Da
Page 4 and 5:
Supporting material prepared for co
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55: Use of Models and Facility-Level Da
Page 134: Use of Models and Facility-Level Da
show all

Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?