3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemAmmonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage : A review(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2020) Kupper, Thomas; Häni, Christoph; Neftel, Albrecht; Kincaid, Chris; Bühler, Marcel; Amon, Barbara; VanderZaag, AndrewStorage of slurry is an important emission source for ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from livestock production. Therefore, this study collected published emission data from stored cattle and pig slurry to determine baseline emission values and emission changes due to slurry treatment and coverage of stores. Emission data were collected from 120 papers yielding 711 records of measurements conducted at farm-, pilot- and laboratory-scale. The emission data reported in a multitude of units were standardized and compiled in a database. Descriptive statistics of the data from untreated slurry stored uncovered revealed a large variability in emissions for all gases. To determine baseline emissions, average values based on a weighting of the emission data according to the season and the duration of the emission measurements were constructed using the data from farm-scale and pilot-scale studies. Baseline emissions for cattle and pig slurry stored uncovered were calculated. When possible, it was further distinguished between storage in tanks without slurry treatment and storage in lagoons which implies solid-liquid separation and biological treatment. The baseline emissions on an area or volume basis are: for NH3: 0.12 g m−2 h-1 and 0.15 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.08 g m−2 h-1 and 0.24 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in tanks; for N2O: 0.0003 g m−2 h-1 for cattle slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.002 g m−2 h-1 for both slurry types stored in tanks; for CH4: 0.95 g m-3 h-1 and 3.5 g m-3 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.58 g m-3 h-1 and 0.68 g m-3 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in tanks; for CO2: 6.6 g m−2 h-1 and 0.3 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 8.0 g m−2 h-1 for both slurry types stored in tanks; for H2S: 0.04 g m−2 h-1 and 0.01 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons. Related to total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN), baseline emissions for tanks are 16% and 15% of TAN for cattle and pig slurry, respectively. Emissions of N2O and CH4 relative to nitrogen (N) and volatile solids (VS) are 0.13% of N and 0.10% of N and 2.9% of VS and 4.7% of VS for cattle and pig slurry, respectively. Total greenhouse gas emissions from slurry stores are dominated by CH4. The records on slurry treatment using acidification show a reduction of NH3 and CH4 emissions during storage while an increase occurs for N2O and a minor change for CO2 as compared to untreated slurry. Solid-liquid separation causes higher losses for NH3 and a reduction in CH4, N2O and CO2 emissions. Anaerobically digested slurry shows higher emissions during storage for NH3 while losses tend to be lower for CH4 and little changes occur for N2O and CO2 compared to untreated slurry. All cover types are found to be efficient for emission mitigation of NH3 from stores. The N2O emissions increase in many cases due to coverage. Lower CH4 emissions occur for impermeable covers as compared to uncovered slurry storage while for permeable covers the effect is unclear or emissions tend to increase. Limited and inconsistent data regarding emission changes with covering stores are available for CO2 and H2S. The compiled data provide a basis for improving emission inventories and highlight the need for further research to reduce uncertainty and fill data gaps regarding emissions from slurry storage.
- ItemThe impact of uncertainty on optimal emission policies(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2018) Botta, Nicola; Jansson, Patrik; Ionescu, CezarWe apply a computational framework for specifying and solving sequential decision problems to study the impact of three kinds of uncertainties on optimal emission policies in a stylized sequential emission problem.We find that uncertainties about the implementability of decisions on emission reductions (or increases) have a greater impact on optimal policies than uncertainties about the availability of effective emission reduction technologies and uncertainties about the implications of trespassing critical cumulated emission thresholds. The results show that uncertainties about the implementability of decisions on emission reductions (or increases) call for more precautionary policies. In other words, delaying emission reductions to the point in time when effective technologies will become available is suboptimal when these uncertainties are accounted for rigorously. By contrast, uncertainties about the implications of exceeding critical cumulated emission thresholds tend to make early emission reductions less rewarding.
- ItemLow-stabilisation scenarios and technologies for carbon capture and sequestration(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2009) Bauer, N.; Edenhofer, O.; Leimbach, M.Endogenous technology scenarios for meeting low stabilization CO2 targets are derived in this study and assessed regarding emission reductions and mitigation costs. The aim is to indentify the most important technology options for achieving low stabilization targets. The significance of an option is indicated by its achieved emission reduction and the mitigation cost increase, if this option were not available. Quantitative results are computed using a global multi-regional hard-linked hybrid model that integrates the economy, the energy sector and the climate system. The model endogenously determines the optimal deployment of technologies subject to a constraint on climate change. The alternative options in the energy sector comprise the most important mitigation technologies: renewables, biomass, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and biomass with CCS as well as energy efficiency improvements. The results indicate that the availability of CCS technologies and espec. biomass with CCS is highly desirable for achieving low stabilization goals at low costs. The option of nuclear energy is different: although it could play an important role in the primary energy mix, mitigation costs would only mildly increase, if it could not be expanded. Therefore, in order to promote prudent climate change mitigation goals, support of CCS technologies reduces the costs and-thus-is desirable from a social point of view. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.