Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

Recent developments

of the RAINS model

Recent model development

• Energy & emission databases

• Modelling of deposition and its effects

• Modelling of ozone and its impacts– health– Vegetation

• Internet version

Modelling of deposition and its effects

Issues

• Source-receptor relationships for deposition

• Ecosystem-specific deposition

• Dynamic modelling

S-R relations for RAINS

Linearity of changes in PM due to changes in emissions is crucial for the mathematical design of RAINS

• 87 model experiments with the new EMEP model: – Response of European S/N deposition

to changes in SO2, NOx, NH3, [VOC, PPM2.5/10] emissions

– For German, Italian, Dutch, UK and European emissions– 3 emission scenarios:

• CLE (current legislation 2010) = CAFE baseline for 2010• MFR (maximum technically feasible reductions 2010• UFR (ultimately feasible reductions) = MFR/2

Response of total S depositiondue to changes in UK SO2 emissions

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Response of total S depositiondue to changes in UK NH3 emissions

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Response of total S depositiondue to changes in all UK emissions

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in UK NOx emissions

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in UK NH3 emissions

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Response of total oxidised N depositiondue to changes in all UK emissions

UK

em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

CL

E t

o U

FR

UK emissions change from CLE to MFR

Emissions change from CLE

Em

issi

on

s ch

ang

e fr

om

U

FR

Conclusion on S-R relations

• Linear treatment (transfer matrices) seems sufficient

• Work together with MSC-W is underway to derive coefficients

• Time problem to calculate many different years

Eco-system specific deposition

Ecosystem-specific deposition

• Ecosystem-specific deposition:Estimates of unprotected ecosystems in Europe for 2010:

• Harmonized land-use maps: – Meeting at IIASA in March.

– CDFs of CL will be delivered for forests, lakes, others.

Lagrangian model 150 km grid-average deposition

New Eulerian model 50km, grid-average deposition

New Eulerian model 50km, ecosystem-

specific deposition

Acidification 3% 15 % 25 %

Eutrophication 20% 60 % 80 %

Excess of forest critical loads

Percentage of forest areawith acid deposition above critical loads, using ecosystem-specific deposition, mean meteorology

2000 2010 2020

Probability of deposition exceeeding critical loadsfor the Gothenburg 2010 ceilings, EU-15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0% 5% 10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Probability

Per

cen

t o

f ec

osy

stem

s ar

ea

Estimated in 2003with ecosystem specific

deposition

Estimated in 1999

Dynamic modelling

Five stages in dynamic acidification modelling

Important time factors:• Damage delay time• Recover delay time

Use of dynamic modelling in RAINS

Target load functions have been developed for IAM, specifying

• the levels of S/N deposition • in a given year• that lead to recovery of x% of ecosystems• within y years.Could be directly used in RAINS optimisation with x, y as

policy choices.

But:• How to upscale to ecosystems without dynamic estimates?• How to reach full European coverage?• Historic base cation deposition?

Ozone modelling

Ozone modelling

• Health impact assessment

• Vegetation impacts

• Regional ozone modelling– Linearity– Uncertainty

• Urban ozone modelling

Health impacts

Health impacts

• All epidemiological studies use Daily maximum 8-hour mean concentrationas metric, often for the full year.

• Different from hourly values used for AOT calculations! – Models not yet evaluated against health metric.

• WHO review: Effects found below 60 ppb, no solid evidence on existence of threshold

• How to treat this in an integrated assessment?

Critical question for IAM of O3

• How certain are we about health impacts below (natural)

background levels (30-40 ppb)?

• Especially, if ozone is reduced below background

because of (too) high NOx concentrations?

• Do we expect health benefits from reductions in

urban O3 through increased NOx emissions -

while total oxidants (NOx + Ox) increase?

Example implementation

• CAFE baseline energy & emission projection for 2000, 2010, 2010

• EMEP Eulerian dispersion model, regional background concentrations

• Mean meteorology, 1999 & 2003

• No adjustment of ozone levels for urban areas (awaiting results from City-Delta)

• RR from WHO meta study (1.003)

• Calculation for summer, no effects for winter assumed

Premature deaths attributable to O3

Absolute numbers (for 6 months), with different cut-offs

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020

EU-15 New Member States Non-EU

30 ppb 40 ppb 60 ppb

Provisional estimates!

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020

EU-15 New Member States Non-EU

Reduction of premature deaths attributable to O3

compared to 2000, with different cut-offs

30 ppb 40 ppb 60 ppb

Provisional estimates!

Approach recommended by TFH7

• Focus on mortality – premature deaths attributable to ozone

– Will create bias, because morbidity not considered

• Do not use potential impacts of ozone below background to drive policy

• Use 35 ppb as cut-off

– Reflects present background concentrations

– Use of linear regressed RR will underestimate the effect

• Consider full year

• Use one “characteristic” urban concentration level

Premature deaths attributable to O3

Year 2000, mean meteorology, cut-off=30 ppb, percent of total deaths

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Den

mar

k

Fin

land

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Net

herla

nds

Por

tuga

l

Spa

in

Sw

eden

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Cze

ch R

ep.

Est

onia

Hun

gary

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Pol

and

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

veni

a

Alb

ania

Bel

arus

Bos

nia

Bul

garia

Cro

atia

Nor

way

Mol

dova

Rom

ania

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Sw

itzer

land

TF

YR

Mac

edon

ia

Ukr

aine

Yug

osla

via

Eur

ope

Vegetation impacts

Concentration-based critical levels for ozoneSource: Mapping manual

Receptor Time period Critical levelAOT30, ppm.h

(only for IAM)

Critical levelAOT40, ppm.h

Agricultural crops

3 months 4 3

Horticultural crops

4 months - 5

Forest trees Growing season (6 months)

9 5

Semi-natural vegetation

3 months - 3

Flux-based critical levels for ozoneSource: Mapping manual

Receptor Time period Critical level(AFst6)

Wheat 900 ˚C days starting 200 ˚C days before anthesis (flowering)

1 mmol/m2 projected sunlit leaf area

Potato 1130 ˚C days starting at plant emergence

5 mmol/m2 projected sunlit leaf area

Considerations for RAINS

• Critical levels for forests are most sensitive

• Use flux-based assessment for ex-post scenario analysis, concentrations-based CL for optimisation

• For trees, mapping manuals leaves a choice between AOT40 and AOT30

• Further analysis of advantages and disadvantages necessary

Statistical indicators for AOT-based CLSource: Mapping manual

  Linear regression for birch and beech

r2 p for the slope p for the intercept

slope

AOT30 0.61 <0.01 0.63 - 0.494

AOT40 0.62 <0.01 0.31 - 0.732

Source-receptor relations

• Regional scale:– Linearity?– Confidence?

• Urban scale

AOT30 AOT40

Response of ozone due to ΔNOxfrom German emissions

AOT30 AOT40

Response of ozone due to ΔVOCfrom German emissions

How much can we trust results from one model?

• Euro-Delta intercomparison of regional scale models

• Coordinated by JRC, IIASA, MSC-W, TNO, CONCAWE

• 5 models:– CHIMERE (F)– EMEP– LOTOS (NL)– MATCH (S)– REM (D)

• Study model responses to emission control cases

• Ensemble model

Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and

Philippe Thunis, JRC

Summary of model performances

AOT30 AOT40

r2 of critical level estimates

for birch, beech 0.61 0.62

Correlation coefficient of ensemble dispersion models

0.65 0.61

Correlation coefficient of the EMEP model

0.57 0.48

Variability of model results for emission control scenarios

? ??

Linearity between CLE and MFR ? ??

???

Urban scale

Changes in urban ozone for further NOx reductionCity-Delta results

Population-weighted O3Urban O3

AOT30

AOT40Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and

Philippe Thunis, JRC

Changes in urban ozone for further VOC reductionCity-Delta results

Population-weighted O3Urban O3

AOT30

AOT40Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and

Philippe Thunis, JRC

y = 0.2122x - 0.8072

R2 = 0.9198

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

Series1

Linear (Series1)

NOx emission density in urban domain

Difference between observed urban and background O3, annual mean O3

Can titration be detected for long-term ozone at urban background?

Preliminary results from City-Delta

Graphs courtesy of Kees Cuvelier and

Philippe Thunis, JRC

Next steps

• Analyze City-Delta 2 results, especially for PM

• Develop functional relationships between rural and urban concentrations

• Develop extension to other cities

• Implement in RAINS

• Final City-Delta workshop, fall 2004

Internet version

• RAINS available on the Internet

• Free access at:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tap/RainsWeb/