Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030

38 Pages·2013·0.53 MB·English

REPORT

Estimating air pollution
emission abatement
potential in Sweden 2030

Stefan Åström, Tomas Gustafsson, Maria Lindblad,
Peter Stigson, and Karin Kindbom
B 2098
June 2013

The report approved:
2013-07-12

John Munthe
Vice President, Research
Organization Report Summary

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd.
Project title
Åtgärdspotential för luftutsläpp till 2030
Address (NV-04257-12)
P.O. Box 21060
SE-100 31 Stockholm
Project sponsor
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, Swedish Clean air Research
Programme
Telephone
[phone]
Author
Stefan Åström, Tomas Gustafsson, Maria Lindblad, Peter Stigson, and Karin Kindbom
Title and subtitle of the report
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030
Summary
The two principal aims with this project was to adjust the discrepancy between Swedish official
air pollution emission projections and scenarios for Sweden developed by other international
institutions, and to analyse the emission abatement potential in Sweden by 2030.
Data used to support the Swedish official emission projections was collected and reformatted
to enable a comparison with scenario data for Swedish emissions developed by IIASA. The
results of this comparison were discussed with IIASA during the bilateral consultation carried
out as a part of the on-going revision of the EU Thematic Strategy for Air Pollution. In parallel
to this consultation, the potential for further emission abatement in Sweden by 2030 was
analysed by interviewing representatives of power plants and large industrial facilities.
The comparison with IIASA emission scenarios for Sweden identified that much of the
differences between Swedish projections and IIASA emission scenarios originate from the
transport sector, small scale domestic combustion in households, as well as from burning of
agricultural waste. The potential for NO emission abatement was estimated for the sectors:
x
power plants; refineries; pulp & paper industries; and the iron & steel industry. If all plants in
these sectors were to use the best available technology in 2030, NO emissions could be
x
reduced by some 13 kton NO , or ≈38% of the 35 kton emissions projected from these
x
sectors by 2030. Abatement costs could in this project only be estimated for 2.3 kton. For
these, the abatement cost would be ≈170 million Swedish crowns per year.
Keyword
Air pollution, emission abatement, emission scenario
Bibliographic data
IVL Report B 2098
The report can be ordered via
Homepage: www.ivl.se, e-mail: [email protected], fax[phone], or via IVL, P.O. Box 21060,
SE-100 31 Stockholm Sweden
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
Abstract
This report presents the results from the project “Åtgärdspotential för luftutsläpp till
2030 / Emission abatement potential for air pollution in Sweden by 2030”, financed by the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Clean Air Research
Programme (SCARP). The main objective of the project was to support Sweden´s position
in the on-going revision of the EU Thematic Strategy for Air Pollution (TSAP) including
the bilateral consultations on emission projections and abatement potentials. There were
two specific aims in the project. One was to adjust the discrepancy between Swedish
official air pollution emission projections and the scenarios for Sweden developed by other
international institutions. The other aim was to analyse the emission abatement potential in
Sweden by 2030. The air pollutants initially considered were NO , SO , NH , PM , and
x 2 3 2.5
NMVOC.

An extensive background data compilation covering the sectors contributing to air
pollutant emissions in Sweden was performed. The data compilation served to provide a
data set in a GAINS model1 format identical to the data set used in the development of the
officially reported Swedish emission projection. Data on energy demand and supply,
transport activities, and industrial as well as agricultural activities were collected from the
Swedish Energy Agency, the Swedish Road Administration and the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as directly from the project responsible for
producing the official Swedish emission projection (SMED2). Having acquired this dataset,
the data was re-aggregated and re-allocated to fit the GAINS model format, which was
necessary for a fruitful comparison with the IIASA baseline scenario and the bilateral
consultation with IIASA. The comparison had its main focus on the pollutants NO and
x
PM , and the sectors transport and small scale domestic combustion in households. It was
2.5
not feasible to cover all sectors and all pollutants during the bilateral consultation, although
some additional comparisons were made (inter alia NMVOC).
During the bilateral consultation it was identified that there are differences between the
Swedish emission projection and the IIASA baseline scenario in reported (base year data)
and projected data on fuel use, emission factors, and use of emission control technologies
in the road and non-road transport sectors. There is also a difference in the assumed boiler
structure (and type of boilers) for domestic small scale domestic combustion. The use of
emission control technologies in large scale combustion plants also differs between
national estimates and IIASA calculations. We also noted that emissions from burning of
agricultural waste are included in the IIASA baseline scenario but not in the Swedish
emission projection. Burning of agricultural waste is in the IIASA baseline scenario was
assigned around 1 kton of PM emissions, or some 5 % of the total projected Swedish
2.5
PM emissions in 2030.
2.5

1 The GAINS model assesses strategies that reduce emissions of multiple air pollutants and greenhouse
gases at least costs, and minimize their negative effects on human health, ecosystems and climate
change (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/GAINS.en.html ,as of 2013-04-
04)
2 http://www.smed.se/, as of 2013-04-04
1
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
In order to estimate the current and future use of emission control technologies and the
emission abatement potential for stationary combustion in Sweden interviews were
performed using email questionnaires with representatives for the 111 Large Combustion
Plants (LCP) mandated to report official environmental information in accordance with the
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR) directive. The interview
answers were translated and aggregated to a suitable format. These aggregated interview
answers were then used as a basis for estimating a national use of NO emission control
x
technologies in Sweden in large scale combustion. As an indication of the potential for
further emission reductions in Sweden beyond the Swedish emission projection we
calculated the maximum technical feasible emission abatement (MTFR) potential from
LCP:s and other combustion plants in Sweden. This potential was calculated as the
difference between actual emission reductions derived from the questionnaire answers and
the MTFR technological ambition level as specified in an ambitious IIASA scenario. We
used the projected Swedish energy balance in the Swedish emission projection as basis for
the emission calculations. PM emission abatement potential for small scale domestic
2.5
combustion was estimated by replacing the emission factor used in the Swedish emission
projection with the emission factor used in the IIASA baseline scenario.
Regarding the estimated emission abatement potential, the interview answers provided
support to estimate NO emission abatement potential. For the other pollutants, the
x
answers were not possible to translate into quantitative estimates. NO emission abatement
x
potential was estimated for the sectors: power plants; refineries; pulp & paper industries;
and the iron & steel industry. Emission abatement costs were calculated for some sectors.
If all plants in these sectors were to use the best available technology in 2030, as defined in
IIASA TSAP report #13, NO emissions would in our central analysis be reduced by some
x
13 kton NO , or ≈38% of the 35 kton expected from these sectors by 2030. In a sensitivity
x
analysis, the corresponding NO emission abatement was 10 kton (33%). For the sectors
x
where we could estimate emission abatement costs, the additional annual abatement costs
for reducing 2.3 kton of NO emissions would be ≈170 million Swedish crowns, when
x
calculated with the GAINS model4 method. Unit abatement cost was some 71 Swedish
crowns / kg NO . In order to get an additional comparison we discussed the results with
x
IIASA experts. The comparative results calculated by IIASA experts based on scenarios in
the IIASA TSAP report #105, gave a NO emission abatement potential of 9 kton, or 20%
x
of the 44 kton NO emissions expected in the IIASA scenario. The IIASA results for the
x
sectors where emission abatement costs were calculated was an emission reduction
potential of 6.6 kton of NO to a cost of ≈260 million Swedish crowns, corresponding to
x
an average 39 Swedish crowns / kg NO (ranging between 22 – 184 crowns for the
x
subsectors). The difference between the 35 kton NO in the Swedish projection and the 44
x
kton NO calculated in the IIASA scenario are caused mainly by different perspectives on
x
the expected use of emission control technology in 2030, but also by different projections
on economic activity and fuel use in the sectors, and by different approaches to allocation
emission between sectors.

3 (Amann et al., 2012)
4 http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/GAINS.en.html, as of 2013-07-08
5 (Amann et al., 2013)
2
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098

Estimated NO emission reduction potential and abatement costs in Swedish large stationary
x
installations 2030 – Central analysis (incl. cost efficiency in sensitivity analysis)
Cost
Aggregated efficiency
BSL MTFR Emission Reduction cost in
Sector Most prominent measures emissions emissions reduction cost efficiency sensitivity
SEK / kg SEK / kg
kton kton kton MSEK NO NO
x x
Combustion modification,
selective- and non-
Power plants selective catalytic reduction 9.8 7.5 2.3 166 71 (117)
Process-related measures:
Selective- and non-
Refineries selective catalytic reduction 0.33 0.32 0.01 4 446 (735)
Pulp & Paper and Iron &
Industry, Steel measures:
process & Combustion modification,
energy related selective- and non-
emissions selective catalytic reduction 25.2 14.0 11.2 * * *
Total 35.3 21.8 13.5
*No emission abatement costs are calculated for emission reduction from processe s in this ver sion of the
GAINS model

For industrial emission sources we could not disaggregate emissions or estimate emission
abatement costs. For the other sectors, the cost efficiency range provided a rough estimate
on the cost efficiency if the emission reduction potential (due to different economic and
energy development) would be on the lower range of the potential. Our results indicated
that the most cost effective NO emission abatement will be available in power plants
x
2030.

The overall conclusion drawn from the bilateral consultation with IIASA was that some of
the discrepancies between the IIASA baseline scenario and the Swedish official emission
projection can be avoided by adjusting the IIASA baseline scenario to better represent
specific Swedish conditions. This solution applies mainly to the use of emission control
technologies in vehicles in 2010 for the transport sector and the boiler structure and use of
emission control for small scale domestic combustion in households. The discrepancy in
emission factors for the transport sector would need further motivation before adjustment
of the IIASA baseline scenario. Other differences, such as growth in fuel use and future
renewal of the vehicle fleet, are scenario-specific and should for consistency not be
adjusted in an effort to make emission levels calculated in the IIASA baseline scenario to
better match the emission levels in the Swedish emission projection.
It can also be concluded that there is additional potential for Swedish NO emission
x
abatement in the sectors: power plants; refineries; pulp & paper industries; and the iron &
steel industry, in 2030. It is also likely that there will be additional Swedish PM emission
2.5
abatement potential from small scale domestic combustion. The results from the interviews
with representatives of the LCP:s indicated that there are differences between the IIASA
3
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
baseline scenario and the plant-specific information regarding the current and future use of
emission control technologies in Sweden. This report has focused mainly on technical end-
of-pipe emission abatement potential for some of the Swedish pollution sources, and the
pollutants NO and PM . Further analysis is needed to develop a complete national
x 2.5
estimate for SO , NO , NH , PM as well as NMVOC.
2 x 3 2.5

Thanks to the bilateral consultation and the adjustments made at IIASA after this
consultation, the largest part of the discrepancy between the Swedish emission projection
and following IIASA scenarios are mainly due to different views between Sweden and the
European Commission on future economic growth, fuel prices, energy demand, and
turnover of the vehicle fleet.

4
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................6
Background .........................................................................................................................................7
Materials and Method ........................................................................................................................9
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................................9
Review of discrepancies between SWE BSL projection and IIASA BSL scenario .............9
Data compilation .................................................................................................................... 10
Data treatment ........................................................................................................................ 11
National data and emission calculations in the GAINS model ....................................... 11
Estimating emission abatement potential................................................................................ 12
Emission abatement potential in LCP:s .............................................................................. 12
Small scale domestic combustion ......................................................................................... 15
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Most important identified differences between the SWE BSL projection and IIASA BSL
scenario ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Small scale domestic combustion ......................................................................................... 16
Road transport ........................................................................................................................ 17
Non-road Mobile Machinery (excl. shipping) .................................................................... 17
Other sectors ........................................................................................................................... 18
Identified emission abatement potentials ................................................................................ 18
Large scale combustion.......................................................................................................... 18
Small scale domestic combustion ......................................................................................... 20
Other results – Interview answers ............................................................................................ 21
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 23
References ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Appendix 1: A summary of the Sweden / IIASA bilateral consultation, 121108 ................. 27
Appendix 2 – Road and non-road transport characteristics ..................................................... 30

5
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
Introduction
This report present the results from the project “Åtgärdspotential för luftutsläpp till 2030 /
Emission abatement potential for air pollution in Sweden by 2030”, financed by the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Clean Air Research
Programme (SCARP). The project was performed as support to the Swedish positions
during the on-going (2013) review of the EU Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (TSAP)
(European Commission, 2005), and the EU National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NEC)
(Official Journal of the European Union, 2001).

To support this revision, the European Commission (EC) is preparing decision support for
the EU member states. Parts of this decision support are air pollution emissions-, and
emission control cost scenarios for the EU countries and the following air pollutants:
Sulphur dioxide (SO ), Nitrogen oxides (NO ), Ammonia (NH ), Non-Methane Volatile
2 X 3
Organic Compounds (NMVOC), and fine particulate matter (PM ). However, these
2.5
scenarios are not aligned with corresponding Swedish projections and needs further
national review and alignment. To facilitate the TSAP & NEC revision process the EC
arranged the opportunity for the EU member states to participate in bilateral consultations
with the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) during autumn 2012.
During these bilateral consultations results and assumptions in the IIASA scenarios could
be reviewed by national experts for potential adjustments. For an active Swedish
participation in the revision of the TSAP & NEC it is therefore necessary to perform a
detailed comparison between the IIASA scenarios and the Swedish emission projection,
and to suggest adjustments where suitable. It is also important to estimate the Swedish
emission abatement potential in 2030.

There were two principle aims with this project. The first was to review and adjust the
discrepancy between the emission scenarios produced by IIASA and the official Swedish
emission projections. The identified causes for the discrepancies between the scenario and
projection should then serve as input to an adjusted IIASA scenario for Sweden. The
IIASA scenario and the Swedish projection should be aligned with respect to emission
factors and the use of emission control technologies. The second aim was to analyse the
Swedish emission abatement potential in 2030. The overall objective with the project was
that that the results from this project would be useful as a part of the Swedish decision
support during the revision of the TSAP & NEC.
The key research questions were the following:

• What are the main sources for discrepancies between Swedish official air pollution
emission projections and emission projections/scenarios for Sweden developed by
international institutions? How can these discrepancies be avoided?
• What is the emission abatement potential on top of already expected emission
reductions in Sweden by 2030?

6
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
Background
The emission scenarios developed as decision support are created in the GAINS model,
which is developed by IIASA (Amann et al., 2004, 2008). The IIASA scenarios discussed
during the bilateral consultations are presented in the IIASA TSAP report #1 (Amann et
al., 2012). During the summer 2012, Sweden developed new air pollution emission
projections up until the year 2030 (Gustafsson et al., 2012). These projections served as
basis for the Swedish participation in the bilateral consultation with IIASA and will serve as
basis for the Swedish position in the review of the TSAP and NEC during 2013.

As seen in Table 1 and Table 2 below, there are discrepancies between the baseline
scenario in Amann et al. (2012) and the projection in Gustafsson et al. (2012). These
discrepancies have an impact on which emission levels that can be considered as baseline
emission levels in 2030, but also on which further emission abatement potential that exists
in Sweden in 2030. They will therefore affect the Swedish position during the review of the
TSAP and NEC. In this report, to increase readability, the baseline scenario in Amann et al.
(2012) is referred to as “IIASA BSL scenario”, and the projection in Gustafsson et al.
(2012) is referred to as “SWE BSL projection”.

Table 1: Air pollution emission trends for Sweden and % change from 2005 in the IIASA BSL scenario
Pollutant 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
kiloton Kton kton Change kton Change Kton Change
(kton) (%) (%) (%)
SO 44 35 30 16% 26 -25% 26 -27%
2
NOx 258 210 157 ‐25% 92 56% 70 67%
PM2.5 35 32 26 ‐18% 21 ‐33% 21 ‐32%
NH3 57 54 50 ‐ 7% 52 ‐ 4% 53 ‐ 2%
NMVOC 269 205 156 2‐4% 119 4‐2% 115 4‐4%
‐ ‐ ‐

Table 2: Air pollution emission trends for Sweden and % change from 2007 in the SWE BSL projection
Pollutant 2000 2005 2007 2020 2030
Kton Kton kton kton Change Kton Change
(% from (% from
2007) 2007)
SO - - 33 28 -15 29 -12
2
NO - - 168 106 -37 82 -51
x
PM - - 29 23 -21 22 -24
2.5
NH - - 53 48 -9 48 -9
3
NMVOC - - 192 147 -23 135 -30

7
Estimating air pollution emission abatement potential in Sweden 2030 IVL report B 2098
Differences in projections as the ones presented above are in themselves nothing unusual,
since emissions of the considered pollutants to a large extent depends on factors such as
economic growth and expected fuel use etc.
There are previous experiences with linking Swedish emission projections with IIASA
scenarios. In (Åström, Lindblad, & Kindbom, 2013), a systematic approach was developed
that enabled translation of Swedish energy- and transport projections to a format that
enabled comparison with IIASA scenarios.

Our project group participated with informal support to the Swedish position during the
EU coordination leading to the revised Gothenburg protocol on May 4 20126. At the time,
the project group identified that the largest avoidable discrepancies between Swedish
emission projections and IIASA emission scenarios for Sweden were for the pollutants
NO and PM and the sectors transport and small scale domestic combustion in
x 2.5
households. Discrepancies were also large for NMVOC, but there were little room for
improving the discrepancies mainly due to differences in methodological approach.
There is to this date very little aggregated data on the current and future use of emission
control technologies in Sweden. This lack of data has impeded the possibility to perform
appropriate comparisons with IIASA scenarios, since this information is a very important
parameter when calculating emissions.

6 http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=29858, as of 2013-02-19
8