Reduction of Black Carbon Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion in the Arctic Reduction ...

164 Pages·2014·6.88 MB·English

RReedduuccttiioonn ooff BBllaacckk CCaarrbboonn
EEmmiissssiioonnss ffrroomm RReessiiddeennttiiaall
WWoooodd CCoommbbuussttiioonn iinn tthhee AArrccttiicc
BBllaacckk CCaarrbboonn IInnvveennttoorryy,, AAbbaatteemmeenntt IInnssttrruummeennttss aanndd MMeeaassuurreess
ACAP
ARCTIC CONTAMINANTS
ACTION PROGRAM
ACAPARCTIC CONTAMINANTS
ACTION PROGRAM
Citation
ACAP, 2014, Reduction of Black Carbon Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion in the Arctic – Black Carbon
Inventory, Abatement Instruments and Measures. Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP). 164 pp
ISBN 978-82-999755-1-3
© Arctic Council Secretariat, 2014
This report is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a
copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Published by
Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP), a working group under the Arctic Council.
This report is published as an electronic document, available from the ACAP website at acap.arctic-council.org
Design and editing
Samtext Norway AS
Cover photograph
Old house in winter landscape
Photo: TTphoto/Shutterstock.com
Printing
07 Media, Oslo, Norway (www.07.no)
ACAP WG disclaimer
This ACAP report on the reduction of black carbon emissions from residential wood combustion was
initiated in 2010 and officially approved by ACAP WG in 2012. The project presents a description
of the status in Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada and USA, and provides a set of
recommendations for consideration. The ACAP report has been written by a team of nominated
national experts with support from SINTEF and Norwegian Energy. The report does not necessarily
reflect the views of individual Arctic Council countries, other ACAP members or the Arctic Council itself.
1
FOREWORD AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Black carbon and other short-lived climate forcers portfolio under ACAP WG and the SLCFC PSG. The
is a topic of great interest to the Arctic Council. project has been co-financed by the Norwegian
In addition to establishing specific Task Forces to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Finnish Ministry
develop policy recommendations for subsequent of the Environment, and is coordinated by the
ministerial meetings, the Ministerial Meetings in Norwegian Environment Agency and the Finnish
2009 and 2011 decided to: Environment Institute (SYKE). There has been
continuous support from the Norwegian Ministry
“Urge implementation of early actions
of Climate and Environment, and extensive in-kind
where possible on methane and other
contributions from Sweden, Denmark, USA and
short-lived climate forcers” (Tromsø,
Canada.
Norway 2009)
The results of this work offer detailed information
And “Encourage Arctic states to
on approaches to black carbon emission
implement, as appropriate in their national
inventories and mitigation instruments and
circumstances, relevant recommendations
measures in the Arctic Council member countries
for reducing emissions of black carbon”
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
(Nuuk, Greenland 2011).
and the USA. The data analysis has revealed a
The Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) number of differences and similarities across
Working Group under the Arctic Council followed the participating countries, and captured
suit by establishing a Project Steering Group on valuable experiences. The outcome is a set of
black carbon and other short-lived climate forcers recommended actions for individual countries and
and contaminants (SLCFs) in 2010. The steering for the Arctic region as a whole.
group was mandated to facilitate projects on
I would like to thank all the nominated national
activities that reduce emissions of black carbon
experts, the consultants, the observers and all
which are transported to and deposited in the
the associated experts who have taken part in
Arctic.
this ACAP project, contributed information and
The work on SLCFs was continued and generously shared their expertise and knowledge.
strengthened at the 2013 Arctic Council Ministerial In particular, I would like to thank:
Meeting in Kiruna, where the Ministers recognized
The co-lead representatives
that:
Ingunn Lindeman (Norway), Bente Elsrud
“reduction of short-lived climate forcers Anfinnsen (Norway), Kaarle Kupiainen
could slow Arctic and global climate (Finland)
change and have positive effects on
The national experts
health, and welcome the report on short-
Niko Karvosenoja (Finland), Ville-Veikko
lived climate forcers, and support its
Paunu (Finland), Vigdis Vestreng (Norway),
recommendations including that national
Solrun Figenschou Skjellum (Norway),
black carbon emission inventories for the
Kenneth Birkeli (Norway), Nina Holmengen
Arctic should continue to be developed
(Norway), Eilev Gjerald (Norway), Maria
and reported as a matter of priority”, and
Malene Kvalevåg (Norway), Amanda
decided to
Aldridge (USA), Marc Houyoux (USA), Larry
“establish a Task Force to develop Brockman (USA), Charlotte von Hessberg
arrangements on actions to achieve (Denmark), Stine Sandermann Justesen
enhanced black carbon and methane (Denmark), Brian Kristensen (Denmark),
emission reductions in the Arctic, and David Niemi (Canada), Diane de Kerckove
report at the next Ministerial meeting in (Canada), Kathleen McLellan (Canada),
2015”. Titus Kyrklund (Sweden), Linda Kaneryd
(Sweden).
This project on Black Carbon Emission Reductions
from Residential Wood Combustion was brought The consultants
forward on the basis of the Ministerial Declarations Morten Seljeskog (SINTEF), Kari Dalen
in 2009 and 2011 and is part of the project (SINTEF), Dag Borgnes (Norsk Energi),
2
Jørn Bakken (SINTEF), Mario Ditaranto
(SINTEF).
The observers
Pam Pearson (ICCI), Svante Bodin (ICCI).
The editors
Ylva Østvik (Samtext), Vilde Haarsaker
(Norwegian Environment Agency)
The ACAP WG hopes that the outcome of this
collaboration will make a positive contribution
to on-going and future efforts to protect climate
and health in the Arctic, such as the Task Force
on actions to achieve enhanced black carbon and
methane emission reductions in the Arctic.
Jaakko Henttonen
Chair, Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP),
September 2014
TranceDrumer/Shutterstock.com
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................7
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE ..........................................11
CHAPTER 3 WHY REDUCE BC EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL
WOOD COMBUSTION IN THE ARCTIC .............................13
3.1 Climate and health effects of BC and OC emissions
in the Arctic .........................................................................................13
3.2 Share of BC emissions from the residential sector in the Arctic..16
CHAPTER 4 FACTORS INFLUENCING BC EMISSIONS FROM
RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION .................................19
4.1 Characteristics of the boiler or stove ..............................................22
4.2 The chimney and the draft ...............................................................23
4.3 Fuel characteristics ...........................................................................23
4.4 Stove and boiler technologies in use .............................................26
4.5 Description of new technologies and up-grade possibilities ....29
4.6 Technological potential for reducing BC emissions ....................30
4.7 Reduced energy need and emissions due to new building
regulations ..........................................................................................33
CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY FOR BLACK CARBON INVENTORIES ... 35
5.1 Calculation method..........................................................................35
5.2 Activity data .......................................................................................36
5.3 Emission factors .................................................................................37
5.4 Measurement of carbonaceous aerosols and determination
of BC and OC .....................................................................................38
5.5 Comparison of BC and PM emission factors .............................44
2.5
5.6 BC, OC and PM ...............................................................................49
2.5
5.7 Uncertainty .........................................................................................51
5.8 Key findings ........................................................................................52
CHAPTER 6 LEVELS AND DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK CARBON
EMISSIONS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR IN THE
ARCTIC .............................................................................53
6.1 Historic and current BC emissions ...................................................53
6.2 Projected BC emissions ....................................................................57
6.3 Spatial distribution of residential wood combustion ...................57
6.4 Key findings ........................................................................................59
CHAPTER 7 REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR BC EMISSIONS FROM
RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION .................................61
7.1 Examples of international regulatory instruments .......................62
7.2 Examples of international information instruments .....................64
7.3 Policy Instruments in Canada .........................................................64
7.4 Policy Instruments in Denmark ........................................................67
4
7.5 Policy Instruments in Finland ............................................................69
7.6 Policy Instruments in Norway ...........................................................71
7.7 Policy Instruments in Sweden ...........................................................76
7.8 Policy Instruments in the USA ...........................................................77
7.9 Comparison of policy instruments ..................................................79
7.10 Key findings ........................................................................................81
CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER BLACK CARBON
EMISSION REDUCTIONS ..................................................83
8.1 Recommendations from other initiatives ......................................83
8.2 Recommendations from this ACAP project ...................................86
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................91
CHAPTER 10 GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................. 93
Glossary ..............................................................................................93
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................94
CHAPTER 11 REFERENCES ......................................................................95
APPENDIX .............................................................................................99
APPENDIX 1 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – CANADA ..............101
Methodology – Canada ................................................................101
Current BC emission – Canada .....................................................103
APPENDIX 2 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – DENMARK ...........105
Methodology – Denmark ...............................................................105
Current BC, OC and PM emissions – Denmark ...........................107
APPENDIX 3 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – FINLAND .............109
Methodology – Finland ..................................................................109
Current BC, OC and PM emission – Finland ................................112
APPENDIX 4 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – NORWAY ..............115
Methodology – Norway..................................................................115
Current BC, OC and PM emission – Norway ................................118
Development/projections in BC emission from residential
wood combustion – Norway .........................................................120
APPENDIX 5 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – SWEDEN ...............121
Methodology – Sweden .................................................................121
Current PM emissions Sweden .......................................................123
APPENDIX 6 METHODOLOGY AND EMISSIONS – USA......................125
Methodology – USA .........................................................................125
Current BC, OC and PM emissions – USA .....................................128
APPENDIX 7 BLACK CARBON ABATEMENT INSTRUMENTS AND
MEASURES .......................................................................129
Canada .............................................................................................129
Denmark ...........................................................................................133
Finland ...............................................................................................136
Norway ..............................................................................................137
5
Sweden ..............................................................................................138
USA .....................................................................................................140
APPENDIX 8 PILOT PROJECT ................................................................145
APPENDIX 9 QUESTIONNAIRE – BC EMISSION INVENTORY ...............147
APPENDIX 10 QUESTIONNAIRE – BC ABATEMENT INSTRUMENTS
AND MEASURES ..............................................................157
6
Incredible Arctic/Shutterstock.com
7
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arctic Council (AC) has recognized the climate due to greater ice and snow cover. The relative
and health benefits of reducing short-lived climate share of BC emissions from wood-burning
forcers, and has therefore encouraged work to stoves and boilers is also expected to increase,
reduce black carbon (BC) emissions in the Arctic. due to expected reductions in other high-
emitting sectors, such as road-diesel engines,
Short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) impact
by 2020. This report is the result of an Arctic
near-term climate change and are responsible
Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) project to
for harmful health and environmental impacts,
identify actions that can contribute to reducing
including premature deaths and the loss of crops.
emissions of black carbon from residential wood
Reducing emissions of SLCFs may therefore
combustion in the Arctic nations. Nominated
contribute both to slowing the rate of climate
experts from Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway,
change over the next decades and improving the
Sweden and the USA have shared their data and
living conditions of people in vulnerable regions
expertise on BC emissions and their experience
(UNEP & WMO, 2011).
with various BC abatement instruments and
Recent modelling studies, building on the UNEP measures. Their expertise and contributions are
Assessment (The World Bank & The International the backbone of the data analysis, discussions and
Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI), 2013) and recommendations in this ACAP report.
other assessments, strongly suggest that the
BC emission levels from wood
Arctic, as well as other alpine regions, may benefit
combustion
more than other regions from reducing emissions
of BC, including those deriving from biomass Consumption of wood for residential heating
sources such as wood burning for residential has increased in most of the AC nations over
heating. This is because co-emitted substances the last 10–15 years, especially in the Nordic
from wood combustion, such as organic carbon countries. The distribution of wood combustion
(OC), which is relatively light in colour and thus technologies varies: boilers are widely used in
reflects the sun's rays, can have a cooling effect Sweden, Canada and Denmark, whereas fireplace
on regions with non-reflective surfaces. Near snow inserts are common in the USA, and masonry
and ice-covered regions, however, organic carbon stoves and sauna stoves are common in Finland.
and other reflective co-emitted substances (even Nonetheless, there has been a shift towards
sulphate-containing aerosols), can be warming cleaner-burning stoves during the last decade; the
in the atmosphere because the resulting mix use of pellet stoves has, for instance, increased
is less reflective than the surface below. Black significantly in Denmark and Sweden.
carbon’s dual action, both atmospheric warming The technology upgrade has kept BC emission
and increased melting when deposited on snow levels from residential wood combustion more
and ice, is what makes it such a powerful warming or less constant, despite the increase in wood
agent. In and near the Arctic, the benefits of consumption. Total annual BC emissions in
addressing wood burning are well-documented. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway and the
Wood burning also releases other short and USA for the period 2000–2010 came to 38–
long-term climate forcers such as methane and 40 ktonnes. The projections for 2020 and 2030
CO2. Action plans should always be based on show a slight decrease in total BC emissions from
considerations of net climate and health effects of Denmark, Finland, Norway and the USA (from
BC, OC and all co-emitted substances from wood 31 ktonnes in 2010 to 30 ktonnes in 2020 and
combustion. 29 ktonnes in 2030). The BC emission projections
Wood-burning stoves and boilers have therefore for 2030 foresee a decrease in BC emission levels
emerged as a target for BC mitigation strategies for Denmark, Finland and Norway. This is mainly
in the Arctic. This is because they represent a due to an anticipated increase in the use of new
significant source of black carbon emitted close technology, especially in Denmark.
to Arctic regions, particularly during the winter All six countries in this study have prepared a
and early spring, when the climate impact of BC national black carbon inventory as a tool to design
is greatest both at middle and higher latitudes, and evaluate emission reduction strategies. The
8
inventories assume that black carbon is similar Although wood-stove combustion technology
to elemental carbon and are derived from wood has come a long way in the last two decades,
consumption data and technology-specific BC and improvements continue to be made, there is
emission factors. In general, black carbon emission still room for further reductions of BC emissions
factors have been based on a small number from the residential sector in all the participating
of measurements and have been attributed countries. Such emission reductions are relevant,
to specific national categories of combustion especially since wood consumption is expected
technologies. The number of combustion to increase in the future because of comparatively
technology categories in use in the inventories low energy costs and policies promoting
varies from three in Norway to ten and fifteen in renewable energy.
Finland and the USA respectively. The result is a
BC emission reduction instruments and measures
wide span in both combustion technologies and
should be as robust as possible. That is, they
emission factors. The BC emission factors studied
should contribute to BC reductions, irrespective
in this report differ from less than 1 mg/MJ
of future changes to emission measurement
(pellet-fired boiler, Finland) to 600 mg/MJ (old
methods, emission factors, or technology
wood-fuelled boiler, Denmark). The differences
categorization and certification schemes. Replacing
can be explained, but they make direct
old wood stoves with high efficiency heating
comparisons between countries and technologies
appliances produces additional climate change
challenging.
benefits by reducing both gaseous and particle
There is considerable uncertainty associated with emissions, e.g. CH , CO, CO and BC, as a result
4 2
existing BC emission inventories. Nearly all the of both improved combustion and reduced wood
components of the inventories are uncertain to consumption. Future low-energy buildings with
some degree. Uncertainty with respect to wood reduced heating demand will also help to reduce
consumption, for example, is mainly related to a wood consumption and therefore emissions.
lack of complete registers for wood consumption,
Since knowledge of black carbon and its impact
errors due to periodic and simplified public
on climate is relatively new, none of the current
surveys, and underlying assumptions such as
policy instruments or measures identified in this
wood moisture and wood fuel heat value. Such
ACAP project was originally designed to specifically
errors derive from the need to extrapolate
reduce BC emissions, but were aimed at achieving
consumer data from one year to another. Also, the
PM reductions. Measures to reduce PM may
methods for extracting flue gas and determining
not necessarily reduce BC emissions to the
BC emission levels vary from country to country.
same extent. They remain BC relevant however,
The existing methods are not standardized and are
because similar means could be used to target BC
subject to scientific discussions and inaccuracies.
emissions in the future. Although the same policy
Despite the underlying uncertainties, however, the instruments may be used to achieve both PM and
emission inventories and BC emission projections BC emission reductions, black carbon should be
are important in order to both understand and specifically targeted in addition to PM to ensure
manage BC emissions. the most effective results from both a regional
climate and health perspective.
BC emission reduction strategies
for wood combustion The policy instrument common to all six countries,
It must be kept in mind that in addition to the comprises information campaigns to educate
clear health co-benefits of reducing black carbon wood consumers about the correct use of
emissions, the objective is also to reduce regional- residential wood combustion technologies. This
scale climate impacts of black carbon, for example often includes the impact on health of particle
black carbon emitted in or transported into pollution. In Denmark the emission limits for new
the Arctic from the Arctic countries. Addressing stoves also include old stoves, when they are
local air quality problems alone is not sufficient resold or transferred to a new owner. This means
to achieve the necessary overall black carbon in practice that most of the old stoves are taken
emission reduction and mitigating climate impacts. out of the market when wood stove owners invest
For example, widely spread households that burn in a new wood stove. Of the six participating
wood in rural communities might not achieve the countries, only the USA and Norway have
concentrations necessary to be targeted by air introduced schemes with economic incentives at
quality measures, yet still produce BC emissions the national level. Other countries have various
which are effectively transported to the Arctic and economic instruments in place at the state,
cause climate impacts there. provincial, territorial or municipal level.