MnrAq

Recommendations

Info

Inventories of CO2 emissions from international shipping 2007–2012 59 Figure 42: Comparison of shipping with global totals: a) CO 2 emissions compared, where the percentage indicates international shipping emissions of CO 2 as a percentage of global CO 2 from fossil fuels; b) CO 2 e emissions compared, where the percentage indicates international shipping emissions of CO 2 e as a percentage of global CO 2 e from fossil fuels
60 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 1.4 Quality assurance and control of top-down and bottom-up inventories The quality analysis is presented in three sections. The first section discusses QA/QC for the top-down emissions inventory. The second section summarizes the QA/QC elements of the bottom-up fuel and emissions inventory. The third section contains a comparison of the top-down and bottom-up emissions inventories. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 contain many detailed processes that constitute QA/QC effort; these sections therefore discuss QA/QC mainly in summary and provide context for the quantitative bottom-up uncertainty analysis in Section 1.5. 1.4.1 Top-down QA/QC Top-down statistics were evaluated for transparency and any significant discrepancies that might reflect confidence in inventories based on fuel statistics. This section begins with a review of the Second IMO GHG Study 2009 and a brief discussion of data quality, confidence and uncertainty. It reviews relevant data quality information provided by IEA, including information about likely causes of potential under- or overestimation of marine fuel use (both domestic and international). Top-down method QA/QC efforts undertaken specifically for this study are described. Lastly, this section gives a QA/QC summary of the study. Second IMO GHG Study 2009: review of top-down data quality The Second IMO GHG Study 2009 performed qualitative analyses of errors and inconsistencies of IEA statistics to help explore how the top-down and bottom-up discrepancy may be explained by uncertainty in reported fuel statistics. That study identified the following potential issues with top-down data: • different data quality between OECD and non-OECD countries (fishing); • identical numbers from year to year for some countries; • big swings from year to year for other countries; • differences in EIA bunkers statistics. Although a number of challenges were recognized, mainly arising from the use of different data sources, the sources of uncertainty remained unexplored and potential corrections were not attempted. The Second IMO GHG Study 2009 explicitly quoted provisions in the IEA Agreement on an International Energy Program (IEP) that determined which fuels would be considered in national oil stocks and which were considered to be counted as international data. In particular, international marine bunkers were “treated as exports under a 1976 Governing Board decision incorporated into the Emergency Management Manual” (Scott, 1994). This information and subsequent discussion in the Second IMO GHG Study 2009 suggested that some degree of allocation error among international bunkers, exports and/or imports could be a factor in the accuracy of top-down fuel statistics for shipping. IEA statistics: review of top-down data quality IEA collects data from OECD countries that have agreed to report mandatory data through monthly and joint annual IEA/Eurostat/UNECE questionnaires. For non-OECD countries, IEA collects data through voluntary submissions (using no standard format) or through estimates made by IEA or its contractors. Figure 43 presents a map of OECD and non-OECD countries that provide energy data to IEA; not all of these countries have marine fuel sales to report (Morel, 2013).
Page 1 and 2:
Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014
Page 3 and 4:
Published in 2015 by the internatio
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Page Preface .............
Page 8 and 9:
vii 3.1.2 Outline .............
Page 10:
ix Fleet productivity projectio
Page 13 and 14:
xii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 15 and 16:
xiv Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MEPC m
Page 18 and 19:
List of figures Page Figure 1: Bott
Page 20 and 21:
List of figures xix Page Figure 46:
Page 22 and 23:
List of figures xxi Annex Figures P
Page 24:
List of figures xxiii Figure 45: Ca
Page 27 and 28:
xxvi Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Page
Page 29 and 30:
xxviii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Tab
Page 32 and 33:
Executive Summary Key findings from
Page 34 and 35:
Executive Summary 3 rigorous testin
Page 36 and 37:
Executive Summary 5 emissions than
Page 38 and 39:
Executive Summary 7 Figure 2 shows
Page 40 and 41: Executive Summary 9 because, in con
Page 42 and 43: Executive Summary 11 Particular car
Page 44 and 45: Executive Summary 13 larger ship si
Page 46 and 47: Executive Summary 15 Summary of Sec
Page 48 and 49: Executive Summary 17 a. CO 2 b. CH
Page 50 and 51: Executive Summary 19 Demand for coa
Page 52 and 53: Executive Summary 21 Figure 15 show
Page 54 and 55: Executive Summary 23 • ships obse
Page 56 and 57: Executive Summary 25 b Noon report
Page 58 and 59: 1 Inventories of CO 2 emissions fro
Page 60 and 61: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 124: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 127 and 128: 96 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Emissio
Page 129 and 130: 98 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Method
Page 131 and 132: 100 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 133 and 134: 102 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year T
Page 135 and 136: 104 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2.2.7
Page 137 and 138: 106 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 This s
Page 139 and 140: 108 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 N 2 O
Page 141 and 142:
110 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 143 and 144:
112 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
118 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 shippi
Page 151 and 152:
120 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • SO
Page 153 and 154:
122 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 a) CO
Page 155 and 156:
Page 158 and 159:
3 Scenarios for shipping emissions
Page 160 and 161:
Scenarios for shipping emissions 20
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Bibliography for Main Report and An
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182:
Page 185 and 186:
154 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 IHSF o
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
160 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Pre-pr
Page 193 and 194:
162 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 There
Page 195 and 196:
164 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Follow
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
168 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 data s
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
172 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship c
Page 205 and 206:
174 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 experi
Page 207 and 208:
176 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The mo
Page 209 and 210:
178 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 sfc =
Page 211 and 212:
180 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011 D
Page 213 and 214:
182 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship t
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
202 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Every
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
208 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 time s
Page 241 and 242:
210 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 260 and 261:
Annex 4 Details for Section 1.5.1:
Page 262 and 263:
Annex 4 231 IEA sources of uncertai
Page 264 and 265:
Annex 4 233 Transfers category repo
Page 266 and 267:
Annex 4 235 Figure 24: Time series
Page 268 and 269:
Annex 5 Details for Section 1.5.2:
Page 270 and 271:
Annex 5 239 3 The uncertainty in es
Page 272 and 273:
Annex 5 241 data has been used. The
Page 274 and 275:
Annex 5 243 temporal coverage QA/QC
Page 276 and 277:
Annex 5 245 uncertainties (standard
Page 278 and 279:
Annex 6 Details for Section 2: othe
Page 280 and 281:
Table 22 - Baseline emissions facto
Page 282 and 283:
Annex 6 251 Table 24 - EF-related S
Page 284:
Annex 6 253 Table 31 - PM FCFs - MG
Page 287 and 288:
256 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Analys
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
260 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 that s
Page 293 and 294:
262 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Contai
Page 295 and 296:
264 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Regard
Page 297 and 298:
266 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 LNG ma
Page 299 and 300:
268 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • Th
Page 301 and 302:
270 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 ULCCs
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
274 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 potent
Page 307 and 308:
276 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Size c
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
280 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year o
Page 313 and 314:
282 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Johnso
Page 315 and 316:
284 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 317 and 318:
286 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MGO, t
Page 319 and 320:
288 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 CH 4 M
Page 321 and 322:
290 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • As
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
show all

MnrAq

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?