Quality of EPER 2004 data Tinus Pulles This work is partly performed under contract with DG Environment (070402/2006/440841/MAR/C4). within the ETC-ACC 2007 work programme with contributions by Martin Adams (now at EEA) European Environment Agency European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change

Outline EPER process and 2004 Data set Completeness Comparison with national inventories Mainly based on second EPER Review Report:

EPER process EPER reporting process Identification of facilities Validation by authorities Data transfer to EU Estimation of emissions Report using formats Disseminate Results Evaluate reporting process Publish Review Report Key to actors Authorities Facilities Commission

Number of facilities reporting 2004 and 2001

Facilities reporting in 2004 compared with 2001 (relative change)

Emission reports in EPER 2004 and 2001 comparison The 2004 EPER reporting cycle involves nine countries that did not participate in the 2001 reporting cycle For those countries that participated in both reporting cycles three different groups of facilities could occur: Facilities that have reported emissions in both years Facilities that reported in 2001, but not in 2004 Facilities that did not report in 2001 but report in 2004 Emission reports from facilities that participated in both reporting cycles could be again differentiated into three different groups: Emissions of pollutants reported in both years Emissions of pollutants reported in 2001 but not in 2004 Emissions of pollutants reported in 2004, but not in 2001

EPER 2004 compared with EPER 2001

EPER CO 2 emissions NO x, SO 2, CO, NMVOC, PM 10 emissions CO 2 emissions /unit Platts Capacity MW e (unit level) Capacity MWth Efficiency factors Fuel type Fuel use (GJ) /unit CO 2 emission factors (g/GJ) Abatement techniques Expected emissions of NO x, SO 2, CO, NMVOC, PM 10 “as is” LCP BAT (BREF) Pollutant emission factors (g/GJ) Separation efficiencies abatement techniques Comparing for NO X, SO 2, CO, NMVOC, PM 10 emissions reported with emissions expected Facility LevelUnit Level Large Combustion Plants in EPER

Completeness of EPER reporting NO x and SO 2 reporting seems to be almost complete NMVOC, PM 10, CO reports might be missing PM 10 emissions actually might be abated at a number of facilities CO and NMVOC abatement is less likely

Threshold analysis the method Sort emission reports for a specific pollutant in decreasing order Draw cumulative emission as a function of number of facilities (squares and circles in the graphs) Fit with the cumulative Weibull distribution function (full lines in the graphs) Find cumulative emission for number of facilities   (dotted lines) Threshold value for CO 2 : 0.1 billion kg

Threshold analysis NO x and PM10: threshold value seems to be OK Threshold value for NO x : 0.1 million kg Threshold value for PM10: 0.05 million kg

Comparison of EPER with National Inventories; Source defintions differ:

CO 2 All sources For all countries CO2 emissions in EPEr are below the national inventory data Only “Industry” For most countries EPER reports are a major part of industiral emissions of CO 2 For some countries there might be a problem

NO x and SO 2 in industry NO x For most countries: consistency between national inventory and EPER For some countries inconsistency For some countries a possible problem SO 2 Similar to NO x

CO and NMVOC CO in Industry Important inconsistencies for a number of countries NMVOC in Industrial Processes Important inconsistencies for a number of countries

Conclusions EPER Facility data is a large set of useful data Time series are complicated by different coverage Completeness differs between pollutants CO 2, NO x, SO 2 : reasonable PM 10 : might be questionable CO, NMVOC: many emissions seems to be not reported The emission thresholds seem to work well Comparison with national inventories shows problems

Thank you ! European Environment Agency European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change