1.A.5.b ii - Emissions from Military Aviation

Last updated on 14 Mar 2018 09:26 (cf. Authors)

Short description

In sub-category 1.A.5.b ii - Other, Mobile (including Military) emissions from military aviation are reported.

NFR-Code Name of Category Method AD EF Key Category 1
1.A.5.b ii Other: Military - Mobile Combustion: Airborne T1 NS CS, D see superordinate chapter
Airforce.png

Method

Activity data

The Energy Balance of the Federal Republic of Germany (AGEB) provides the basis for the activity data used. Since the Energy Balance does not provide separate listings of military agencies' final energy consumption as of 1995 – and includes this consumption in line 67, under "commerce, trade, services and other consumers" – additional sources of energy statistics had to be found for source category 1.A.5.

For source category 1.A.5.b, consumption data for kerosene, until 1995, were drawn from a special analysis of the Working Group on Energy Balances (AGEB).

For the years as of 1995, the official mineral-oil data of the Federal Republic of Germany (Amtliche Mineralöldaten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2012), prepared by the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA), are used (BAFA, 2017) [1]. Provided in units of 1000 tonnes [kt], these amounts have to be converted into terajoules [TJ] on the basis of the relevant net calorific values given by (AGEB, 2017) [2].

As there is no consistent AGEB data availabe for aviation gasoline, delivery data from BAFA [1] is used.

Table 1: Sources for consumption data in 1.A.5.b
Relevant years Data Source
through 1994 AGEB - Special evaluation 1990-1994
since 1995 BAFA - Official oil data, table 7j, column: 'An das Militär'
Table 2: Annual fuel consumption in military aviation, in terajoules
1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Jet Kerosene 38,385 16,143 9,862 2,200 2,441 2,554 3,597 4,396 3,286 4,114 1,171 2,049 3,060 3,726 3,845
Aviation Gasoline1 15 6 1 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 38,400 16,149 9,863 2,200 2,443 2,569 3,597 4,396 3,286 4,114 1,171 2,049 3,060 3,726 3,845

1 possible reason for jumps in delivered amounts: storage (resulting in no (2008, 2011+) or very small deliveries (2009) (see also: FAQs)

Emission factors

Without better information, constant tier1 values are used mainly (see table below).

NOTE: As the aircraft used for military purposes differ strongly from those used in civil aviation, the country specific EF used for kerosene in 1.A.3.a could not be used for reporting emissions from 1.A.5.b as well.

Table 3: Country-specific emission factors, in kg/TJ
1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Kerosene
NH3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
NMVOC 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
NOx 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205
SOx 25 15 8 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PM 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
BC 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
CO 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485
Avgas
NH3 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
NMVOC 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
NOx 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302
SOx 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
PM 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
TSP2 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
BC 3 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
CO 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

1 EF(TSP) from 'Emissionen und Maßnahmenanalyse Feinstaub 2000-2020' [6] also applied for PM10 and PM2.5 (assumption: > 99% of TSP consists of PM2.5)
2 TSP from leaded aviation gasoline = EF(Pb) x 1.6 (see also: FAQs)
3 estimated via a f-BCs (avgas: 0.15, jet kerosene: 0.48) as provided in [3], Chapter 1.A.3.a, 1.A.5.b Aviation, page 49: "Conclusion"

In addition, starting with the current submission, tier1 EF for exhaust heavy metal * and B[a]P emissions have been derived from (EMEP/EEA, 2016) [5], whereas for all other PAHs and the PAH total (from gasoline), no emission factors are available at present.

For lead and TSP from leaded avgas, constant tier1 EFs based on the average lead content of AvGas 100 LL are used.

Table 4: Tier1 emission factors for heavy-metal and POP exhaust emissions from fuel combustion and engine wear
Pb Cd Hg As Cr Cu Ni Se Zn B[a]P B[b]F B[k]F I[…]p PAH 1-4 PCDD/F
[g/TJ] [mg/TJ] [µg/TJ]
Kerosene NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Avgas 9,481 1 0.005 0.200 0.007 0.145 0.103 0.053 0.005 0.758 575 601 317 569 2,062 NE

1 estimated from average lead content of AvGas 100 LL (see also: 1.A.3.a ii (i) and FAQs) of 0.56 g Pb/liter

Discussion of emission trends

This sub-category is not considered separately in the key category analysis.

Due to the application of very several tier1 emission factors, most emission trends reported for this sub-category only reflect the trend in fuel deliveries.
Therefore, the fuel-consumption dependend trends in emission estimates are only influenced by the annual fuel mix.

Here, as the EF(BC) are estimated via fractions provided in [5], black carbon emissions follow the corresponding emissions of PM2.5.

Nonetheless, this NFR category shows interesting trends for emissions of Lead (Pb) from leaded gasoline (until 1997) and aviation gasoline:

Until 1997, lead emissions were dominated by the combustion of leaded gasoline in military ground-based vehicles. Therefore, the over-all trend for lead emissions from military vehicles and aircraft is driven mostly by the abolition of leaded gasoline in 1997. Towards this date, the amount of leaded gasoline decreased significantly. After 1997, the only source for lead from mobile fuel combustion is avgas used in military aircraft.
As for avgas, the trend of consumption is more or less drecreasing steadily until 2005 but then shows a strong increase for 2006 and '07 (!), followed by no (2008 and 2011) or very small deliveris (2009, 2010). As mentioned above, there are no real consumption data available: AD is based on fuel deliveries to the military only. Thus, especially the trends for the use of aviation gasoline and the resulting emissions show this siginificant jumps in 2006 and 07, falling back to zero in 2008 and 2011ff. The party is aware of this issue and will try to solve it as soon as data allows. (see also: FAQ)

Recalculations

The Activity data derived from [1] remains unrevised.

Consequently, all recalculations result from revised or newly implemeted emission factors.

Here, as described for avgas used in NFR 1.A.3.a ii(i), tier1 emission factor values for heavy metals have been derived from the data provided in the 2016 EMEP Guideboook for exhaust emissions from road vehicles (July 2017 version, page 93, Table 3.77: Heavy metal emission factors for all vehicle categories in ppm/wt fuel):

Table 5: Newly implemented tier1 emission-factors for heavy-metal emissions from avgas, in g/TJ
As Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Se Zn
Submission 2018 0.007 0.005 0.145 0.103 0.200 0.053 0.005 0.758
Submission 2017 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

Heavy-metal emissions from the unintentional co-incineration of lubricants are reported under NFR 2.G - Other product use where corresponding tier1 EF from the 2016 EMEP Guideboook are applied (Table 3.78: Heavy metal emission factors for all vehicle categories in ppm/wt lubricant).

Lastly, for avgas again, tier1 emission factor values for PAH emissions have been adapted to the data provided in the 2016 EMEP Guideboook for exhaust emissions from road vehicles (July 2017 version, page 23, Table 3.9: Tier 1 emission factors for B(b)F and B(a)P):

Table 6: Revised tier1 emission-factor values for PAHs, in mg/TJ
B[a]P B[b]F B[k]F I[…]P PAH 1-4
Submission 2018 126 182 90 205 602
Submission 2017 919 919 90 205 2.133
absolute change -793 -738 0 0 -1530
relative change -86% -80% 0% 0% -72%

For pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates reported for Base Year and 2015, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following chapter 8.1 - Recalculations.

Uncertainties

Uncertainty estimates for activity data of mobile sources derive from research project FKZ 360 16 023: "Ermittlung der Unsicherheiten der mit den Modellen TREMOD und TREMOD-MM berechneten Luftschadstoffemissionen des landgebundenen Verkehrs in Deutschland". For detailled information, please refer to the project's final report here (German version only!).

Uncertainty estimates for emission factors were compiled during the PAREST research project. Here, the final report has not yet been published.

Planned improvements

There are no sub-sector specific improvements planned at the moment.

FAQs

What is the reason for the big jumps in the consumption of aviation gasoline in 2006 & '07 and the zero-consumption in 2008?

As mentioned above, consumption is deducted from AGEB and BAFA data on the amounts of fuels delivered to the sector. Therefore, the big jumps reported for 2006 & '07 might result from the storage of aviation gasoline in military stocks.
Consequentially, the 0.00 TJ reported for 2008 show the missing of any deliveries to the military and should not be misunderstood as a non-use. The party is aware of this issue and will try to solve it as soon as data allows.

On which basis does the party estimate the reported lead emissions from aviation gasoline?

assumption by party: aviation gasoline = AvGas 100 LL
(AvGas 100 LL is the predominant sort of aviation gasoline in Western Europe)
lead content of AvGas 100 LL: 0.56 g lead/liter (as tetra ethyl lead)

2007 EMEP Corinair Guidebook:

Lead is added to aviation gasoline to increase the octane number. The lead content is higher than in leaded car gasoline,…

The applied procedure is similar to the one used for calculating lead emissions from leaded gasoline used in road transport. (There, in contrast to aviation gasoline, the lead content constantly declined resulting in a ban of leaded gasoline in 1997.)

What is the country-specific methododlogy for estimating the reported TSP emissions from aviation gasoline?

The TSP emissions calculated depend directly on the reported lead emissions: The emission factor for TSP is 1.6 times the emission factor used for lead: EF(TSP) = 1.6 x EF(Pb). - The applied procedure is similar to the one used for calculating TSP emissions from leaded gasoline used in road transport.

Why does the party report TSP emissions from leaded avgas, but no such PM2.5 or PM10 emissions?

The EF(TSP) is estimated from the EF(Pb) which has been calculated from the lead content of Avgas 100 LL. There is no information on the percetual shares of PM2.5 & PM10 in the reported TSP and therefore no EF(PM2.5) & EF(PM10) were deducted.

Why are similar EF applied for estimating exhaust heavy metal emissions from both fossil and biofuels?

The EF provided in [5] represent summatory values for (i) the fuel's and (ii) the lubricant's heavy-metal content as well as (iii) engine wear. Here, there might be no heavy metal contained the biofuels. But since the specific shares of (i), (ii) and (iii) cannot be separated, and since the contributions of lubricant and engine wear might be dominant, the same emission factors are applied to biodiesel and bioethanol.


Bibliography
1. BAFA, 2017: Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA): Amtliche Mineralöldaten für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland;
URL: http://www.bafa.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Energie/Mineraloel/moel_amtliche_daten_2016_dezember.xlsx?__blob=publicationFile&v=6, Eschborn, 2017.
2. AGEB, 2017: Working Group on Energy Balances (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (Hrsg.), AGEB): Energiebilanz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland; URL: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/7-0-Bilanzen-1990-2015.html, (Aufruf: 21.10.2017), Köln & Berlin, 2017.
3. IFEU, 2017b: Helms, H., Lambrecht, U., Knörr, W. , IFEU - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH:,“ Daten- und Rechenmodell: Energieverbrauch und Schadstoffemissionen des motorisierten Verkehrs in Deutschland 1960-2035“ sowie TREMOD-MM 4.0, im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes; Heidelberg, 2016.
4. Rentz et al., 2008: Nationaler Durchführungsplan unter dem Stockholmer Abkommen zu persistenten organischen Schadstoffen (POPs), im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes, FKZ 205 67 444, UBA Texte | 01/2008, January 2008, URL: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/nationaler-durchfuehrungsplan-unter-stockholmer
5. EMEP/EEA, 2016: EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016, Copenhagen, 2016.
6. IZT, 2007: Joerß, W. et al.: Emissionen und Maßnahmenanalyse Feinstaub 2000 – 2020, Institut für Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung (IZT), Berlin, Im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes, FKZ 204 42 202/2, Dessau-Roßlau, August 2007 - URL: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/3309.pdf
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License