Search

Emissions trading in the European Union (EU), covering the least uncertain emission sources of greenhouse gas emission inventories (CO2 from combustion and selected industrial processes in large installations), began in 2005. During the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012), the emissions trading between Parties to the Protocol will cover all greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) and sectors (energy, industry, agriculture, waste, and selected land-use activities) included in the Protocol. In this paper, we estimate the uncertainties in different emissions trading schemes based on uncertainties in corresponding inventories. According to the results, uncertainty in emissions from the EU15 and the EU25 included in the first phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (2005–2007) is ±3% (at 95% confidence interval relative to the mean value). If the trading were extended to CH4 and N2O, in addition to CO2, but no new emissions sectors were included, the tradable amount of emissions would increase by only 2% and the uncertainty in the emissions would range from −4 to +8%. Finally, uncertainty in emissions included in emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol was estimated to vary from −6 to +21%. Inclusion of removals from forest-related activities under the Kyoto Protocol did not notably affect uncertainty, as the volume of these removals is estimated to be small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integrated assessment modeling on acid rain has incorporated several related effects and pollutants into a multi-pollutant/multi-effect approach, resulting in complex integrated models and policy assessments. The development and implementation of effects-oriented cost-effective emission reduction strategies in Europe are based on integrated assessment models. The project on national integrated assessment modeling in Finland, Denmark, Spain and Sweden aimed to support the national evaluation of European emission reduction strategies. The tasks covered the comparison of inventories and projections for emissions of sulfur, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile organic compounds, assessment of control techniques and related costs, concentration and deposition scenarios to estimate environmental effects of acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone and their temporal aspects, uncertainty analyses on both individual modules and whole integrated models, and dissemination of results to stakeholders. The integrated assessment modeling provided a consistent framework for the harmonization of input data and in-depth scientific research tasks on emissions, pollutant loading and impacts including comprehensive uncertainty analyses, and facilitated the dissemination of knowledge to policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acidifying emissions from energy production and industry have decreased considerably during the last two decades in Finland. Especially the emissions of sulphur dioxide have dropped sharply with 85% in 1980–1998, although the energy use has increased 30% during the same period. The reduction has occurred through two mechanisms: by replacing the combustion of heavy fuel oil with cleaner energy carriers, and by direct emission reduction controls, e.g. flue gas desulphurization. In this study the Finnish cost curves for SO2 and NOx were first calculated to produce a consistent comprehensive view on further emission reduction costs and potentials. The data on technical and cost-related parameters were based on actual national experiences from power plants and industry. Most of the cost-efficient sulphur emission controls were already in use. For NOx, a large share of further reduction potential still remained. Second, a case on the emission reductions and costs for fuel switching in a 205 MWth peat power plant of Tampere Power Utility in Finland was studied. Fuel switching to natural gas was found less cost-efficient in SO2 and NOx emission reduction when compared to flue gas cleaning techniques. The findings provided new information on fuel switching as an alternative potential reduction measure, which is not considered in international assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]