1 / 12

Accountability in climate change initiatives – kerbside CO 2 monitoring

Accountability in climate change initiatives – kerbside CO 2 monitoring . Ben Barratt, King’s College London APRIL Greenhouse Gas Group December 2009. Aims of the presentation. The problem – why do we need kerbside CO 2 monitoring?: Emissions model validation Accountability A solution

terry
Download Presentation

Accountability in climate change initiatives – kerbside CO 2 monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accountability in climate change initiatives – kerbside CO2 monitoring Ben Barratt, King’s College London APRIL Greenhouse Gas Group December 2009

  2. Aims of the presentation • The problem – why do we need kerbside CO2 monitoring?: • Emissions model validation • Accountability • A solution • Kerbside monitoring trial • A CO2 monitoring network for London • The way forward: • Analysis methods • Funding • Integration / co-ordination

  3. 1. Model Validation • Detailed LAEI used for CO2 emissions scenario testing for TfL. • Modelling toolkit to produce high resolution (2x2m) output. • Validation with monitoring data essential part of process. • Mapped CO2 outputs possible, but not robust without measurement validation.

  4. 1. Model Validation • Decreases in NOX, NO2 and PM10 predicted by NAEI and LAEI have halted (common across Europe). • CO2 emissions predictions may also be wrong.

  5. 2. Accountability • Isolation and quantification of affects of transport initiatives (GG and non-GG) on London’s CO2 concentrations. • Increasingly advanced analysis techniques used to separate influencing factors. • Relies on high quality monitoring data at a range of comparable monitoring sites, including ‘control’ sites. • Monitoring must be in place well before intervention.

  6. 2. Accountability • How strong is the traffic signal?

  7. 2. Accountability • How strong is the traffic signal? > 200 ppb NOx

  8. 2. Accountability • Local sources of CO2 have to be isolated from non-local.

  9. 3. An urban CO2 monitoring network • A proposed network of ground-level fixed permanent CO2 monitors. • Monitors co-located with existing comprehensive pollution monitoring sites, including met and classified traffic data. • Primarily roadside, but also urban background and rural. • Instrumentation must be affordable, reliable (>90% annual data capture), stable, responsive. • Operated to defined QA/QC standards – temporally and spatially comparable.

  10. 3. Kerbside analyser trial

  11. 4. The way forward • Funding • Has to be long term • TfL, Defra • Clearflo • Marylebone Road KCL-funded permanent Li-cor • Transferral and application of analysis methods. • Co-ordination with other measurements (tower, flux etc).

More Related