approaches for cost-effective reductions of population exposure to fine particulate matter in europe...
TRANSCRIPT
Approaches for
Cost-effective Reductions
of Population Exposure
to Fine Particulate Matter
in Europe
M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes,
Z. Klimont, F. Wagner, W. Schöpp
General assumptions
• All calculations for 2020
• CAFE baseline scenario “with climate measures”
• Maximum technically feasible emission reductions (MTFR) as presented to WGTS in November
• Impact assessment for 1997 meteorology
• Assumptions on health impact assessment as presented earlier
New elements
• Validation of PM source-receptor relationships
• Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved
• Analysis with illustrative assumptions on Euro-V and Euro-VI
• Baseline costs corrected – no influence on optimization results.
Functional relationships for PM
PM2.5j Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 at receptor point j
I Set of emission sources (countries)
J Set of receptors (grid cells)
pi Primary emissions of PM2.5 in country i
si SO2 emissions in country i
ni NOx emissions in country i
ai NH3 emissions in country i
αS,Wij, νS,W,A
ij, σW,Aij, πA
ij Linear transfer matrices for reduced and oxidized nitrogen, sulfur and primary PM2.5, for winter, summer and annual
)2**2),1**32
14*1**1,0min(max(*5.0
)**(*5.0
**5.2
jiIi
Wijji
Ii
Wiji
Ii
Wij
iIi
Siji
Ii
Sij
iIi
Aij
Iii
Aijj
knckscac
na
spPM
Validation of PMCAFE baseline 2020 [μg/m3]
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
EMEP model
RA
INS
ap
pro
xim
ati
on
City-Delta estimates for 2000 (1)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gra
z
Wie
n
Ant
wer
pen
Bru
xelle
s
Brn
o
Ost
rava
Plz
en
Pra
ha
Kø
benh
avn
Tal
linn
Hel
sink
i
Tam
pere
Van
taa
Bor
deau
x
Lille
Lyon
Mar
seill
e *)
Mon
tpel
lier
Nan
tes
Nic
e
Par
is
Rei
ms
Ren
nes
Str
asbo
urg
Tou
lous
e
Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
City-Delta estimates for 2000 (2)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ber
lin
Düs
seld
orf
Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain
Ham
burg
Koe
ln
Man
nhei
m
Mün
chen
Nür
nber
g
Stu
ttgar
t
Ath
ina
The
ssal
onik
i *)
The
ssal
onik
i
Bud
apes
t
Deb
rece
n
Mis
kolc
Dub
lin
Bar
i
Bol
ogna
Mod
ena
Bre
scia
Cag
liari
Cat
ania
Fire
nze/
Livo
rno
*)
Fire
nze
Gen
ova
Gen
ova
Gen
ova
Livo
rno
Mes
sina
Mila
no
Nap
oli
Pal
erm
o
Par
ma
Reg
gio
di C
alab
ria
Rom
a
Tar
anto
Tor
ino
Trie
ste*
)
Trie
ste
Ven
ezia
Ver
ona
Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
City-Delta estimates for 2000 (3)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Am
ster
dam
Rot
terd
am
Kat
owic
e
Lodz
War
szaw
a
Lisb
oa
Por
to
Bra
tisla
va
Kos
ice
Ljub
ljana
Ljub
ljana
Alm
eria
Bar
celo
na
Bilb
ao
Car
tage
na
Cor
doba
Elc
he
Gijo
n
Gra
nada
Jere
z de
la F
ront
era
Mad
rid
Mal
aga
Mur
cia
Ovi
edo
Pal
ma
de M
allo
rca
Pam
plon
a
Sab
adel
l
San
tand
er
Sev
illa
Val
enci
a
Val
lado
lid
Vig
o
Vito
ria-G
aste
iz
Zar
agoz
a
Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
City-Delta estimates for 2000 (4)PM2.5, annual mean [μg/m3]
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rig
a
Kau
nas
Kla
iped
a
Viln
ius
Göt
ebor
g
Mal
moe
Sto
ckho
lm
Upp
sala
Abe
rdee
n
Bel
fast
Birm
ingh
am, C
oven
try
Birm
ingh
am, D
erby
Bra
dfor
d, L
eeds
Bris
tol
Der
by, S
heffi
eld
Edi
nbur
gh
Gla
sgow
Kin
gsto
n up
on H
ull
Live
rpoo
l
Lond
on
Man
ches
ter
New
cast
le-u
pon-
Tyn
e
Nor
tham
pton
Nor
wic
h
Not
tingh
am, D
erby
Ply
mou
th
Por
tsm
outh
Pre
ston
Sou
tham
pton
Sto
ke-o
n-T
rent
Sw
anse
a
Mineral Secondary incl H2O Primary-50*50km estimate Urban increment Observation ~2000
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
Euro-V and Euro-VIIllustrative assumptions
Assumed emission factors:
Assumed implementation dates:
Euro-V: 2010
Euro-VI : 2014
NOx PM
HDV – Euro-V 1.47 g/kWh 0.015 g/kWh
- Euro-VI 0.4 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh
LDV – Euro-IV 0.305 g/km 0.027 g/km
- Euro-V 0.06 g/km 0.004 g/km
Euro-V and Euro-VIImpacts on EU-25 emissions in 2020
NOx PM
HDV
CLE 1079 kt 12.1 kt
Euro-VI 724 kt (-33 %) 10.3 kt (-15 %)
LDV
CLE 508 kt 39.8 kt
Euro-V 245 kt (-52 %) 18.1 kt (-55 %)
Total emissions CLE 5889 kt 965 kt
Euro-V/VI 5271 kt (-10 %) 941 kt (-2.4 %)
Costs of current legislation for baseline 2020Corrected estimates
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Costs Baseline (Euro/person/yr) Mobile SO2 NOx NH3 VOC PM
Caveats
• Limited quality control of the initial results
• New functional relationships not yet formally documented; validation not fully completed
• Provisional City-Delta results are included, but could be improved!
• Uncertainty analysis not yet performed
Optimization analyses
• Uniform limit value for air quality:Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below a AQ limit value
• Gap closure concept:Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage
• Maximize total health benefits in Europe for a given European budget constraint, disregarding the location of the benefit
Three concepts for target setting
Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality
• EMEP/RAINS quantify: – Primary anthropogenic PM– Secondary inorganic aerosols (including water)
• EMEP/RAINS miss: – Mineral and Sea-salt from natural sources– Primary organic matter from natural sources– Secondary organic aerosols from natural and anthropogenic sources
• RAINS + City-Delta address urban background, but not hot spots in street canyons
• Thus, model can only explain part of observed PM
Scope for uniform limit value (1)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + natural primary organic matter
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ber
lin
Düs
seld
orf
Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain
Ham
burg
Koe
ln
Man
nhei
m
Mün
chen
Nür
nber
g
Stu
ttgar
t
Ath
ina
The
ssal
onik
i
Bud
apes
t
Deb
rece
n
Mis
kolc
Dub
lin
Bar
i
Bol
ogna
Mod
ena
Bre
scia
Cag
liari
Cat
ania
Fire
nze
Livo
rno
Mes
sina
Mila
no
Nap
oli
Pal
erm
o
Par
ma
Reg
gio
di C
alab
ria
Rom
a
Tar
anto
Tor
ino
Trie
ste
Ver
ona
Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000
Scope for uniform limit value (2)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Am
ster
dam
Rot
terd
am
Kat
owic
e
Lodz
War
szaw
a
Lisb
oa
Por
to
Bra
tisla
va
Kos
ice
Ljub
ljana
Bar
celo
na
Bilb
ao
Car
tage
na
Cor
doba
Elc
he
Gijo
n
Gra
nada
Jere
z de
la F
ront
era
Mad
rid
Mal
aga
Mur
cia
Ovi
edo
Pal
ma
de M
allo
rca
Pam
plon
a
Sab
adel
l
San
tand
er
Sev
illa
Val
enci
a
Val
lado
lid
Vig
o
Vito
ria-G
aste
iz
Zar
agoz
a
Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000
Scope for uniform limit value (3)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gra
z
Wie
n
Ant
wer
pen
Bru
xelle
s
Brn
o
Ost
rava
Plz
en
Pra
ha
Kø
benh
avn
Tal
linn
Hel
sink
i
Tam
pere
Van
taa
Bor
deau
x
Lille
Lyon
Mar
seill
e *)
Mon
tpel
lier
Nan
tes
Nic
e
Par
is
Rei
ms
Ren
nes
Str
asbo
urg
Tou
lous
e
"Feasible range for limit value" Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000
Scope for uniform limit value (4)excl. unknown contributions of SOA + primary natural organic matter
*) this initial estimate includes too high PM emissions from ships
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rig
a
Kau
nas
Kla
iped
a
Viln
ius
Göt
ebor
g
Mal
moe
Sto
ckho
lm
Upp
sala
Abe
rdee
n
Bel
fast
Birm
ingh
am, C
oven
try
Birm
ingh
am, D
erby
Bra
dfor
d, L
eeds
Bris
tol
Der
by, S
heffi
eld
Edi
nbur
gh
Gla
sgow
Kin
gsto
n up
on H
ull
Live
rpoo
l
Lond
on
Man
ches
ter
New
cast
le-u
pon-
Tyn
e
Nor
tham
pton
Nor
wic
h
Not
tingh
am, D
erby
Ply
mou
th
Por
tsm
outh
Pre
ston
Sou
tham
pton
Sto
ke-o
n-T
rent
Sw
anse
a
Feasible range for limit value Mineral MTFR MTFR - CLE CLE - 2000 Observation ~2000
Uniform limit value on air quality Ambition levels explored
• Bring annual mean PM2.5 in urban background below
– 19 / 17 / 16.5 / 16 / 15.5 / 15 μg/m3
• This level includes the fraction modelled by RAINS + assumption on mineral (1/2/3 μg/m3)
• It does not include unknown contributions of primary natural organic matter + secondary organic aerosols
• To relate this value to potential hot-spot AQ limit value, add ~ 5 μg/m3 ?
• No targets for harbor cities considered for this round of analysis (mistake in dispersion calculations)
Costs of the limit value scenarios[billion €/year]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Limit on PM2.5 in urban background [microgram/m3]
without Euro-V/VI with Euro-V/VI
Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming implementation of Euro-V/VI
0
20
40
60
80
100
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg
Costs of the limit value scenarios assuming NO implementation of Euro-V/VI
15 μg/m3 is infeasible
0
20
40
60
80
100
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg
Option 2: Gap closure
• Reduce modelled PM2.5 everywhere by the same percentage
• For these round of calculations: – Explore the range between the impacts from
CLE and MTFR including Euro-V/VI
• 25% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 75% reductions analyzed
• With and without Euro-V/VI
Effect indicator
MTFR from EU25 excluding EURO5/6
Base year exposure (2000/1990)
Baseline 2020 (Current legislation)
MTFR from EU25MTFR from EU-25 + shipping
MTFR from Europe + shipping
No-effect level (critical load/level)
Zero exposure
Gap concept used for NEC
Range of exploratory ambition levels
NEC 2010
Definition of “gap closure”used for this round of calculations
Costs of the “gap closure” scenarios[billion €/yr]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-100% -90% -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
Reduction of the difference between CLE and MFTR incl Euro5/6
Without Euro-V/VI With Euro-V/VI
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 40% GC 60% GC 70% GC
Costs of the “gap closure” scenariosassuming Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr]
100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI
Costs of the “gap closure” scenarioswithout Euro-V/VI, [billion €/yr]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 40% GC 60% GC 70% GC
100% is the range between CLE and MTFR incl. Euro-V/VI
Option 3: Maximize total European health benefits for a given budget
• Dual optimization problem: Instead of – Minimize total European costs for achieving place-specific environmental
targets:
optimize for:
– Maximize total European health benefits (i.e., gains in life expectancy) for a given budget. No consideration of the place/country where the improvement occurs.
• Maximal cost-effectiveness, equity needs to be explored
• Illustrative analysis with pseudo-life expectancy data (calculations include population younger than 30 years)
• No difference of whether Euro-V/VI is taken or not, but a final analysis should include Euro-V/VI (with cost data) in the optimization
Emission control costs vs. years of life lost Illustrative calculations [billion €/yr]
0
10
20
30
40
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Years of life lost (million years)
Per-capita emission control costs for three selected ambition levels [€/person/yr]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Italy
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Budget constraint:Total Costs (Euro/person/yr)
2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €
Gains in statistical life expectancyfor three selected ambition levels [months]
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
25
Budget constraint:
2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €
Costs for a gained month of life expectancyIllustrative results [€/person/year]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
25
European budget constraint
2.1 billion € 6.6 billion € 12.2 billion €
Cost-effectiveness of the target setting approachesEmission control costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
European targets Gap closure approach Limit value
Conclusions
• Different target setting rules lead to different distributions of costs and benefits
• Obvious problems for AQ limit values and for gap closure approaches
• For PM, a Europe-wide maximization of benefits does not seem to compromise equity in terms of health effects (does probably not hold for ecosystems!)
• Cost-effectiveness of Euro-V/VI is comparable to that of the more expensive measures for stationary sources, but depends on the chosen ambition level
• Which further analyses will yield maximum information from the last available round of CAFE?
Priorities for further work
• Sensitivity analysis with national energy projections• Analysis of joint optimizations / or co-benefits of PM?• Ship emissions• Calculations for 2015• ???